Major League Baseball in Portland
If a gun was held to my head and I was given 10 seconds to name 5 Major League Baseball teams, I would ask that the trigger be pulled. Just get it over with, quick.
I do not watch baseball on TV (sometimes I will watch a World Series game IF it is interesting…meaning game 4 or higher and it is a tied series), at PGE park or anywhere else in Portland.
I consider myself to be a fairly typical Portlander in that regard.
I have, however, when in other major US cities such as St. Louis, Cincinnati and Boston, gone to MLB games. I found myself getting caught up in the excitement that a MLB game brought to every day folks in those cities. I could not tell you who the players were and I did not have a favorite team. I do remember it was fun.
I will admit to becoming a willing participant in the mass ambiance of excitement for that evening’s game. There was something about the civic event that was an evening baseball game in those cities that was infectious. I would, based on those experiences, go to MLB games if we had a team in Portland.
I consider myself to be a fairly typical Portlander in that regard as well.
I have read with annoyed interest the opposition of some to building a MLB stadium in Portland. They cite the high cost and other more pressing needs our city has than building a MLB stadium in Portland.
Thank God none of these people were around to advise President Franklin Roosevelt how he might get this country out of the Great Depression in 1932.
FDR understood that to get the economy going again, the US had to create jobs. As a result, he created the largest public works projects in the history of the US. That effort resulted in mass public construction projects that we benefit from to this day including structures such as Timberline Lodge. FDR knew that putting people to work who were otherwise unemployed created wealth for the entire community that those workers were employed in.
If I remember my PSU economics class accurately, when a dollar is spent it has a multiplier effect of 3. In other words, for every dollar that is spent the effect on the economy is three dollars of economic activity that would otherwise have not occurred.
A person with a job will buy a house, car, groceries, clothes and the other necessities of life. All of those businesses that sell those goods and services benefit by that person having a job by a factor of $3 to every $1 spent. That person also pays taxes on the income he or she makes on that job. Those taxes help fund our vital public services including our schools.
Having said that, the plan to build a MLB stadium uses no funds -except about $10 million in urban renewal district funds- of the $350 million cost to build the stadium that would otherwise go to funding local services or schools. The vast majority of the financing is from dollars that do not compete with any services provided by the state, county, schools or City of Portland. These are dollars that would otherwise not be generated except for the construction of the stadium, such as a ticket surcharge to go to a baseball game or income tax revenue derived from the MLB baseball player’s salary.
The $350 million spent to build the stadium will create jobs that will benefit our entire economy more than $350 expenditure to build the stadium. The construction workers will purchase goods and services in our community that otherwise would not have been purchased. Those businesses that enjoy those sales will employ people and buy goods and services that otherwise would not have occurred.
In my opinion, this part of the MLB stadium debate is resolved in favor of it’s construction because it relies on the basic economic theory employed by FDR to bring the United States out of the depression in the 1930’s. I believe, therefore, that the financing and construction of the stadium could make economic sense.
However, it is after the decision to construct a stadium to bring MLB to Portland that I feel a slight chill tingling down my spine.
I have made it clear –repeatedly- to those working on the MLB stadium plan that my support is “site specific”. As people in downtown Portland often do, they nod and smile but suffer from hearing loss.
I believe that the narrow issue of just building a stadium pencils out IF it is sited in a location that makes it as easy as possible for fans to get to and from the stadium. In my opinion, the stadium should be built in an area of the city that allows for light rail service, enough potential construction capacity to build adequate ingress and egress to and from a properly sized parking lot and off ramps and on ramps from a freeway dedicated to the stadium. In general the site should allow for the infrastructure to be designed to fit a stadium that would allow for up to 50,000 people to get in and out of the stadium in the most painless manner possible. That is not feasible at a site, such as the main Post Office location downtown, whose infrastructure could never be constructed to allow for anything close to being adequate to move the numbers of people who would potentially go to a MLB game in Portland.
I have recommended that two specific sites on the east side be analyzed for a possible stadium location because each have more than enough room for a stadium and sufficient parking. Additionally, each of the sites could accommodate light rail and adequate roads to provide for the efficient movement of cars in and out of each of the two sites.
I cannot support a MLB stadium plan that does not provide the most efficient means possible to move fans in and out of a MLB stadium. In my opinion, that will be the key to the success or failure of Major League Baseball in Portland.
It is unfortunate that the legitimate benefits of bringing a Major League Baseball team to Portland are being mischaracterized by some for political reasons. The benefits of creating the jobs by constructing the stadium are likewise being ignored while the funding of the stadium construction is being misrepresented by some in our community who know better.
It is time for the Mayor to open up this discussion to include not just the public but also her fellow members of the council so that these issues can be flushed out in the open.
If the supporters of MLB are counting on my support, they must address the concerns I have raised here to get it.
|
August 27, 2004 |
Randy Leonard | Comments (73 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: The One True b!X | Aug 27, 2004 10:34:29 PM
It's funny that you contextualize some of the issues in the way you do at the start. Of all sports, I adore baseball and the experience of it. I can't stand nearly every other professional sport. My own skepticism about baseball in Portland has been less about the cost than about the question of whether or not Portland could support an MLB team. I say "funny" because I also, if we had a team, would likely end up going to games whenever I could afford to do so.
One other point about those to whom the line "the funding of the stadium construction is being misrepresented by some in our community who know better" could be construed to refer, and in this case I'll name the one name I'm thinking of. In his criticisms of the Mayor's funding plan, Commissioner Francesconi among various things is pitching this line about how he simply could never support such a thing until and unless there was an owner in the mix.
Problem for him is, that's exactly what the Mayor's plan itself says, as far as I know. So rhetorically: What's his beef with the proposal, then?
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Aug 27, 2004 10:52:46 PM
B!X-
The first site you alluded to is known as the "Freeway Lands" site. It is a 110 acre parcel at the base of Mt. Scott.
The second site is currently Colwood Golf course on approx NE 71st and Columbia Blvd. It has recently gone into the hands of some trustees who would like to develop it into something else...a baseball stadium maybe?
These are just two examples. I am convinced that there are other potential sites as well that would allow for good ingress and egress.
Posted by: The One True b!X | Aug 27, 2004 11:13:39 PM
Interesting. THis may be a pointless question, since I'm not sure either one of us knows enough to come up with an answer, but what's the status of other MLB ballparks in terms of distance from their respective downtown cores? Not knowing what the sightlines and views are like at either of the above options, is there a common tendency for ballparks to have some sort of skyline view of their home cities?
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Aug 27, 2004 11:42:38 PM
Those that argue for a downtown site argue that a downtown view and the nightlife it will create is critical for MLB's success. When I ask those folks how that explains the success of Seattle's SAFECO field I usually get a blank stare followed with "well, that is close to downtown Seattle".
I don't know if you have seen SAFECO field but it is in an industrial area that you could not walk to downtown from even if you could. I was told that last season it had the best attendance of any MLB team.
I think a big reason for SAFECO fields success is that it is easy to get into and out of. Again, my only concern as to a site is that it be easily accessible. The freeway lands site, for an example, adjoins I-205. A series of off and on ramps could be built directly to the stadium site from the freeway.
Light rail is not far north at Gateway. It could easily be extended down 205 to the stadium site.
Those who wanted to go to dinner before the game, could do so and jump on MAX and head to the game. If the stadium were built in that area, it would cause an economic boon for outer SE that would create improvements no other plan has envisioned.
The stadium built downtown or at the Rose Quarter would do little, in my opinion, to improve on an already booming area.
Posted by: Suzii | Aug 28, 2004 1:36:18 AM
Well, I have walked from Safeco Field to downtown Seattle, and back, and I'm not athletic or even in shape for a moderate hike -- it's less than a mile and a half from the stadium to Pike Street Market. And it's even closer to the restaurant-intensive International District.
But although I suggest you not use Seattle as supporting evidence, I suspect your point is valid -- especially with a light-rail stop that's as easy to use as, for instance, the one at the airport, revelers would spread the party to the next several stops in each direction along the line.
Another model to consider is PGE Park, which has been pretty successful despite having essentially 0 parking spaces. San Francisco really did some impressive coordination on the public transit -- by road, rail or water.
And another site, which came up pretty often a couple of years ago (I never understood why it was dropped) is Portland Meadows, just blocks from the northern terminus of Interstate MAX. Of course, an MLB stadium there would pretty much make it impossible to put off the light-rail link to Vancouver any longer -- not that that consideration inclines me to favor the idea, or anything...
Posted by: Jack Bogdanski | Aug 28, 2004 1:40:39 AM
Too bad about Colwood. Sounds like a nice, green, middle-class recreation facility is about to be wrecked.
You can bet the megalomaniacs at PDX are in a major state of, ahem, arousal over that land. So it's going to become a very expensive, very unnecessary, very ugly, very NOISY jet runway if somebody doesn't figure out something more benign to do with it, and quick.
Posted by: Kurt Roithinger | Aug 28, 2004 5:42:00 AM
i suspect that the trend to re-integrating newer ballparks began with the stadium they built in baltimore in the early '90s. in that case, if i recall correctly, it was part and parcel of a major urban renewal push for that area.
given that mayor katz is kinda high on the whole east-side waterfront redevelopment concept, i suspect that some folks see it as a way to essentially jump start that process -- build the stadium and hope it begins the trend of people thinking it's ok to live and do commerce in the shadow of a bunch of freeway tressles. personally, as much as i'd b excited by having a stadium out here in the central east side of portland, there is such a thing as scenery to consider. to be honest, the skyline out here just isn't as interesting. whereas down by the eastside waterfront, there are some really nice views of portland to be had -- something that a lot of my (out of state) friends commented on when we went to the champ car race at PIR, f.e.
that said, i'm still at a bit of a loss to understand why building it on the site of the MC will solve anything. that area is a pain in the ass to get to when the blazers are playing and baseball crowds could concivably double the attendance of a blazer game. and lets not forget: the NBA and MLB seasons overlap. god help us if both teams were to play at home at the same day. the traffic would be gruesome.
Posted by: Michael H. Wilson | Aug 28, 2004 7:23:03 AM
And what is the city to do when after a few years
the team decides it needs to expand the sky boxes, or it
will move? Who pays then?
If the issue is about jobs then why not work on
expanding the education opportunities in Portland.
MIT has been responsible for much of the growth in and
around Boston for a number of decades. Boston also has
some 60, or more private universities and
colleges. Northeastern Univ. is well known for its
work/study program and the F.W. Olin Institute which
is in its first few years is a tuition free, private
school sharing some class with Babson College and offering
what may be the most innovative engineering
program in the U.S. How about raising private money
to build some excellent educational facilities for the future?
Michael Wilson
Posted by: Jeff | Aug 28, 2004 9:42:20 AM
I think there are a number of reasons to support a MLB team and a number to reject it--and you often hear crosstalk between the two. The question of economic benefit and cost is far different from emotional benefit and pride. No one would argue that the Blazers, as a franchise, is a malign force on the city (though certainly current teams may have been). We love the Blazers like we love the Rose Test Gardens.
Some towns don't support their teams, and this has a more profound effect in terms of the city's emotions than its pocketbook. Do Portlanders really want an MLB team? Would they support it--particularly in those bad years, which every team inevitably suffer? Would Portlanders use the team like Chicagoans use the Cubs--as a great opportunity to enjoy the sun and a beer? Or would we have to watch Expo-like attendence as a backdrop each night as Ed Whelan reported on another loss?
Another policy issue no one mentions, but which is most important to me is this: should Portland join a league as screwed up as MLB? To host a team is to endorse MLB, which lately has been plagued by drug scandal, labor disputes, monopoly issues and more. MLB, as an organization, seems to be in the business of exploiting host cities for the benefit of rich owners. Are those the values Portland wishes to support? Until MLB cleans up its act, I personally don't want anything to do with it.
Posted by: pdxkona | Aug 28, 2004 11:31:24 AM
I will admit to becoming a willing participant in the mass ambiance of excitement for that evening’s game. There was something about the civic event that was an evening baseball game in those cities that was infectious.
As does NFL, NHL, NBA, English Premiership....
You need to parse you data sample. This 'ambiance' excudes from any mass event especially sport. It was probably the ambiance of excitement for a professional sports team that you are referring to, not to that particular baseball team.
Posted by: pdxkona | Aug 28, 2004 11:56:08 AM
I don't know if you have seen SAFECO field but it is in an industrial area that you could not walk to downtown from even if you could.
This statement is completely and unalterably NOT TRUE.
I worked in the heart of downtown, Pioneer Square, and I could walk to both SAFECO Field and the Kingdome (now Qwest Field) in 4 1/2 minutes.
When I ask those folks how that explains the success of Seattle's SAFECO field I usually get a blank stare followed with "well, that is close to downtown Seattle".
This is absolutely TRUE. Professional sports bring that 'ambiance of excitement' to revitalize city centers. This is a no-brainer.
The location of a stadium (for MLB or NHL or ?, it really doesn't matter- the Seahawks and the Mariners shared a stadium for years), is Absolutely Imperative . If it is not located in a central area, it will draw energy out, not consolidate it in. PLEASE contact your PSU Urban Planners- I know and love some City of Portland urban planners, but it must be said that PSU is a braintrust that should be tapped and integrated for this one issue.
That being said, I have an idea for a location:
Kinda central, it would be like SBC Park (and home runs that could splash into McCovey Cove)- the South Willamette River Waterfront District.
http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/sf/images/ballpark/394x80_pacbell.jpg
And, hey and if that stupid tram thing ever happens (if your gonna invent that, why not just focus on inventing nanotechnology to do it for you? Or the miriad other inventions that could help the human endeavor a bit more. I want my hovercar g-ddammit! ), they will all be happy little neighbors.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Aug 28, 2004 12:28:39 PM
Your probably right about the proximity of SAFECO field to downtown Seattle. It has been a while since I have been there.
However, it is in an area that allows for unobstructed access and egress. That is my larger point. The site at the foot of the Broadway bridge is a favorite of the MLB organizers working with Mayor Katz. I do not see how you move 50,000 people per game in and out of that site and keep people coming to the games.
Posted by: raging red | Aug 28, 2004 5:52:34 PM
What about that piece of land on SE Belmont & 10th?, 11th?, something like that, where that big building burned down? The building said "Casino" on it, I think. Sorry for being so vague, but my memory is failing me. Is that site big enough for a MLB stadium (if you can even figure out where I'm talking about)?
Posted by: cab | Aug 28, 2004 8:14:07 PM
Take a look at milwaukie. They built a new stadium in the outer area of the city, similar to outer SE PDX. From what I've read, its seen as a huge mistake. Dropping the stadium down in the outer SE area fails to take into account the entire RICH westside suburbs. Its just too far to drive/train and has NO pedestrian/Hotel/Food infrastructure.
The city of Portland & PSU offers a transportation and planning class free for neighborhood activists. Since the City Council will be the ones ultimatly responsible for stadium site placement. Maybe some on the council could attend and beef up on basic planning principles.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Aug 28, 2004 8:15:44 PM
That site makes more sense than the old main Post Office site downtown.
Posted by: brett | Aug 28, 2004 8:48:17 PM
I'm glad to see an elected official not only support MLB in Portland, but see through the idiotic "Bring Major League Education to Portland" bumper sticker argument. As he points out, MLB wouldn't take away a dime from education.
As for location, it seems logical that the closer to downtown, the better, doesn't it? Light rail goes within blocks of the Post Office site (not a possibility without a change of heart by the Post Office, I know), and goes right through the Coliseum or PPS building sites. Colwood just seems far away. But obviously the site would change once a stadium went in; the Safeco neighborhood sure did. It would take a lot of money, though, to improve Columbia Blvd and all the railroad crossings up there. The railroad is a pretty significant impediment to north-south travel in that area, and more crossings would probably have to be built.
I think it's inevitable that we'll get baseball sometime in the next 10 years; the sooner, the better, as far as I'm concerned.
> MLB, as an organization, seems to be in the business of exploiting host cities for the benefit of rich owners. Are those the values Portland wishes to support?
Jeff, very few baseball franchises make money for their owners. The ones that do generally lose a lot of games, because they won't shell out for decent players. The franchises also support thousands of people who work in related industries, restaurants/bars near the stadiums, etc. And those people aren't rich.
Posted by: pdxkona | Aug 29, 2004 1:36:53 AM
Your probably right about the proximity of SAFECO field to downtown Seattle. It has been a while since I have been there.
However, it is in an area that allows for unobstructed access and egress. That is my larger point. The site at the foot of the Broadway bridge is a favorite of the MLB organizers working with Mayor Katz. I do not see how you move 50,000 people per game in and out of that site and keep people coming to the games.
OK. Good point. So what I am looking for is something with ALL these aspects optimally:
1. Near enough to downtown
2. Near enough to a major highway tributary to deal with a 50,000 capacity accessibility; so somewhere off of I-5, I-84, or I-405.
3. Near current, or with space to build, surrounding business infrastructure (restaurant, hotel,etc)
4. Near MAX. Or near where the MAX is going to go in a few years from now. The Rose Garden may have its issues, but transportational access is not one of them.
and my fave:
5. Near the river. I want to have 50,000 eyes noticing the river a bit; perhaps then we'lle take better care of it. I want to hear the ball crack of a bat and fly into the water and have trained dogs retrieve 'em. I wanna hang out in my friends boat drinking a beer and waiting with my glove. I think we should interact more with the river; I love the Eastbank Esplanade.
I still like where Cirque Soleil's tents were.
On the waterfront between Old Spaghetti Factory and that new hotel/office block
Posted by: pdxkona | Aug 29, 2004 1:58:21 AM
Raging Red: I know the space you are talking about. I used to go to Rimsky's for dessert and then go over to that dive bar around the corner on that block. Then one sunny day I was driving along S.E Sandy, and I saw a ton a$$ of smoke billowing to my right. I drove up and pulled over; crowds were gathering because it was such a huge furnace of a fire. We couldn't even get close, we had to stay a block away- it was that hot.
Sadly, I don't think that small block is enough space for a full stadium. And of course, the parking lot which would have to be included in the space allocation.
Posted by: pdxkona | Aug 29, 2004 2:04:43 AM
Which is the same reason the main post office building block would never work- it's just too small. The Pearlies need to stop whispering in City ears and wasting our time,'cause it's just not gonna happen. It's too dang small and we should realize that now, not later.
Posted by: raging red | Aug 29, 2004 8:49:39 AM
Correction - the building at 10th & Belmont said "Monte Carlo" not "Casino." Oops. (I don't know where I came up with that one.) I guess it's not big enough for a ballpark, but I think it would be a great location. I like the idea of it being closer in.
Posted by: robin | Aug 29, 2004 10:01:33 AM
Just a side note: Any stadium location on the southern end of Portland -- Milwaulkie, the Cirque du Soleil tent site, etc -- will need an additional consideration due to increased traffic: A long-term solution for the Sellwood Bridge. If a stadium goes up and the bridge remains unrepaired and at its current weight limits, they'll be a huge limitation on the new routes Tri-met can create to accomodate staduim traffic.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Aug 29, 2004 10:24:24 AM
Pdxkona-
I like your criteria. In fact, it is far superior than any coming out of the work group in the Mayor's office.
They could count on my support if they included your criteria as part of the funding package.
I hope you stay in touch as this issue moves forward.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 29, 2004 10:27:36 AM
First, I am NOT against a baseball stadium. That argument is like saying if you don't want to go to Iraq, you are not a patriot, so it is misleading. I am against the city being the shepherd on this. Why not let the Tribes build a casino and a baseball stdium for free like they offered Teddy? You create all of the wonderful jobs (construction for a couple of years and then the hotdog, parking and ticket vendors which will really boost the economy) and government has no risk.
Just based on PGE Park when Vera snaked the rest of the commissioners so she could give her friends (Glickman Jr and the ex-City finance guy) a "special" deal. This was going to throw off more money than we would know what to do with. Now David Kahn (with an office in City Hall) is whispering the same things in Vera's ear.
In summary, government workers really have no idea of how to run something like this and evn a simpleton like Selig and MLB will probably take them to the cleaners. It then puts the taxpayers on the hook for shortfalls. So, let the Tribes build it and reap even more tax dollars and benefits with a lot less risk.
BTW, the two largest tourist attractions in the state are Chinook Winds and Spirit Mountain, so I do think they know what they are doing.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Aug 29, 2004 10:35:34 AM
Brett-
The Majestics has a superior air associated with it. As opposed to some of the lame "lumber jack" names of years past (The Timbers) or worn out weather related monikers (The Storm).
If not "The Majestics", what then?
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Aug 29, 2004 10:42:57 AM
Both Mayor Katz and I supported the Tribes proposal. Unfortunately, the Governor gave a tenative no (not an absolute no). He hinted that under the right conditions he may approve such a proposal.
Having said that, I do not buy your argument that the city could not put together and/or run such a deal.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Aug 29, 2004 11:12:49 AM
I've always liked "The Portland Chinook". OK, maybe a bit cheesy, but local color...
Posted by: Randy | Aug 29, 2004 2:55:51 PM
Not Bad, Kari, not bad. The Chinook is also the name of the tribe that Lewis and Clark encountered upon reaching our area. Very intriguing.
Posted by: doretta | Aug 29, 2004 3:50:43 PM
I, too, think pdxdona nailed the criteria.
There are two basics there, accessibility and, for lack of a better word, "romance."
Romance: Near the river, great views, lots of nearby places to hang out for further fun, near the heart of the city.
Accessibility: Close to the freewy, MAX, downtown.
There are many reasons why a lot of relatively new stadiums have been replaced around the country in the last 15 years or so. In my opinion, undervaluing the romance factor in location and/or design was a major factor in most of them.
Posted by: Kent | Aug 29, 2004 4:02:47 PM
Hi Guys:
I'm a former Portlander and Reed grad who reads this site to stay in touch with the area. My wife and I area planning to move back when she finishes her residency.
First, I've been following the Expo's saga pretty closely and it doesn't seem like there's much chance that Portland would ever land the the team in the first place. I'm willing to bet it will go to Washington DC or the Northern Virgina Suburbs around DC. That area just has far more money, population, and political power than Portland.
Second, as a baseball fan and frequent business traveler I have visited at least 20 MLB stadiums around the country. I can't agree more with those who advocate inner city stadiums with nearby shops and restaurants and mass transit. Camden Yards in Baltimore is one of my favorite for that reason. It's a short walk to the inner harbor which is the equivalent of Portland's Waterfront Park. The worst stadiums are the suburban ones surrounded by a sea of parking. Anaheim is like that.
Third, a stadium doesn't need to be downtown, only in an interesting neighborhood. Neither Wrigley Field in Chicago nor Fenway Park in Boston are in downtown neighborhoods. But they are in inner city neighborhoods with lots to do before and after the game. That is the key. I think perhaps it is better to site a stadium in an urban are that is not downtown so that the stadium can be the focus of its own neighborhood. You can only do this with baseball because they have so many games. Football stadiums get used way too infrequently to make a neighborhood destination. Seattle in its usual bonehead way put the football stadium closest to Pioneer Square and put the Baseball stadium farther away. The locations should have been swapped.
As for Portland, I think any inner east side location along the river would be good if it was part of a redevelopment project that brought retail and housing as well. The problem with the inner east side right now is that there isn't enough stuff to walk to from a stadium site as the more interesting neighborhoods like Hawthorne are farther from the river. But a properly designed baseball stadium could change that if the city wanted. Perhaps some of the vacant or underused land near Union Station would work. That would be my first choice for a Portland area stadium. It would need to be on a light rail line for sure. What you want is to have at least 50-100 restaurants within walking distance so that after the game you can linger and not stew in traffic.
Posted by: Kent | Aug 29, 2004 4:18:38 PM
Another thing to consider is that a LARGE portion of your fan base will be from outside Portland and will likely be driving up I-5 from Salem and Eugene and surrounding Willamette Valley cities. So any Portland stadium will need to be fairly accessible to I-5. That would argue against a stadium close to the Pearl unless you want thousands of out-of-town drivers cruising those streets for parking every game. I expect a number of fans will be coming down from Vancouver and southern Washington as well but screw them as they won't be paying for it anyway.
Both of Seattle's pro stadiums are located at the junction of I-5 and I-90 so they are almost ideally located in terms of auto transportation. Husky Stadium, on the other hand, is a nightmare.
Posted by: doretta | Aug 29, 2004 11:47:51 PM
I 405 runs along the Pearl. Seems like something could be done there comparatively easily.
You can prevent the cruising the streets looking for parking by giving parking permits to residents and making the time limits such that parking on the street for an event will cost you a huge fine. Sufficient on-site parking combined with cheap off-site parking near adequate public transportation also has to be a part of the equation of course. The better the latter, the less you need of the former.
I've been up to Seattle for both Mariners and Seahawks games. By far my favorite way to do that is to take Amtrak up. Makes a great 3-day weekend. Stay in a hotel downtown, go to the Market or Seattle Center, ride the ferries, take in a football game or a couple of baseball games. No hassling with a car, parking, etc.
I'm not promoting the PO site because I don't know enough about the details, but there is more space there than people realize and I like that it is near Union Station. The trains going by outside are part of the romance of Safeco too.
Posted by: Justin | Aug 30, 2004 6:33:23 AM
I am a little suprised that Randy Leonard wants a suburban ballpark. The most successful ballparks of the last 15 years have been built in downtown, innercity environments. To me, this smacks of Leonard's SouthEast elitism, and makes me think he hasn't researched this issue that much.
The best argument for not building a stadium, is the corruption that plagues MLB. This organization has a monopoly and is using that power to take advantage of small market cities. The MLB is a pretty sketchy organization.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 30, 2004 7:45:08 AM
Having said that, I do not buy your argument that the city could not put together and/or run such a deal.
*****
These aren't very comforting words that Portland can do it based on someone's say-so.
Besides Justin's comments on MLB exploiting places like Portland, the whole playgrounds for millionaire ballplayers thing makes me nervous.
Metro tried to make a bunch of money off the Oregon Convention Center and that is bleeding red ink. Of course, they did try to fix it losing money by making it bigger which made a lot of sense.
Even Paul Allen who can afford to hire someone who knows what they are doing has to declare bankruptcy on the Rose Garden and it has a monoply on pro sports here in town. At least, he owns it and the taxpayers aren't stuck with this money sink.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Aug 30, 2004 8:14:02 AM
"Southeast Elitism"?.
I thought that was an oxymoron.
Posted by: Randy Leonard | Aug 30, 2004 8:14:49 AM
"Southeast Elitism"?.
I thought that was an oxymoron.
Posted by: Kent | Aug 30, 2004 8:53:53 AM
Justin:
While I agree with you completely I would only make the point that inner city and downtown are not synonymous. All the best stadiums in the US are definitely inner-city stadiums, but not all are downtown stadiums. Portland needs an inner-city stadium not a downtown stadium. I would consider all the sites mentioned so far to be inner-city locations. Suburban locations would be places like Gresham or Tigard. In the 1960s and 70s pretty much all the new stadiums were dumped onto empty land next to freeway interchanges in the middle of suburban nowhere.
The key is to integrate a baseball stadium into a pedestrian-level neighborhood with shops and restaurants and housing nearby. That almost certainly requires an urban location but not necessarily a downtown location. Portland is blessed with plenty of urban locations that would probably work well for a stadium but probably no good downtown locations except perhaps the civic stadium location. But it makes more sense to build a new stadium rather than exanding civic stadium because Portland is big enough to support two large outdoor stadiums.
As for whether or not baseball is too corrupt. Although I'm a fan, I suspect that the sport is too corrupt to deal with. In fact, one of the main reasons I think baseball will pick the DC area over Portland is so that they can suck up to Congress and forstall any efforts to strip the sport of its anti-trust exemption. But that's an entirely different question from whether Portland is too incompetent to put together a stadium project. In addition to living in Portland, I've lived in Seattle, DC, Chicago, Texas, and Alaska and I truly think Portland is the most competently-run city I have seen in the US. Spend some time in Houston if you want to see the dark side.
If I was the god of baseball, the first thing I would do is get rid of the anti-trust exemption and minor league farm system and then move to fluid league system like European soccer where teams have to EARN the right to stay in the premier divisions. Let teams move up and down in the division classifications based on performance. Make the triple-A teams into truly independent pro teams and give them a chance to move up to the majors and penalize the horrid major leage teams by dropping them down to triple-A. That way Portland could earn its way into the majors by turning the Beavers into the top triple-A team in the country. And the Brewers could be demoted to triple-A if they suck for too long. That's how European soccer works. None of this pathetic begging and wooing of the Gods of baseball to get a team in your city. You take the team you already have and turn it into a champion and move up on merit.
Posted by: pdxkona | Aug 30, 2004 11:03:38 AM
Randy said:
Pdxkona-
I like your criteria. In fact, it is far superior than any coming out of the work group in the Mayor's office.
They could count on my support if they included your criteria as part of the funding package.
I hope you stay in touch as this issue moves forward.
Gee, thanks Randy. Hmm. So this is why I've been unemployed for over a year; apparently no critical thinking positions available at City Hall. G-d help us.
Kent said:
While I agree with you completely I would only make the point that inner city and downtown are not synonymous.
Great point Kent. As, I would add, that 'stadium' does not necessarily have to equal 'baseball'. I think like an engineer: keeping open to the ideas of MLS/NFL/WUSA(I have hope of restart)/MLB keep more options open. No need to define things so tightly just yet.
And you know this has gotten me thinking. In some ways I think we have put the proverbial cart before the horse.
There are so many more questions to ask ourselves first:
"Gee, major sports team might revitalize a bit of our town.
Just what do we want out of this?
What are we expecting/looking for?
Which sport fits that value?
What would it bring exactly?
Why multiple teams bring?
Is this fiscally reasonable?
Etc."
I mean it's all fun and creative to jump into naming the team and figuring out the stadium location, but we cannot forget to set the structure first.
Any MBA would tell you that, hell any relationship counselor would tell you the same thing;
"Jesse, that's great that you like the way Pamela's hot pink skirt covers her a$$, but what do you like about her, herself?"
Can't skip building the foundation, people.
Whether a stadium would work or not for this city, we gotta ask the right questions of ourselves now. I don't want to find out later that the 300 billion dollar Micronesian Dance Hall that we built because it 'sounded neat' just isn't fiscally working. Then, and if and only after we have decided another sports team requiring a stadium is right for Portland, we can add the the meat to the bones, and name and hire the mascot/find a place for the stadium.
Cheers,
-me
Posted by: Justin | Aug 30, 2004 11:19:10 AM
"Southeast elitism - I thought that was an oxymoron."
Randy, I'm just messing with you. I'm glad that you are a constant reminder to the City Council that there is an East side to their city. And I really think putting the ballpark out in Lents is a bad idea.
However, having grown up in North Portland two blocks from the Columbia Villa. I will say that there is an element of elitism among those on the Eastside - A kind of Blue Coller, counter-culture arrogance.
Posted by: timberlog | Aug 30, 2004 11:39:59 AM
Had to respond to the " lame "lumber jack" names of years past" comment.
Actually the Timbers are not a name from years past (although sometimes you wouldn't know it from the lack of media coverage). The Portland Timbers soccer team are here now and have just won the 2004 A-League regular season and are moving on to the playoffs starting this Wednesday at PGE Park.
When the team returned to the City in 2001 the owners purposely chose a name that would link to the past and the fans of the team are justly proud of the name, the team and the fact that our mascot (although referring to him as just that doesn't do him justice) Timber Jim is yet another "lame" link to the past.
Posted by: Evan Manvel | Aug 30, 2004 11:54:19 AM
As far as remembering your economics class accurately, the multiplier effect varies tremendously depending on the business. And some economists think the whole concept is shaky.
But if you accept the concept, dollars spent at locally-owned book and music stores create more than three times the local economic activity as dollars spent at a typical chain stores (e.g. Borders). See liveablecity.org. And, every dollar spent with a locally-owned business is spent an estimated 2.3 more times than when spent at Wal-Mart which takes its profits out of town.
If you're attracted to the team and stadium based on multiplier effects, you should compare the projected effects with other possible uses of the public and private money. My guess is investing in manufacturing plants, locally-owned small businesses, etc. will get you more jobs and economic bang for your buck.
Posted by: Steve | Aug 30, 2004 12:25:55 PM
Evan
Does that mean that every dollar we pay in taxes and do not spend at WalMart takes $2.30 out of the economy also?
I agree on looking at this on a ROI basis. If we spent $350M and build Intel a factory, it would not be as fun, but 5000 jobs (I know it is a guess) at $60K (this is safe and I know it is more that a hotdog vendor makes in 81 games/year) means $300M payroll at 9% and then those people buy 5000 houses to generate more property tax. So, I think talking about a baseball stadium as a taxing fiction is weak.
This is why, if we can manage risk by having a private entity on the hook we are so much better off.
BTW, instead of SE elitism, maybe SE parochialism is better.
Posted by: John Dunagan | Aug 30, 2004 12:38:21 PM
Yes, please, don't just throw away the Timbers as some team with a lame name that doesn't matter, Commissioner Leonard. On a per-game basis, we tend to outdraw our co-tenants at PGE, the Beavers, and our attendance is growing. We're a dedicated lot, and the small businesses around W 18th/20th love us.
All other things being equal, however, I'd still love to see MLB come to town. I'm a meat-eating, hard-working Democrat who's more comfortable at Thirsty Thursday than he is at First Thursday, and from that perspective, I don't automatically hate and suspect professional athletes. Portland deserves more choices in sport, and it would help to break the entertainment stranglehold that Paul Allen and the Blazers have over this city.
That said, however, what I think would work best for Portland is a city ownership situation, which removes the threat of the team leaving town, like the Green Bay Packers have with the NFL. Too much risk of failure otherwise, and building a stadium with public funds only heightens it. Tampa-St. Petersburg's a good example of you building it and they won't come.
Unfortunately, city ownership will never happen in this day and age, especially with the group that currently runs MLB. Add to that that we're already on the blacklist with several prominent athletic leagues (the NFL and NCAA) because our state government runs a sports book, and we're left with... Phil Knight, or someone like him.
Have we got that person? Cause if we do, maybe I could bother him for a moment of his time to discuss another professional franchise in Portland with a lame name and a champion's mettle.
Posted by: pdxkona | Aug 30, 2004 4:52:50 PM
Dude. You guys...woah smokey.
I went to the game yesterday. I love the Timbers as much as the next person- OK, so I cry at the sight of Clive's jersey- my point is...I didn't take his comment to mean that the Timbers were old and washed out which is what y'all are defending. Just that they started in the 70's (which they did. NAS League I think). And so did their name (which it did. 1975) And he thought the name is 'lame'. (opinion). Nothing 'bout the kind of play or team that they are....
Good to know the Army's out to defend our precious crew, but I don't think in this instance it's necessary. ;)
Posted by: pdxkona | Aug 30, 2004 5:04:21 PM
our state government runs a sports book
Oh but John D, a question for you- what's a sportsbook at why do some of the leagues dislike it?
And while I agree in a perfect world a city ownership situation would be optimal, what makes you think that a city that can't even buy its own electric company when it's desperately for sale, can buy a professional league sports team?
Posted by: John Dunagan | Aug 30, 2004 5:27:29 PM
PDXkona:
This being OT to baseball, I'm sorry if I give too much info.
Sports book is a term for what somebody is offering when they take bets on athletic contests. Like if you go to Vegas, walk into Harrah's, and put down $10 for the Lions to cover a 3-point spread against the Cardinals, you do so at the desk labeled, "Sports Book." Thus bookie, 'making book', etc.
The Oregon Lottery Commission runs a book called Sports Action Lottery. In it, one bets the line on NFL games. And while it has made a couple of million for mainly U of O, OSU and PSU athletic departments, it just about insures that Portland, or any other city in Oregon, will be denied either of the following, at least as long as that game exists:
NFL - through Sports Action, we bet NFL Football. Same reason there will never be an NFL team in Las Vegas, but our situation's different: in Nevada, the state doesn't own the sports book. Vancouver USA would get the NFL before we do.
NCAA Men's Basketball Tournaments (the Final Four) - when the Lottery Commission first started Sports Action pursuant to some snippet of OR Revised Statutes, it got greedy and offered NBA games to bet on during the NFL offseason.
The NCAA, who had just held a Regional Tournament at Gill Coliseum the year before, pulled Corvallis out of the loop in protest, proclaiming that 'for any sport offered by Sports Action, an NCAA championship will never be held in Oregon.' That included men's hoop, and football (in the event they actually have a playoff for the championship, this means U of O or OSU would not be allowed to host).
When the basketball ticket happened, David Stern (NBA Commish) threatened to remove the Blazers from Portland - the Lottery Commission had to back down, and that's why you don't see basketball today.
Posted by: John Dunagan | Aug 30, 2004 5:35:04 PM
As for your other question, it's probably moot, since the cabal of MLB ownership would never let it happen.
But the City, if it were allowed to do so, could make a win-win situation out of team ownership in MLB. Baseball entertainment's a choice, unlike electricity or water. If you make it attractive enough for people of average means to be entertained, it can be profitable. And as long as the City allowed competent baseball people to run the show, and didn't meddle, the fortunes of the Portland Majestics should not impact any of the Commission's political prospects among reasonable people.
Posted by: Kent | Aug 30, 2004 6:35:17 PM
PDXKONA wrote:
Great point Kent. As, I would add, that 'stadium' does not necessarily have to equal 'baseball'. I think like an engineer: keeping open to the ideas of MLS/NFL/WUSA(I have hope of restart)/MLB keep more options open. No need to define things so tightly just yet.
OK, I'm a lonely PDX exile currently living in Waco TX. I frequently drive past the Rangers stadium in Arlington and the Cowboys stadium in Irving and frankly I can't think of an uglier sight from the outide than the Cowboy's stadium. MLB and the NFL are two completely different animals and regardless of which sport you like better, baseball makes a FAR better investment in terms of urban development. The problem with the NFL is that they play a 16 game season so you're looking at 8 home games/year total. And half of those will be rainy Sunday afternoons in October and November when people will only want to scoot in and out. On the other hand, baseball plays 162 games/year so you have 81 home games that span from April-September. That means a baseball stadium is going to have orders of magnitude more life than a football stadium and it will be happening during the best months to be out and about in the evenings before and after the games. So if you're going to pick a stadium to anchor an urban redevelopment you want to pick baseball every time.
As for soccer. The design parameters for soccer stadiums are completely different than baseball. The two best soccer stadiums in the US are the stadiums in Columbus Ohio and Los Angeles, which are both dedicated soccer stadiums with limited capacity and seating designed for soccer. the MLS and especially the WUSA will be lost in giant MLB or the even more giant NFL stadiums. If Portland wants to build a new soccer stadium to replace civic stadium then fine, but don't confuse that with a baseball stadium. And don't make the mistake of trying to build a multi-purpose stadium. The cities that built those in the 60s and 70s are ripping them down now and replacing them with single sport stadiums.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: The One True b!X | Aug 27, 2004 10:30:28 PM
I remember one of the possible sites you've mentioned in the past being fairly farther out from the Central City than the others most downtowners focused on. What was the other site?