Home / Baseball, Featured / The Whole Stadium Thing

The Whole Stadium Thing

The Portland Sportsman team gathers to discuss the current stadium crisis.

Mike: I respect Brian Libby a lot. He writes the Portland Architecture blog, and he doesn’t want Memorial Coliseum to be torn down to make a small baseball park. My friend Matt McCormick argues that building a stadium that can’t grow to someday accommodate MLB action is shooting ourselves in the foot, “It is easy to imagine Portland getting a major league baseball team in the next 20 years, and the moment we get a major league team, the minor league team (and it’s stadium) will become obsolete.”

Ryan: But there’s never been a case of a minor league stadium being expanded for major league, is there? I feel like people want that to be the natural progression, but there’s no evidence a new owner wouldn’t come in and ask for a brand new spot.

Mike: The USL soccer venue in Atlanta for the Silverbacks (RIP) was designed to be small, and then upgraded if they got an MLS team.

Zach: I also think Brian is a great writer and a perceptive analyst of the architecture scene. And in general, I’m a preservationist. But… I still can’t generate a ton of enthusiasm for the Coliseum. It seems like a ghost ship. If it truly is an architectural gem, it would seem to need A) a lot of work and B) a new mission. There have been some cool re-use ideas—turn it into a massive amateur sports complex; turn it into a new main library—but they don’t seem particularly realistic. I guess I would like to see the case for the Coliseum spelled out in a more positive, forward-thinking way, beyond its historic significance.

A multi-level, 25-court futsal venue, perhaps? JUST KIDDING, PORTLAND FUTSAL.

Mike: The response to saving the MC feels so reactionary, but as Adam Forkner pointed out, “My general thoughts are: preserve, reinvent, re-use. Aren’t these concepts what Portland leaders are trying to rep anyway? New buildings of this size and the developers that lobby for them are pretty much all ugly and greedy ventures. I would love to see a local example that proves otherwise. I can’t think of one.” I do like the idea of putting the MC to good use.

Zach: Asking for higher values in a stadium-financing debate is asking a lot, judging by recent national history.

Ryan: I’ve read that all the infrastructure, plumbing, wiring, etc., is set in a huge concrete slab, making any renovation or restructuring tons more expensive, and severely limiting what you can accomplish.

Mike: Is the idea of MLB in Portland crazy? An article from 2007 on ESPN said Relocating a team to Portland makes sense.

Zach: I mean, it’s nice to think so, but do you think we’re on the top of the list for expansion or relocation? There’s San Antonio. Las Vegas. The Research Triangle. It’s a tough league to play in.

Of course, it is worth noting that there are a number of very crappy existing MLB franchises that may look to move one day, so maybe supply of teams isn’t the real issue.

Ryan: Not to mention would any owner want to come in and have a discussion about a $400-700 million stadium after all the grief over just $80-90 million?

Zach: The new Nationals stadium cost well over $700 million, much of it funded by DC taxpayers…they almost as much on the stadium as they do on public schools in a year. The new Yankees stadium, obviously, cost over $1 billion. Somehow I don’t think it’s realistic to think that a $30-50 million stadium can be upgraded to that level in 20 years.

Mike: I like the point Matt made when we were discussing this, “It is unfair to pit the discussion as Memorial Coliseum vs Baseball Stadium.” It’s a difficult problem, because you have the MC, you have a need for a baseball stadium, you have the potential MLB future, and you have a lot of people who don’t want money spent on a stadium.

And the money will be a lot. A friend was talking about the Kingdome and said, “Making concrete and steel is very energy and carbon intensive and in Seattle’s case, the arts funding was stolen to pay the destructed King Dome bond payments for the planned years of afterlife.” It’s true that stadiums suck up some money.

Zach: True. And—even though I am totally, rabidly in favor of the Timbers going to MLS—I am concerned about the future even if the currently proposed, soccer-specific PGE Park renovation goes through. What happens in 10 years when the owner (whoever it may be at that point) says, well, things are going so well that we need a new stadium to accommodate bigger crowds? Or, we need a stadium with more revenue opportunities so we can compete with the LA Galaxy in a post-salary-cap era? Or we need a new stadium so we can participate in a World Cup bid? Or…or…or? A lot can happen. Seattle upgraded Key Arena in the ’90s, and then the Sonics left 10 years later anyway.

Mike: That’s the problem. You can’t plan now for all the potential ups and downs of the future. I think it makes the most sense to generally create what we need now, and let the future worry about the needs of the future. (Obviously there are many exceptions to this.)

Zach: I agree, as far as the current PGE Park proposal goes. Compared to most stadium deals, this one is pretty conservative. You’re renovating a city-owned facility into a proven model. (You can look at Toronto as very good evidence that soccer-specific stadiums in central locations work well.) One factor that goes often goes unmentioned is the very uncertain future of PGE Park if it’s NOT renovated into a soccer stadium.

Ryan: Leases for both teams run out in 2010. After that, Paulson is free to do whatever. Seattle and Vancouver both went to MLS, so the USL Timbers’ closest road trip is Minnesota after that (if MLS didn’t happen, that is).

Zach: Exactly. So if PGE Park is a community asset, an investment needs to be made to make sure it stays a community asset. I guess the question is, how do you build a baseball stadium in such a way that it, too, is a community asset.

On that front I don’t really have a solution aside from building a small park that will encourage players to jack many dongers.

Ryan: Which brings me to my questions for the baseball fans. How do you feel about potentially losing baseball altogether in Portland? That seems to be a distinct possibility since the deals were uncoupled. I know that from the few baseball fans I’ve talked to, that most of them don’t have any attachment to the Beavers per se, but like to go to watch baseball live. I understand that, there’s a similar set of fans on the Timbers side as well.

But the silence from baseball fans has led to a situation where there might be no baseball at all in Portland. Are you guys OK with that? Is waiting 10, 20, maybe 30 years for the MLB to come in worth it comparatively?

The common refrain I hear is that following a minor league team is difficult to emotionally invest yourself into. Players are either on their way up or down, and the roster turns over every year. But you know what? The Timbers have had the same situation all this time as well. I’ve seen pretty much a new team each year, excepting some marathoners like Scot Thompson and Tommy Poltl. And heck, a major league team has roster turnover as well, it just happens at a slower pace. At a certain point, soccer fans decided this wasn’t enough reason to stay aloof and the support has grown pretty much every year.

Some of this could be written down to emulation of worldwide soccer culture, where supporting a lower-level team could mean you see them rise up and enter the top division through promotion/relegation. But really, it just seems to me like a difference in mentality, and it seems to me that’s why we are where we are. The Timbers have dedicated, growing support, and the Beavers are stagnant.

Carson: I would’ve, at one point, agreed with Ryan’s friends — that it’s hard to become emotionally attached to the Beavers. Certainly, with the frequency of roster movement, the orthodox mode of fandom — that is, team-as-extension-of-city — is not really applicable. Rather, the real pleasure is in watching players who either have previously or might soon make the big leagues — regardless of the team, in some cases. Also, one develops attachments to certain players (see: Blanks, Kyle) and that’s quite pleasant, as well.

As for the stadium discush, I feel — on account of I’ve only lived in Portland for two years — I feel a little bit like it’s none of my business. I don’t know how long one must live in a town before he/she becomes integrated, but I feel like I’m not there yet.

I *do* think that, almost invariably, cities get hosed on stadium deals. Nor do I think the present situation is any exception. I’ve actually had the pleasure — if that’s the right word — the pleasure of sitting two seats down from Monsieur Paulson while covering the Beavs games at PGE. I’m not convinced that he’s the problem. He’s doing what anyone might expect a business man to do — namely, to reach a deal where he spends less money than he makes.

The problem is, is that that there’s almost no incentive for city leaders to take a hard line with Paulson-types. If they (i.e. city leaders) bring MLS to Portland, then they’re forever known as The Leaders Who Brought MLS to Portland. It’s a conspicuous accomplishment. If they don’t get a stadium deal done, then they’re The Leaders Who Failed to Bring MLS to Portland. That’s pretty damning … and no fun!

On the other hand, The Leaders Who Mortgaged Portland’s Long Term Fiscal Capacity and Perhaps Limited Spending on Certain, Incredibly Useful but not Terribly Exciting City Improvements Projects is both a mouthful and, I think, harder to articulate.

Furthermore, hanging out with Merritt Paulson is much more fun and ultimately more rewarding for Sam Adams &co than is bucking up Portland Public Schools. Kids suck to be around. Sports are awesome. You do the math.

Comments