I’m still not sure why the UO Foundation didn’t just hire the kids who burnt down Civic. Maybe former Chief Compliance Office Erika Funk – already mostly erased from their website – raised some objections. In any case the city has apparently already approved accepted the demo permit as ready to review, here:
So it won’t be long before we’ve all got this giant dildo to look at:
Anyone know when this is supposed to begin, or where to find the deconstruction/construction schedule
Unsurprisingly, the UO if being highly disingenuous in this matter, especially in the wave of stories they have unleashed about the condition of the East Grandstand.
1. No one I have spoken with or read has said there should be no renovation, including the demolition of the West Grandstand and the Bowerman Building. So when you read their PR hacks framing the choice as “no renovation and substandard facilities for athletes” OR demolition of East Grandstand and great facilities THEY ARE LYING. All we are asking for is the plan they sold us on for two years: renovate everywhere, get great facilities, host in 2021 AND preserve and integrate the East Grandstand into the plan. The Red Sox did not demolish the Green Monster when they renovated Fenway. We can have renovation and preservation. They are trying to manipulate us.
2. Process is important. We are told that there is no viable alternative to complete demolition. Perhaps that is true. Let’s discuss that over a reasonable planning horizon that includes public input and a variety expert input. I personally oppose demolition, but I could grow to accept that choice if given time along with others to examine the situation, encourage public input and dialogue, and a full consideration of all expert views, not just the views of those retained by folks pushing the plan. If their two-year delay as they haggled over cell towers and god knows what leaves too little time to do a full process now that is too frickin’ bad and does not give them the right to ram a plan down our throats. Bad process will not produce good outcomes or fully-preserve the fan base or heal the rift they have opened.
3. Any contractor and carpenter worth their salt knows that dry rot is a fixable thing. This idea that the East Grandstand can’t be salvaged or would cost a lot (Meeks says a little more $7 million, buy who’s counting) are straight up fear mongering. Dry rot is fixable. It has been fixed in the East Grandstand before and can be again, and that cost plus all the rest of the plans probably is much less than $200 million full tear down and rebuild.
Trying to manipulate Oregon track fans is not going to yield anything positive.
Totally agree with your points, however these phil projects have never been concerned about process, only getting the end results he/they want. With each passing gift, the designs have become more horrendous, and this new design is about as ‘in your face’ to the idea of ‘Historic Hayward Field’ as can be.
I imagine that if someone with some actual design capability and intuitive insight into the hearts and minds of Oregon track fans had been in charge, we would be looking at a thoughtful rendition that would have incorporated at least the feel of history and not just the look of glitzy new billionaire wealth.
While I agree with most of your points, your main thesis is that following a “proper” process would leave everyone happier in the end. Having witnessed enough process in Eugene myself, the thesis actually caused me to spit up a little bit of my coffee. So while I share many of the reservations that have been raised here and elsewhere, I’m inclined to say, “full speed ahead”. But I’m still listening.
I am grateful you are trying to inform people about the inaccurate and subversive tactics .
There seems to be a sentiment here that those paying for the upgrade to Hayward Field should have little or no say in what they are paying for. You ignore those who use the facility on a daily basis—the UO track team and coaches—who seem to be fine, perhaps even overjoyed with the new plans, especially since they are intimately familiar with the deficiencies of the current facility.
Those here who complain about not having a say in the design should recognize that they will have a say in the long term outcome: If you don’t like the design, don’t buy an event ticket. Stay home and look at your old photos of Pre and Bowerman and the East Grandstand instead of enduring the horror of a fantastic new facility and the newly historic performances that will happen in it.
Your only claim to being a stakeholder is your mistaken belief in an entitlement to the never ending nostalgia of old Hayward Field. No one owes you that, but neither can they take away your memories, so be consoled.
And if at some time in the past you purchased a small replica of an Olympic torch, mistaking it for the phallic object of your desire, you have my condolences for the consequences you no doubt suffered.
You make my point by peddling the same false choice as the plan promoters: Updated facilities OR preserve East Grandstand. That is not the choice. There should and can be updated facilities without tearing down the East Grandstand, at least in principle. Whether this statement is true – that is, whether what we were long told remains true – saying it is not true over and over is not evidence one way or another. It is just repeating talking points.
Where to draw the line of stakeholders is open to debate but to say it is limited to the athletes (or those speaking in public) and those funding – not fans, or those fans with concerns, not faculty, not students, not Eugene residents – but only the 50 funders, Coach Johnson, and the athletes draws that circle far too tight. The University of Oregon we’d hope would recognize that working with fans and designing changes that deepen their commitment is wise, if only for self-interest. You make no compelling arguments against greater community input than seen with this plan. You just impute negative assumptions about the motives and perceptions of those with concerns.
Your notion of planning participation – leave if you don’t like what your betters impose on you – is, frankly, a pathetically limited vision of community planning and one, in any case, sharply at odds with UO and city planning principles (admittedly often violated).
But no worries, your dripping condescension will alone fill the seats of the larger stadium, cover the high permanent maintenance costs, and soothe the many fans, including members of the Bowerman and Prefontaine families, along with generations of fans, with concerns about the plans or the process or both.
At least you don’t in the same breath tell us it is the people not the building who make Hayward great and then proceed to ignore the views of a sizable share of them.
Excellent response. “dripping condescension”, indeed!
And to hitchhike on the comment above about “if you don’t like the design, don’t by an event ticket”.. wow… such a long term juvenile view. Hayward Field, (and I suppose they’ll rename it now too, maybe after some other relative) will just be an empty tribute to corrupt global aspirations in hick town Eugene.
You presume that no other plans were considered. Many were, and the one arrived at is shown in the drawing above. But even plans require money, time and effort to develop. Did you and your other supposed stakeholders gather funds to make any plans and approach the university with them? Did you gather like minded people to fund of the project and share your grand plan with them, adjusting according to all their whims? If you are so committed to preserving the East Grandstands as part of a grand upgrade, why didn’t you do this? The people who made and paid for the new plans have put their money and efforts where their mouth is. You and the many other complainers who are late to the game did not. That is why their plan prevailed and your lack of one did not. And yet, you will be welcome to come and enjoy the new venue and the great benefits it brings to this community and to the sport of track and field. Enjoy!
Not exactly – I am sure there was lots of information and several alternative plans considered. That process should have been more open and transparent. I remain open to being convinced the East Grandstand cannot be salvaged or that we cannot produce great and adequate facilities if preserved. But I just don’t take such claims at face value. A related point is that a more open process that invited public participation and input from various experts may not have produced comity and acceptance all the way around (Dumpster Fire is right about this) but I do think it more likely to produce that outcome than the chosen path of head fake and rush rush rush. The difference between the two is the benefit of an more open process. It is also, regardless of whether it produces that outcome, presumptively superior as a matter of democratic planning, in my view, one consistent with how complex community assets like Hayward should be governed.
What a perfect description of the new Oregon Way: only those with deep pockets and a strategy to create more deep pockets are granted the right to have an opinion. Those on the outside of the castle looking in are allowed only to come and enjoy the sleek perfection of the finished spectacle — no doubt for a hefty new price, of course, and without any question as to its necessity or purpose. The anger in these two comments speaks volumes about the disproportionate annoyance at UO toward those who dare ask questions.
I am all for anyone who wants input to do so. But they must do it in a timely fashion, which in this case means you had to be making your own plan at least in the same time frame as Phil Knight’s group was. Once the World Championships were awarded and it was known the venue would need a serious upgrade, the process started. Those who really cared got busy. Those who just feel entitled waited until the plans were announced, then began complaining. Welcome to reality.
I wonder how the federal investigation is going:
From https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/sports/fifa-ioc-usoc-iaaf.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=66450734&pgtype=Homepage
Perhaps the fact the plans described (but never shared) by the UO were to preserve the East Grandstand, even through their many delays, right up until two months ago when they acknowledged everything they had said was no longer the case and – BOOM – here is the new plan that is radically different than everything else we disclosed, and, because time is short, we have to do this immediately, too late for any input.
Unknown Commenter’s attitude in this thread reminds me of Milton’s observation that “they who have put out the people’s eyes, reproach them of their blindness”.
Yeah, I remember they got the bball team to make impassioned speeches for Matt Arena. Didn’t change the fact that the place was empty over 80% of the year and they peddled nonsense to make it seem financially efficacious. And I’ve yet to see how this latest boondoggle is going to pay for itself. Please address that, rather than fictitious stakeholders….
I say tear it down. Sat there plenty of times. There’s mice running around the stands. No concessions. Bathrooms are inadequate. the musty smell is disgusting. I look forward, progression, innovation. Folks who are stuck int he past will continue to be stuck in the past.
you can upgrade a facility while still preserving it character – but that would require Integrity being associated with this process. The New Oregon way does not believe in Integrity.
I see the moderator has deleted my perfectly civil but contrarian response to his comment above. Is that any way to treat a commenter who he once said would have received your comment of the month award had it been posted here rather than in the Register-Guard? More importantly, will that be the way he runs the Faculty Senate when he becomes president? Or will this comment also never see the light of day? Perhaps this is one reason why my dear alma mater rates last of 150 schools in heterodoxy.
Or maybe I’ve just had a long week.
and the week ain’t even over yet! You really ought to collect all the poster overreactions and publish them as a sociological study – I am sure that will count for some metrics …