I think you are correct. Add to that T2 and Thorns home games--which aren't going anywhere, regardless of PSU football--and perhaps you'll begin to understand why so many people viewing this thread are becoming annoyed with your persistence. I know grass would be better, Paulson says grass would be better, everyone thinks grass would be better. Paulson certainly would be willing to spend the money (consider the $50M he's requesting to spend to improve a stadium he doesn't own), yet there is no grass. You're right, grass would be better and everyone agrees with you, including Merritt Paulson and the entire universe. But grass ain't gonna grow under the current conditions--too many games (Timbers, Thorns, T2, PSU), too much rain, poor drainage, underground creek, not enough sun, dozens of feet below grade.
You have been told at least 30 times. Maybe if you stopped listening to your own voice and listening to others you would have heard this much earlier.
Tale a dive in the north penalty are, if the ref accuses you of simulation claim the ground is soft and uneven due to the creek?
Grass posts will be deleted until it is brought up by the team. Persistent violators will be fed to the Providence's feral cat colony.
Rats. I'm a day late to point out that Western Oregon University (my parents' alma mater) is in freaking Monmouth, Oregon. I'm sure everyone had that name on the tip of their tongue. A flat as a pancake minor town with a pittance football team in the middle of the Willamette valley with the largest buildings being dorms. Again, rats I was too late to point that out.
i just noticed something the beams between it looks like they might be using the beams from the current roof as the main supports for the planned one.
I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think the supports for the current roof would work for a roof that much higher up, and they probably aren't using that small of supports for the rest of the structure. Here's what I think might be going on, at least for the render from inside the stadium. It looks like the company that did it took an image from a recent game, and made an overlay of the render of the new structure. So you probably are still seeing the old supports in there, because it would have been harder to remove them and paint in what would have been behind them. Another possibility is that it will be hard to completely remove those old supports, so they will just leave them there, and build around them, but I think this is less likely.
Only one type of grass pic is allowed until the team mentions the turf kind. It's legal in Oregon now.
HEY, ya'll have an ESPY! Pretty good club lacrosse too if I remember (friend played at Central Washington). Ya'll led the way with that field design though!
What are the key dates we should be watching for to find out when and if this stadium expansion is approved?
The next known date is May 11th, when they have their first review meeting with the Portland Design Commission.
http://www.oregonlive.com/timbers/index.ssf/2017/05/portland_timbers_touts_private.html Some financial information revealed. This info makes me a little more nervous about whether they will get the approval or not. Chances are, though, it will just be negotiating about the ticket tax, and not much else.
"Golub said investing in the Timbers also brings a psychic and economic benefit." I'm guessing the psychic has known about this for a while.
It's nice to know the Timbers/Thorns provide about 20-25% of the ticket tax. If it was just baseball and no (or minor league) soccer, the city would be much worse off. And this isn't really a "reveal" about the finances. The improvements are still 100% privately financed. The article also does the Timbers a disservice by bringing up the 2001 renovation that ultimately failed to increase interest in baseball and caused the City of Portland to lose money. Peregrine Sports (aka Merritt) assumed some liability and help make payments on that debt. A debt they had no hand in creating. Let the adults talk about the benefits/negatives of giving the tax break for the increased capacity for 10 years, this article was a brash grab at "taxes + stadiums = bad" without considering the net positives that have come from a publicly owned stadium.
Lets take a trip in the wayback machine: Providence Park's history once included dreams of 100,000 seats http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2017/05/providence_parks_history_once.html