The red tape-meisters in the City of Portland's land use bureaucracy have declared that they do "not yet recommend approval" of the Paulson family's design for the re-renovation of PGE Park. The staff report is here. The scorecard of trouble areas is a fairly long one:

• Lack of incorporation of local identity (Tanner Creek, water features, art, etc.)
• Reservations about the notion that the project may not meet design guidelines because there is a reliance on “public art” being a mitigating effect. The RACC “public art” process is separate from the Design Review process.
• Consideration of the termination of SW Yamhill Street – alternate ideas include: a more deliberate design element or leaving the view shed open.
• With regard to these design guidelines, the kiosks do not improve public open space, are not vibrant and lack activity for the SW 18th Avenue public streetscape. The uses within are inappropriate for a street frontage and they are not flexible. The streetscape should either (1) be interesting, active and lively more than on just game days, or (2) remain open with unobstructed views of the stadium, being successful and responsive to the purpose of the OS zone.
• Condition of Approval to limit # of kiosks, wall length at SW 18th, etc.?
• Little information on the materiality and detail of the kiosk elevations.
• Reservations about feasibility, enforcement and longevity to keep gates open on nongame days at the Entry Terrace. Instead of imposing an operational Condition of Approval that is difficult to enforce and challenging for the Stadium’s operators, this Design Review should require a more permanent design solution that resolves the kiosk challenges. However, if accepted by the Commission as a viable idea, a Condition of Approval must be crafted.
• Lack of information on signage, awnings/canopies, lighting, mechanical, service areas.
• Consideration of a Condition of Approval to require the main lighting and signage package to be subject as a future Type III Design Review. (More detailed information on awnings/canopies, mechanical, service areas should be submitted and reviewed under this current Type III Design Review.)
• Consideration of improvements to SW 18th Avenue frontage.
• With regard to these specific design guidelines, the kiosks disrupt views and also lack a connection with adjacent public spaces.
• Views of blank walls from within the Stadium – interest/activity/liveliness (1) spectators/visitors looking east, and (2) spectators/visitors walking and gathering along the new buildings and kiosks.
• Kiosks disrupting views into this public facility from SW 18th Avenue.
• Kiosks disrupting of the new canopy from SW 18th Avenue.
• Importance of quality materials and quality details. Little information submitted thus far (need materials and details of: wood, concrete, glazing, doors, surfaces, mesh, gates, finishes, colors, awnings, canopy roof, etc.
• Canopy design – should it go further as encouraged in previous DAR’s?
• Design relationship between this proposal and existing. Should they be integrated, or contrast? How is the identity of one informing the other?
• Alterations to SW 18th and Morrison ticket booths?