Political Buzz

Talking WA politics.

NOTICE: Political Buzz has moved.

With the launch of our new website, we've moved Political Buzz.
Visit the new section.

Comparing the Cheney Stadium designs

Post by Lewis Kamb / The News Tribune on March 8, 2010 at 11:34 am with 20 Comments »
March 8, 2010 6:07 pm

In my story in today’s paper, a member of the design-build team led by Turner Construction raises questions about the process that resulted in the selection of the winning design for coming Cheney Stadium renovations.

Turner’s bid came in at the lowest price among three bidders, but a ballpark design selection panel unanimously ranked a design from a team headed by Mortenson Construction as the highest. Design elements were weighted more heavily than price among the selection criteria, so Mortenson’s wood-and-glass design beat out Turner in the end, according to official explanations. A design submitted by the Wade Perrow team finished third among the three finalists.

Today’s story is accompanied by conceptual renderings for all three designs submitted for the project. The print edition didn’t include an image for what the outside of the stadium looks like in the Wade Perrow design, so I’m providing one here.

Below is a look at all three designs from the front of the stadium, in order of how the selection panel ranked each team’s bid (Mortenson, Turner, Wade Perrow).

Mortenson design, outside
Mortenson design, outside
Turner design, outside
Wade Perrow design, outside
Wade Perrow design, outside

During interviews for today’s story, I heard Mortenson’s prominent wood design referred to as the “ski lodge;” Turner’s futuristic design called the “Jetson’s” concept; and the Wade Perrow design likened to a 1950s drive-inn movie theater.

Conceptual views of the stadium’s interior for each design-build team can be viewed by clicking the “more” link.

Mortensen design, inside
Mortenson design, inside
Turner design, inside
Wade Perrow design, inside
Wade Perrow design, inside
Leave a comment Comments → 20
  1. NineInchNachosII says:

    My RANKED CHOICE opinion..

    1. Turner design
    2. Mortenson design
    3 _______ (left blank)

    the Wade Perrow design is hideous… like it crawled out of the 80’s…. Tacoma Actors Guild theater on the square… gives me the creeps yo.

  2. NineInchNachosII says:

    Mortenson design looks like the boy scouts jamboree building HQ.

  3. Kevindot1 says:

    Wade looks like a gas station and Turner looks like an airport or the old Henry M. Jackson memorial building. The Mortenson design was the right choice.

  4. Actually, for 30 mil they are all lousy designs esthetically. Not one fits into the ambience of the Pacific Northwest. My suggestion is to send the project back to the drawing board and get some CREATIVE ARCHITECTS involved.

    The Mortensen idea is the worst, a complete non-fit to its surroundings. The Perrow design has possibities but he crudded it up too much. Turner,s design is the only one with any redeeming features or merit. At the least the facade has some class. It may be “just a ball park” but for 30 mil we need to be proud of the way it looks.

    My grandfather was a professional ball player – a pitcher. I’ve seen many a game, from dirt lots to the Big Time.

  5. NineInchNachosII says:

    “Not one fits into the ambience of the Pacific Northwest.”

    translation: needs more totem poles

  6. nwcolorist says:

    After looking at view of all three stadiums, the Mortenson bid gets my vote.

  7. youropinionsarelikeassholes says:

    None get my vote. You have to picture seeing this thing from the freeway. A giant wooden box is gaudy and out of place. The Turner design is the closest to being what you would expect to see. The retro place does look like a 50’s movie theater or mall entrance. All the seats need to be covered and there needs to be something to block the sun along the rightfield line when it dips and blinds people.

  8. I think the Mortenson design has the best exterior appearance, but should include some distinctive “northwest” features. The interior has little astheic appeal as far as one could see, but from a practical standpoint, I would think that some kind of roof structure over the outfield areas would be a plus.
    This new stadium should include attractive suroundings with unique artifacts, and lighting effects. .

  9. How about something that looks like an actual baseball stadium? Arguably the best of the modern major league baseball stadiums are ones that hearken back to the golden age of baseball, best symbolized by Camden Yards. I realize that as a minor league park Cheney will need to be scaled down, but I would rather see something reminescent of the styles Safeco, Coors Field, Camden Yards etc. Feel free to add some unique Northwest/Tacoma touches, but let’s make sure it feels like a ballpark and not the corporate office of a timber company, Disney’s Tomorrowland, or a drive-in theater.

  10. Based on the photos, I prefer Turner, especially the outside.

  11. derekyoung says:

    Design is always going to spur debate, but I think it seems clear that all of the designs are superior to what is there now. I look forward to attending games there.

  12. bcbustamante says:

    1. Turner
    2. Mortenson
    3. Wade Perrow

    I have to agree with the other posts, none of the designs hit a home run. If we are stuck with one of the three, then I would choose Turner’s design. Their design is more appealing inside and out, plus they have incorporated a roof.

  13. willzhunnie says:

    I prefer the Turner design…perhaps the citizens should have had some input…let us tell you what WE like for our community!

  14. scottsch111 says:

    I like the wood box, myself, at least compared to the others. I think the Turner design’s okay, but I’m kind of tired of the modern metal-and-glass look. Perrow design is indeed terrible, although I kind of like his inside best.

    Of bigger concern is the lack of concourse and roof coverage. Go back to Callaghan’s column of a few days ago (http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/03/04/1095305/revamped-cheney-would-be-more.html) and click on the second image to see a concept image (not sure by whom) that shows a better roof and concourse. I wonder if these amenities could be added to the Mortenson design.

  15. supafreeky says:

    Based on the photos, my vote goes:
    1. Turner
    2. WP
    3 Moretenson.

    The Turner design lets in more light, a delight for the dreary gray northwest skies. The stadium also gets more roof coverage – hello!?! How many times a year does it rain in the NW compared to Kansas! The Turner & WP designs also look more contemporary and fitting. The Mortensen design looks dark and outdated, and it looks a lot like that Great Wolf Lodge/casino out in Tumwater.

  16. jiminycricket says:

    The Mortenson design, hands down and by far! Its design epitomizes the Pacific Northwest. Remember, it is called Cheney Stadium, and named for philanthropist and lumber baron, Ben B. Cheney, who gave, and through his charitable foundation, continues to selflessly give to our community every year since his untimely death in the early 70’s. This design is truly a tribute to him. He originally gave $100,000 to have the orginal stadium built. His foundation, along with his family, is donating several million dollars towards this new project and renovation. Let’s all put our personal preferences aside and honor the Cheney family with a design that is appropriate given their history in the lumber business and numerous contributions to our community! They have truly made Tacoma a better place and it would be almost impossible to imagine our community without them!

  17. lvngthedream says:

    So does this mean I’m going to get rained on now where my current seats are located? That sucks!

    Will that will be Mortenson change order #1- to extend the roof. Is that how this works? AHHHHH!

    This selection process was a complete fraud. The comments on this article are proof of that! How could all the selection committee members have voted for the Mortenson design as stated in the previous article?

    I also heard today that the city opened and scored the bids prior to scoring the designs. That eliminates fairness since the members could lower their scores on only subjective part of the selection process to get the contractor who is greasing the palms the most.

  18. lvngthedream says:

    Give me a break!!! The wood design is honoring the Cheney family? I’m pissed because I’m going to get rained on. I guess that will be Mortenson Claim #1- to extend the roof. That is how contractors really make their money- at our expense.

    This lame design and fraudulent process is an embarrassment to the Cheney family. I went to school with Brad and can’t believe that he is standing for this. It makes me sick. I hope they vote to throw out the entire process tomorrow night. I can live with our old stadium for another year.

    I heard today that the selection committee opened and scored the bids prior to scoring the design. Is this true???? This means they could score the subjective part however they wanted to give this project to the team that is buying off the right people.

  19. witchiwoman says:

    I like them all.

  20. beefcurtain says:

    Maybe the designs should have a little of tacoma to it. they could make all the bleachers out of arsnic.

We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0