Waterfront Park Master Plan - Portland, Oregon...Jacinta McCann, Principal Steve Hanson, Project...

Waterfront ParkMaster Plan

Portland, Oregon

Acknowledgments

Jim Francesconi, CommissionerZari Santner, DirectorCharles Jordan, Director (former)John Sewell, Chief Planner (former)Janet Bebb, Planning Supervisor

Portland Parks and RecreationProject TeamDavid Yamashita, Project Manager and

Principal AuthorGay Greger, Public Involvement CoordinatorBryan Aptekar, Public Involvement AssistantKathleen Wadden, Senior Management AnalystGlenn Raschke, Planning and DevelopmentWebmaster

Consultant TeamEDAW, Inc.

Jacinta McCann, PrincipalSteve Hanson, Project Manager/ Landscape ArchitectMegan Walker, Landscape Architect

Lango Hansen, Kurt LangoGrummell Engineering, Bob Grummell

Natural Resource Planning Services,Robert Dillinger

Helen Lessick, ArtistJeanne Lawson Associates, Vaughn Brown

Graphic DesignViviano Design, Inc., Jennifer Viviano

Citizens Advisory CommitteeHarriet Cormack, ChairRob DeGraffSho DozonoLarry DullyCarol EdelmanJosé GonzalezJeffry GottfriedChris HathawayJohn Helmer, Jr.Steve JohnsonGregg KantorDavid KrauseMauricio LeclercMarty McCallKathryn SilvaPaddy Tillett

Technical Advisory CommitteeBureau of Environmental Services, Doug SowlesBureau of Environmental Services,

Dawn UchiyamaPortland Department of Transportation,

Roger GellerBureau of Planning, River Renaissance,

Sallie EdmundsBureau of Planning, Diane BrunbergEndangered Species Act Program, Jim MiddaughPortland Development Commission,

Amy Miller DowellPolice Bureau, Commander Rosie SizerOffice of Development Services, Mike HayakawaMultnomah County, Matthew LarsenState Marine Board, Dave Obern, and

Ronald RhodehamelHarbormaster, Russ Sill (former)

Staff Advisory CommitteeOperations, Mary HuffOperations, Bill WalkerOperations, Lee PudwillOperations, Jim Carr

Operations, Bob DowningOperations, Brian McNerneyOperations, Tom DufalaOperations, Kathy MurrinRecreation, Lisa TurpelRecreation, Bob SchulzRecreation, Shawn RogersRecreation, Cary CokerNatural Resources, Deb LevPlanning, John SewellPlanning, Susan Hathaway-MarxerPlanning, Sue DonaldsonSecurity, Mark Warrington

Focus Group ParticipantsDennis Corwin, Portland SpiritDick Clark, Portland Rose Festival AssociationDavid Todd, Navy LeagueEthan Jewett, Bicycle Transportation AllianceSallie Edmunds, Portland Bureau of PlanningLarry Summerton, RiverPlace AssociatesAnne McLaughlin, Willamette

Pedestrian CoalitionAnne Stevenson, Oregon Symphony

Susan Nielson, Oregon SymphonySteve Fedje, Natural Resource

Conservation ServicePaul Verhoeven, Saturday Market/

Oldtown Chinatown AssociationMarcus Simantel, City ClubScott Watson, H. Naito Corp.Kris Bielefeld, Portland Marriott DowntownDan Yates, Portland SpiritNancy Hartman, Portland Inline

Skate AssociationClay Fuller, Blues Fest/Bite FestBob Layfield, Oregon Maritime MuseumDavid Pickthorne, Multnomah County BridgesDeane Funk, PGEMark Ginsberg, Bicycle Transportation AllianceBruce Higginson, Cinco de Mayo/Bones & BrewJim Lasher, Navy LeaguePeter Mott, Portland Rose Festival AssociationFrank Garcia, Portland Guadalajara Sister City

Association/Cinco de MayoSuzanne Loseth, Entercom RadioDesiree Hamilton, Hamilton Events/

Race for the Cure

Carmella Ettinger, Pride NWCheron McGuffey, Columbia River Intertribal

Fish CommissionLori Tompkins, Special Olympics Oregon/

The BiteDavid Cook, Oregon Road Runners ClubSusan Lee, Pride NWTom Pollock, World Trade CenterLina Garcia Seabold, Portland Guadalajara

Sister City Association/Cinco de MayoArt Larrance, Brewers FestivalHallie Gentry, Portland Rose FestivalJim Middaugh, Portland ESASharon Wood Wortman, CitizenVerne Naito, H. Naito CorporationDan Yates, Portland SpiritDoug Sowles, Bureau of

Environmental ServicesScott Watson, H. Naito CorporationLisa Witby, Oregon Food BankJim Schwitter, Columbia River Yacht AssociationGlen Swenson, Maintenance BureauDiane Brunberg, Bureau of Planning

Heidi Klumpp, Joyful Noise ChildDevelopment Center

Alice Smith, Joyful Noise ChildDevelopment Center

Lance Riedl, Marriott DowntownRuss Sill, HarbormasterKurt Lango, Lango HansenRon Rhodes, APP/ Clean and SafeShelly Kilmoyer, McCalls RestuarantAlan Pendergrass, Portland Patrol, Inc.Ralph O’Hara, Police MemorialBruce Pearson, Portland City ClubRod McDowell, Central Eastside

Industrial CouncilAllyson Reed, Pioneer PlaceGeoff Roemelt, Four Points HotelJohn Tess, Old Town VisionsBill Atherton, Former owner of Smith BlockRobin White, Building Owners and

Managers AssociationMichelle Stricker, Portland Oregon

Visitor’s AssociationJoe Zisa, US Fish and Wildlife Service

Travis Williams, Willamette RiverkeepersBarb Grover, Bureau of Planning

Multnomah County Youth Advisory BoardBecky SchaumbergLeticia Longuria NavarroStephanie McClenahenAnnie VeiraElizabeth EdwardsBrian WagnerLyndsey MooreAling ShabashevichAntoria MaurerMaria CaceresMeng ZhouManida WungjiranirunLola MuirheadSteve HansenJames TabataRyan BrownErica JonesMarlis Miller

Organization of Recommendations

Part One : Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

Purpose of the Plan .............................................................................................................................. 3

Context of the Plan ................................................................................................................................ 5The River Renaissance Project • Naito Parkway Reconstruction •Ankeny Pump Station CSO Program • Downtown WaterfrontDevelopment Opportunities

An Overview of the Park ..................................................................................................................... 9

Use of the Park ...................................................................................................................................... 11

A Brief History of the Park ................................................................................................................ 13The Early Years • Construction of the Seawall (1929) and Harbor Drive(1943) • A New Vision Begins to Emerge—the 1960s and 1970s •1975–1990 : The Master Plan and Park Development

Planning and Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 19The Public Involvement Process • Advisory Committees •Focus Groups • Public Meetings • Events and Displays •Surveys and Comment Cards • Web Site

A Three-Phase Planning Process ................................................................................................... 23Phase 1 : Establishing a Vision (August–December 2001) •Phase 2 : Preparation and Evaluation of Options (December 2001–February 2002) • Phase 3 : Refinement of the Preferred Option(March–November 2002)

Planning Issues ..................................................................................................................................... 31Impact of Events on the Park • Access to the Water • Access acrossNaito Parkway • Circulation in the Park • Connections to the Bridges •Inappropriate Use of the Park • Maintaining Flood Protection

Part Two : A New Vision for Governor Tom McCall Waterfront Park ............................... 37

Guiding Principles .............................................................................................................................. 43

Major Development Concepts ....................................................................................................... 45

Circulation and Access ......................................................................................................................49

Events and Program Management ................................................................................................ 51

Interpretation and Education .........................................................................................................55

Public Art ................................................................................................................................................ 57

Memorials .............................................................................................................................................. 59

Vegetation and Landscape Character ......................................................................................... 61

Site Design ..............................................................................................................................................63

Recommendations by Sector..........................................................................................................65The Bowl • Salmon Street Springs Fountain • Waterfront Plaza •Meadow • Ankeny Pump Station Area • Ankeny Plaza to Steel Bridge •The Urban Edge

Implementation Strategy and Phasing ........................................................................................83

Cost Estimate ......................................................................................................................................... 87

General Phasing Schedule for Implementation of Master Plan ........................................ 89Phase 1 : Immediate and Interim Projects (2003–10) • Phase 2 : MediumTerm Projects (2010–15) • Phase 3 : Long Term Projects (2015–22)

Technical Appendix ........................................................................................ Separate Document

Waterfront Park Master Plan 1

Introduction

In 1975, the City of Portland took a bold step and tore up the six lanes of asphalt andconcrete that made up Harbor Drive to create a 36-acre riverfront park. The goal wasto create a park that would “play a strong role in rejuvenating the long-neglected area

between the waterfront and core…[to] provide a strong impetus for private interests to

rehabilitate and redevelop this area.” Furthermore, the park was to be a “prime recreation

resource particularly for those who live, work or shop in downtown, as well as a key

element in achieving an optimum, pedestrian oriented environment for downtown.”

A view over Waterfront Park looking south from the Steel Bridge.


Purpose of the Plan

The Master Plan for Waterfront Parkupdates the original Downtown WaterfrontPark Master Plan prepared by Wolff ZimmerGunsul Frasca (WZGF) Partnership in 1975.The purpose of the Master Plan is to provide aframework of policies, describe several develop-ment concepts, and outline specific projectsand actions. In short, the Master Plan—fromthe Guiding Principles to the Recommenda-tions by Sector—is intended to provide a cleardirection for the future of the park.

The plan outlines a series of physical improve-ments but also includes policy and programrecommendations. Events and activities arecritical to the success of Waterfront Park, butthey must be managed as part of an overallstrategy that focuses on one goal—maintainingthe park as a lively public space that is also anintegral part of the life of downtown.

The Master Plan is organized from the generalto the specific:

• A Vision for the next evolution of the park;

• Guiding Principles that represents thefundamental goals and values that theMaster Plan strives for;

• Development Concepts that describe howthe Guiding Principles should be translatedinto specific development activities andactions; and

• Recommendations by Sector which proposemore specific concepts and ideas for the sixparts of the park.

Over the years, conditions and circumstanceswill change around the park as will the city’srecreation needs. At each stage in the MasterPlan’s implementation, it is expected that theconcepts will be reviewed to ensure that theplan’s recommendations continue to be rel-evant. If necessary, updates to the Master Planmay be prepared under the direction andmanagement of Portland Parks and Recreation,which maintains final authority over designand development of the park.

The master plan isintended to provide aclear direction for thefuture of the park.


Context of the Plan

The master plan for Waterfront Park is beingprepared at a time of both uncertainty andtremendous opportunity. While current economicconditions are challenging, a variety of projectsalong the river and in the downtown are currentlybeing planned. This offers great potential forcoordinated plans, possible funding opportunities,as well as increased awareness and motivation tocarry out the Master Plan’s recommendations.

The River Renaissance ProjectThe River Renaissance project was initiated in2001 and promises to create an ambitiousvision for the Willamette River. WaterfrontPark will undoubtedly continue to be one ofthe river’s “crown jewels,” the centerpiece ofthe downtown waterfront.

Naito Parkway ReconstructionThe Portland Office of Transportation will berebuilding Naito Parkway over the next two

years. The project stretches from SW Harrisonto NW Couch and comprises several activities,including resurfacing the street, installing bikelanes on both sides, narrowing medians toaccommodate the bike lanes, and rebuildingcurbs at some corners to meet ADA regulations.

Planning and development projects surrounding the park.

6 Waterfront Park Master Plan

Because the project involves reconstruction ofpedestrian crossings across Naito Parkway intothe park, it provides an opportunity to reviewthe park’s relationship to the parkway. Theredesign of the Parkway was coordinated withthe Waterfront Park Master Plan. As a result,circulating improvements such as sidewalksand street crossings are now part of an overallpedestrian system.

Ankeny Pump Station CSOProgramOver the last several years, the City of Portlandhas been rebuilding its stormwater and sewersystem to better handle runoff and to reduceenvironmental impacts. In the current system,a combined sewer system (CSO) is used, whichmixes stormwater runoff with sewage duringperiods of high rainfall.

As part of the CSO program, a new line (12' indiameter) is being installed 50–70' below gradealong Naito Parkway to transport combinedsewer overflows to a new pump station, to belocated on Swan Island. The Ankeny PumpStation, located in Waterfront Park, willcontinue to be used but will be rehabilitated.

The area around the Ankeny Pump Stationwill be demolished and later rebuilt. Redevel-opment of this site will represent the first phasein implementing the Park’s Master Plan.Construction will begin in 2003 and will becompleted in November 2005.

Downtown WaterfrontDevelopment OpportunitiesThe study will review possibilities for stimulat-ing the redevelopment of properties alongNaito Parkway and creating an outstanding


riverfront environment, furthering the goals ofthe Downtown Waterfront Urban RenewalPlan. The project is envisioned to initiate,support and guide development opportunitiesin the downtown waterfront for the next tenyears. Through the identification of public-sector capital improvements and organizationof private sector interests, the study will be thefirst step to help create a more active andvibrant downtown waterfront environment.


Gov. Tom McCall Waterfront Park comprises36.59 acres that stretch from Riverplaceon the south to the Steel Bridge on the north.On the west, the park is bordered by Naito Park-way and the Willamette River forms the easternboundary.

The park consists of 13 tax lots and is ownedby the City of Portland (Portland Parks andRecreation) though the land under the bridgesis owned by Multnomah County. The park cangenerally be divided into five distinct zones,described below.

The Esplanade is paved walkway along theriver, part of a riverfront corridor extending onboth sides of the Willamette River withinwhich “river recreational” uses are promoted.Greenway regulations define this zone as 25'from the top of the bank. In Waterfront Park,the greenway zone includes the walkway andpart of the adjacent lawn areas as well.

The Bowl anchors the southern end of thepark, abutting the Riverplace residential and

An Overview of the Park

commercial development. Because of thebowl’s natural slope to the water, it functions asan informal amphitheater for concerts. Thebowl also serves as the site of the annualDragonboat races, Oregon Symphony concertsand the Blues Festival.

Salmon Street Springs and the John Yeon buildinganchor the area north of Hawthorne Bridge.The fountain is set in a concrete plaza, whichincludes a set of sitting steps that leads to aviewing area over the river. McCall’s Restau-rant, the current occupant of the historic JohnYeon building, abuts the fountain to the southand is the major permanent commercial user ofthe park. This area also acts as the moorageand embarking site for the Portland Spirit, asmall cruise ship that provides 2-hour trips onthe Willamette River.

The central lawn is a dominant feature of thepark, between Salmon Street Springs to theBurnside Bridge. The lawn is used mostintensively during the summer by a series ofoutdoor festivals and events. The lawn is

Looking south from the Hawthorne Bridge at the informal amphithe-ater of the Bowl.


bordered by trees on both sides and includes awide pedestrian walkway along the river.

At the Ankeny Pump Station Area, a brick plazaand stage anchor the northern part of the park.The Ankeny Pump Station (a pumping facilityoperated by the Bureau of EnvironmentalServices) and a restroom are the only struc-tures in this area, which exhibits a high level ofinappropriate use. On weekends, the areareceives more legitimate use by visitors toSaturday Market, an outdoor crafts fair that isheld in Ankeny Plaza, a small urban parkdirectly west of Waterfront Park.

The park narrows considerably between theBurnside Bridge and the Steel Bridge. TheJapanese-American Historical Plaza occupies amajority of the available open space, whicheventually terminates at a vertical sculpturepiece, a connection to the Steel Bridge walk-way, and an informal connection to the walk-way along the McCormick Pier apartments.

Waterfront Park is probably best known as thesite for a variety of events and festivals heldfrom May to September. In 2000, 20 permittedevents including venues as small as a MarriottHotel function (600) to the annual RoseFestival (350,000) were held in the park. Eachevent is assigned a section in the park. Forexample, the Bowl is popular for concerts andthe Jazz Festival because people sit outside andcan enjoy an unobstructed river view. The Bite,Cinco de Mayo and the Brewer’s Festival needflat land and are fenced in; thus they occupythe meadow areas between the bridges. Forpermitted events in the year 2000, the esti-mated attendance was 917,500.


Use of the Park

Jogging, walking, biking, skateboarding,fountain play, lunching, basketball, fireworksviewing and boat watching are common,popular informal park uses. As Waterfront Parkis easily accessible to the downtown Portlandworkforce, it is heavily used, especially bywalkers and joggers, during the lunch hoursfrom 11:00 am to 1:00 pm, as well as from 3:00pm to 5:00 pm. Bike commuters use the parkduring rush hours because Naito Parkway lacksbike lanes.

No consistent counts have been made tomeasure the number of non-event visitors inthe park. Recent one-hour counts (between12:00 noon and 1:00 pm) at two of the mostpopular access points revealed between 200–300 people entering the park at each of thetwo entries. During that same one-hour period,almost 400 people were counted in one direc-tion. The northern entrance, by Ankeny

Square, exhibited much lower numbers, withabout 100 visitors entering the park during the12:00 noon–1:00 pm period. (The counts weredone on consecutive days with identicalconditions—sunny and comfortable).

In addition, although the park appears toaccommodate a large number of people, use ofthe park tends to be concentrated in someareas and during specific times of the day andof the year. Because of Portland’s climate, thereare extended periods during the winter whenvisitation drops off dramatically. Althoughthere have been no formal surveys of park use,informal evidence suggests that the park isused most often (aside from special events)during lunchtime on weekdays. Also, thesouthern third of the park, between MorrisonBridge and Riverplace, probably experiencegreater use because of the foot traffic generatedby Riverplace and the Alexis Hotel.


Weekends are also well populated with peoplevisiting Saturday Market (Ankeny Square) andthe restaurants at Riverplace. The river is amagnet for strollers during good weather.During the summer months and evenings theSalmon Street Springs is a popular place forkids to play while parents relax.


The history of parks tend to reflect thehistory of cities, and this is certainly truefor Waterfront Park. In revisiting the park’shistory, it’s clear the site has always been anessential part of the downtown, first as awarehouse area, then as a highway, and finally,as a park. It is also evident that the park hashad to change over the past 25 years to reflectcurrent needs.

The Early YearsIn 1851 when Portland was founded as a city,the waterfront was the center of the city’scommerce and trade. Even in 1907, docks andbuildings extended over the river and wereconnected by a narrow, meandering stripbetween the river’s edge and Front Street.Flooding was a constant problem and was

A Brief History of the Park

A diagram overlaying a map from the late 1800s over a present day aerialphotograph. The blue lines indicate historic streams.

An early 1900s map over a present day aerial. The orange lines show how thestreets came right out to the river’s edge.


controlled only by the streets which acted aspublic levees. During the first three decades ofthe 1900s, largely due to flooding, the preferredlocation for housing and business shiftedfurther west.

Although the idea for a park on the waterfronthad been discussed in 1920 and 1923, the Cityengineer proposed plans which included aseawall, but not a park. Charles H. Cheney, in1921, suggested a plan to widen Front Avenueand create “rapid transit lines,” foretelling the1943 Harbor Drive proposal. In 1929, HarlandBartholomew, whose firm designed severalhundred city plans in the United Statesbetween 1920 and 1977, issued a reportdescribing six reasons for the decline of thewaterfront. These included: flooding; declineof early forms of river transportation; expan-sion of the business district to the west; inac-cessibility; obsolescence and lack of a definiteplan. His plan called for acquisition of all land

between Front St. and the river from Columbiato Glisan.

Construction of the Seawall(1929) and Harbor Drive (1943)The continual flooding of the riverfront finallydrove city leaders to build a 32' high seawall in1929 at a cost of $2.7 million. Thirteen cityblocks were acquired and many riverfrontstructures were condemned. The seawallproject leveled the waterfront area and itsstructures, built the wall and backfilled to thenew grade. A 25' easement for a walkway nextto the wall was recorded, which 75 years later,now includes the park’s esplanade. The seawallconstruction provided flood control and a safeseparation from the water’s edge.

The pressure of maintaining economic viabilityduring the Depression years (1930s) resulted ina loss of vision. In a climate of disinterest,

Top : The seawall under construction, 1929. Bottom : Six-lane HarborDrive at the river’s edge, 1958.


Robert Moses, famous for his use of highwaysas a panacea for urban decay, introduced thePortland Improvement Plan. The plan initiallyfocused on approach ramps to the bridges, butthe need for transportation improvements grewand the Harbor Drive freeway was approvedand built in 1943. The freeway hugged theriver’s edge allowing only a 16' sidewalk next tothe river with a row of trees. It was perilous tocross and noisy for pedestrians, but trafficflowed easily and the bridges providedeasy access.

A New Vision Begins toEmerge—the 1960s and 1970sIt took 20 years but interest in the waterfrontblossomed again in the 1960s with urbanrenewal programs. In 1963, City Council askedthe Portland Planning Commission to under-take a 28 block study of the waterfront. Thenin 1968, a breakthrough occurred when the

City acquired, then demolished the Journalbuilding between the Morrison and Hawthornebridges. Built in 1933 as a public market, it wasnever used for that purpose. It was vacatedwhen the Oregon Journal consolidated opera-tions with the Oregonian.

A key moment in the park’s developmentemerged in 1968 when Governor Tom McCallcalled for a study to evaluate the removal of

Map overlay from the Harbor Drive era. The red line indicates the buildings that linedthe west side of Harbor Drive.


Harbor Drive, envisioning a park along thewaterfront and a series of linked open spaces aspart of the Willamette Greenway. Completionof the I-405 freeway and the Fremont Bridgeprovided a replacement route for HarborDrive, and in 1974 it was closed.

In 1972, Portland began to experience rapidgrowth and a high rise boom in the downtown.Charged with a lack of green space, trafficcongestion and environmental neglect of theWillamette River, a Mayor’s Citizen’s AdvisoryCommittee was established develop a newPortland Downtown Plan. Citizen goals

The 1975 Waterfront Park Master Plan by Wolff Zimmer Gunsel Frasca (WZGF).


focused on recreation, open space and views,but did not stress public access to the river orimprovement of river habitat.

Based on the recommendations of the Down-town Plan, the city made a commitment toredevelopment and set up the WaterfrontUrban Renewal District. The district allowedthe City to use tax increment financing tomake large scale public improvements thatwould include building Waterfront Park.

1975–1990: The Master Plan andPark DevelopmentThe first plan for the waterfront was producedin August 1975 by Wolff Zimmer Gunsul Frasca(WZGF) Partnership in Portland in conjunc-tion with Royston, Hanamoto, Beck and Abeyof San Francisco. Implementation of the planwas initiated by the Portland DevelopmentCommission (PDC) with tax-increment fundsover the next twelve years, from 1976–1988 in

five phases. Construction began first alongFront Avenue and the Ankeny Plaza area. Thiswas followed by four subsequent redevelop-ment projects until the last section—north ofthe Burnside Bridge, was completed in 1989.Development of the park as it is seen todayoccurred over 17 years in five phases at thecost of approximately $20 million dollars.

Even while the park was being redeveloped,use of the park began to increase significantly,especially for larger events. Three studies wereconducted between 1982 and 1991 to addressproblems created by this growth. In 1982,Portland Parks and Recreation staff updatedthe park’s master plan. The study not onlyaddressed needed improvements, but alsorecommended that any new changes to thePark be consistent with adopted policies withinthe 1975 Master Plan.

In 1982, a management study was initiated toaddress the growth of events that had occurred

The first plan for thewaterfront was producedin August 1975. Even whilethe park was beingredeveloped, use of thepark began to increasesignificantly, especially forlarger events.


over the last 10 years. Of the options identifiedfor addressing increased wear on the Park,three were implemented: higher permit fees,increased control over festival use, and restric-tions on event set up. Waterfront Park beganto be accepted as the City’s central downtownpark for major outdoor events. A task forcewas convened in 1991 to again study theproblem of overuse and some restrictions wereplaced on events to ensure the Park’s equitableuse. In 2001, the need for an updated masterplan was clear. The park was being subjected tomore demands than it was designed for. Also,the construction of the Combined SewerOverflow (CSO) facility near the AnkenyPump Station created an opportunity toupdate the plan.


The project stretched over 30 months,from September 2000 to March 2003.It began with a study of existing conditions andissues in fall, 2000. This was followed by aconsultant selection process in May 2001, inwhich a multi-disciplinary team headed byEDAW, Inc. was selected. Following theselection of a citizens advisory committee(CAC), planning was initiated in July 2001.A draft plan was reviewed in November 2002and the final plan approved by City Councilin May 2003.

As part of this process, there was an extensivepublic involvement program , created jointly byPortland Parks and Recreation staff and JeanneLawson and Associates. This was such a keypart of the entire project that it established aframework for the planning process.

The Public Involvement ProcessThe public involvement program consisted ofseveral elements, including advisory commit-tees, focus groups, public meetings, publicdisplays, events, surveys, a newsletter, and aninteractive web site. Several public meetingswere scheduled and were generally well at-tended, averaging 500 people after the intro-ductory forum in September 2001.

Advisory CommitteesThree advisory committees were appointed toguide the City through the planning process. ACitizen’s Advisory Committee (CAC) functionedas the group charged with working directlywith the consultant team and staff to preparethe plan. The group included representativesfrom a variety of interests and expertise butwithout a direct financial stake in the park’soutcome (committee members are listed in the

Planning and Public Involvement

Public involvement wassuch a key part of theentire project that itestablished a frameworkfor the planning process.

A work session with the Citizen’s Advisory Committee.


Acknowledgments section of this document).The committee met 19 times between July2001 and December 2002, with each meetingscheduled for a minimum of two hours.

The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) andthe Staff Advisory Committee (SAC) served insupporting roles. Members were selected fromvarious City departments and outside agenciesto provide advice on a variety of technicaland jurisdictional matters. These two commit-tees met at key points in the process, usuallywhen their expertise could best inform thework of the CAC.

Focus GroupsFocus groups included 93 people organized byinterest and included:

• Event Sponsors and Promoters;

• Resource and Recreation users of the parks;

• People with specific ties to the Park includingpermit holders, those with concessionpermits, those with memorials in the park,and those with docking and parking permits;

• Downtown Business and Residential Asso-ciations, POVA, and Eastside BusinessDistrict groups; and

• Agency and non-profit staff with fish habitatand endangered species compliance expertise.

Results of the focus group meetings weresummarized in three separate reports and areincluded as separate reports.

Public MeetingsFour rounds of public meetings were heldthroughout the project—October 2001,

The initial three design options on display at the January 2002 openhouse held at the public library.


January 2002, May 2002, and October 2002.All were advertised extensively and were heldin several locations in the downtown and onthe east side. Over 1,500 people attendedthese project meetings and open houses.

Events and DisplaysSeveral informational events were held inconjunction with the project, as a way ofstimulating discussion and interest in theproject. Three major events were held—apanel discussion at the first public workshop; adiscussion of the park’s history and develop-ment at the second workshop; and a lecture byKathy Madden of the Project for Public Spaces.Displays were also put up in public places,including Central and Midland libraries, localmalls, and a booth at the Rose Festival, duringvarious milestones of the project.

Surveys and Comment CardsAt all of the public open houses and work-shops, comment cards were used to recordresponses and ideas. A written survey also wasdistributed at the start of the project, to elicitgeneral concerns and thoughts.

Web SiteA project web site was maintained through thelife of the project. The site provided basicinformation about the project, updates, masterplan options and descriptions, and CACmeeting minutes. Over the course of theproject, the web site recorded over 10,000 hits.

Televised panel discussion at the initial visioning workshop.


The planning process consisted of threebasic phases: Phase 1: Establishing a Vision;Phase 2: Preparing and Evaluating Options; andPhase 3: Refining the Preferred Option.

Phase 1: Establishing a Vision(August–December 2001)The purpose of this phase was to identifyissues, concerns, and opportunities. One of thequestions posed to the public was how to“create a great Waterfront Park.” This was aconsistent theme through several of theoutreach activities. The public involvementwork included:

• A survey that was part of the first projectnewsletter. Roughly 5,000 were distributedwith over 450 responses.

• A video that was produced in conjunctionwith Portland Cable Access which explained

why a master plan was needed, what issuesand challenges existed.

• Several focus group meetings with keystakeholders in August of 2001 (with anothermeeting when the Youth Advisory Boardconvened in the fall) with over 50 peopleparticipating. These meetings were intendedto understand the needs the park faces,what’s working, what’s not, and how toimprove things.

• A public forum that featured severalspeakers and a survey of visual preferences.Over 150 people attended along with severalnetwork stations and Portland Cable Access,which filmed and rebroadcast the program).

• A project web site featuring the short video,copies of all project documents, CitizenAdvisory Committee meeting minutes, andthe latest concepts.

A Three-Phase Planning Process

One of the most liked images from the visual preference survey heldat the October 2001 public forum. Respondents liked the multi-level,winding pathways, native and diverse vegetation, and accessibilityto the river.


The foundation for the master plan wascreated in this phase. Through the surveys,responses to the photographs, public com-ments, and focus group discussion, the plan-ning team and the CAC took the first step inestablishing some basic principles that wouldact as a compass through the process.

At a briefing to the City Council in the fall of2001, council members instructed the projectteam to maintain the events as a part ofWaterfront Park. This directive provided aclear policy statement that guided the subse-quent phases of the project.

Public Forum (October 2001)

The first workshop featured a panel discussionwith Philip Myrick of the Project for PublicPlaces, Mike Houck, Urban Naturalist with theAudubon Society, Chet Orloff, a local historian,and Randy Gragg, Art and Architecture Criticfor The Oregonian. Their presentations illumi-

nated key ideas that needed to be addressed.Some of the major ideas and thoughts were:

• The park did not have a clear sense of pur-pose, was dominated by larger events, and didnot have a balanced program of uses whichwere reflective of Portland’s unique culture.

• The park should be a place of beauty wherepark users could experience the unexpected,and that it be “a place you’d take an out oftown visitor.”

• Creating a park with a diversity of spaceswould allow the park to be programmed fortheir best use at different times of the year.

• A group similar to the one for PioneerSquare, be formed to manage its use.

• Access to the park across Naito Parkwayneeded improvement; a maritime presencewith direct connection to the water was critical,and there were limited opportunities forshallow water habitat restoration in the park.

Members from various interest groups rate a plan they created in afocus group meeting.


At the workshop, participants were asked toevaluate images from Waterfront Park andother parks, as one way of establishing prefer-ences and concerns. Images that generated thestrongest favorable response included oneswith interactive water features, trees andshaded areas in general, and pathway options,and sitting areas that provide a connection tothe water. Respondents preferred spaces thatwere visually interesting, in a variety of scales,with trees, flowing lines, and lots of seating.

Formal and strong geometric forms were notgenerally supported. Some of the featurespeople favored were a small performance areawith trees, places with native or riparianvegetation, paths for both pedestrians andbicyclists, places to sit with views of the river,more river transit, and a children’s playground.

Public Survey

A survey was conducted in the summer and fallof 2001 to understand how people used thepark and what people thought of it. The resultssupported what many already knew about itsuse—the most popular activities in the parkwere enjoying the views (65%), walking (56%)and attending festivals (53%). These threebasic activities from the initial survey arementioned again at focus group and publicmeetings as being key to the function, andtherefore design of Waterfront Park.

Focus Groups

The first series of focus group meetings, inAugust to November 2001, concentrated onidentifying what makes a great park and howWaterfront Park is working. These were theonly focus group meetings organized by specific“interest” such as special events, downtown


business, etc. After this first round, groupmembers were mixed to encourage discussionamong different interests. Although groupswere divided into their specific interests, therewas common agreement among the groupsabout what features and improvements shouldbe part of the Master Plan.

The focus groups agreed that a great parkshould have diverse activities, a variety ofspaces and pathways, access to the water, avariety of trees, plants and gardens, adequatefacilities such as restrooms and bike racks, anda sense of safety in all areas of the park. Whenasked about park spaces that people preferred,the groups suggested both large active spacesand smaller quiet ones, but both should feelconnected to the larger park. Pathways shouldbe curved and offer a separation of wheelersfrom walkers. In response to “what keeps apark from being great?”, they listed difficultaccess, limited contact with adjacent water, flatterrain and dead grass.

What’s Working?

Several aspects of Waterfront Park wereworking well, according to the focus groups.Events brought people downtown with masstransit helping to do this effectively. Parkfeatures mentioned most were Salmon StreetSprings at Salmon Street and Naito Parkway,the Japanese-American Historical Plaza, andthe Concert Bowl on the south end of thepark. In all of the concepts envisioned, theseareas were left “as is,” with only minor modifi-cations to the area around Salmon StreetSprings and some additional seating andwater’s edge improvements to the Bowl.

What Needs to Be Fixed?

The focus groups cited poor access and con-nection to the downtown, negative impactsfrom the events such as crowding, alcohol,noise, litter and damaged turf, security issuesespecially at the north end and Ankeny Plaza,

The much loved Salmon Springs fountain is an example of whatpeople thought worked well in the park.


poorly maintained restrooms and trash pickup,and interfering modes of transportation in thePark with skateboarders, walkers, bikers, andjoggers all on a single path.

When asked about what was missing from thepark, group members indicated an adequatelinkage to the downtown, river access, andhistoric and environmental interpretation.Other problems mentioned were limitedpedestrian crossings and no bus turnouts onNaito Parkway, poor directional signage, andpoor connections to the bridges for pedestriansand bikers.

Phase 2: Preparation andEvaluation of Options(December 2001–February 2002)The purpose of this phase was to use theinformation and ideas developed in Phase 1 tocreate a series of options that could be tested

and explored. Each of the three optionsincluded a set of planning principles thatformed the basis for the concept.

Public involvement activities included:

• A second round of focus group meetings toprepare the initial options, then to reviewthe ideas presented to the public;

• A lunchtime lecture on the history of Water-front Park, which attracted over 100 people;

• Several Preview Days, where the optionswere presented at Pioneer Place, LloydCenter, and the Midland Library. The optionswere also posted on the web in this period.

• An Open House at Central Library where threeoptions were presented and evaluated by thepublic. Over 400 people attended the open house.

As a result of the public comments and focusgroup meetings, the project team and the CACwere able to narrow their focus to one of the

The purpose of Phase 2was to use the informationand ideas developed inPhase 1 to create a seriesof options that could beexplored.


Phase 3: Refinement of thePreferred Option (March–November 2002)The purpose of this phase was to refine thepreferred option and expand on the basicprinciples and concepts. Management recom-mendations also were developed to addresssome of the critical programmatic issues thathad been identified earlier.

Public involvement activities in this phaseincluded:

• A third series of focus group meetings toreview the preferred option. The groups alsoreviewed the Guiding Principles and wereasked to address how the concept reflectedthe ideas and concerns expressed during theearlier meetings.

• Three Preview Days were held at PioneerPlace Mall, Lloyd Center, and Midland Libraryto present the preferred option and to encour-

concepts that received the greatest support. Ofthe three options that were presented, OptionC received the most support. Many felt that itsmore natural, curved pathway was a nicecontrast to the grid of the city; it still allowedfor large open spaces; altered the seawall theleast, and was the easiest to fund and gaincommunity support. Several ideas from the twoother options also were integrated into whatbecame the “preferred option.”

Option A : Bringing the street grid into the park in a series of plazas and overlooks.


age attendance at the Open House. Nearly450 people attended the preview day events.

• An Open House at the Portland Buildingwas held in November: The event itself, withstaff, presentations and displays interpretingthe plan by section of the park drew nearly130 attendees.

• Web Pages: the project web page was updatedto share the plan with the community, as well

as advertise the upcoming open house andpreview days. During the week following theannouncement (via e-mail) that the latest planwas on the web site, it received over 1,300 hits.

The results of these public events confirmedthat there was broad public support for thepreferred option. There were still a few aspectsof the plan that required more discussion, but ingeneral, there appeared to be overall approval.

Option B : Using fluid river forms to create a generous plaza and a series of grass terraces. Option C : A winding pathway divides the park into riverside meadows and downtown plazas.


The focus groups agreed with the overalldirection of the plan. Group members liked theorganization and scale of spaces, the idea of acurved walkway, and the Crescent Meadowwith its improved views of the River. They feltthe design lacked a stronger connection acrossNaito Parkway, ideas for expanded use of thefestival plaza, needed more concession use, andwere concerned about whether the Navy fleetcould dock during the Rose Festival.

Suggested modifications to the plan and otherideas included providing MAX stops at keyentry-points, improving access from Riverplacesouth of the park, keeping the plan flexibleenough for new uses, programming new ideasfor winter use into the design, and maintainingdirect access to the river at the base of the Bowl.

Comment cards at the public events indicatedstrong support for the improvements to theBowl and Salmon Street Springs, strongsupport for seating terraces, a new walkway

along the water’s edge, a riparian edge withaccess to the water, a mini-amphitheatertucked into the curve of the old HawthorneBridge off-ramp, and replacement of therestrooms with a new building for park services.

Comment cards at thepublic events indicatedstrong support for many

of the proposedimprovements.


Through the initial stages of the project,several key issues were identified. Ad-dressing and resolving these issues was consid-ered to be essential if the plan was to besuccessful. A preliminary analysis by PortlandParks and Recreation staff defined many ofthese critical problems. Through discussionwith other groups and citizens during theplanning process, a more complete understand-ing of these issues—along with potentialsolutions—began to emerge. The followingsection summarizes key issues.

Impact of Events on the ParkSince the park was first developed, events havebeen a part of the it. Over the last decadehowever, the number and size of events hasincreased to the point where it has become aconsistent concern in public workshops andsurveys. Specific issues that were mentionedmost often included the appearance of some

Planning Issues

events, the lack of access to the waterfront,impact on the park’s turf, noise, and theperception that the events were “always inthe park.”

Through the planning process, the positiveaspects and benefits of the events also wereidentified. These included attracting visitorsto the city, reinforcing the downtown as thecenter of the metropolitan area, bringing lifeto the park, and generating revenue forarea businesses.

Access to the WaterDepending on interpretation, access to thewater can have a variety of meanings, but it isclear that it holds a high priority amongvisitors. A survey of park users and focusgroups for the master plan indicated a strongpreference for views of and access to theWillamette River. Access can mean havingclose-up clear views, the ability to walk along a

A chart indicating how the park is used by large events during thesummer months (April–September). The white portions of the chartindicate when the park is available for unprogrammed use.


riparian edge, a dock, or walkway of varyingproximity to the water. Due to the presence ofthe seawall, there are limited places wherepeople have direct access to the water exceptat the Ankeny dock, which is in disrepair. Thefoot of the Bowl along the south waterfront hasa small, exposed riparian edge; however, it is notpresently designed for public access or viewing.

Access across Naito ParkwayThe shortage of entry points into the park fromthe downtown illustrates another problem withthe current situation—the park is visually andfunctionally cut off from the downtown byNaito Parkway. The visual separation is amelio-rated somewhat by the trees that line bothsides of the parkway, and in the median. Thethree lines of trees, however, reinforces thestreet side of the park as a strong “edge” orbarrier. The shortage of entry points along thestreet and the lack of a sidewalk in the parkpronounce this edge effect.

Although the park is a mile long and stretchesout over 20 blocks, it has only nine “designated”entry points from the downtown. These entrypoints occur at Ankeny, Salmon and Columbiastreet intersections along Naito Parkwayapproximately. Pedestrians cross at many otherpoints however, often jaywalking through themedian strip from one side to the other.

A planned renovation of Naito Parkway by thecity’s Office of Transportation (PDOT) offersgreat potential to address this problem. Engi-neers from PDOT have agreed to work withPPR to integrate park improvements withchanges proposed in the Naito Parkwayrenovation. As a result, additional pedestriancrossings into the park can be built when thestreet is improved in 2005. A bike lane on theparkway should also help to remove some ofthe bicycle traffic that now uses the WaterfrontPark esplanade.

Top : Damage to the grass after one of the major events in the park.Bottom : The edge of the Bowl is one of the only areas in the park toaccess the water, but it is not designed for easy access or comfortableseating.


Circulation within the ParkCurrently, there is no separation betweendifferent modes of transportation within thepark—bikes, pedestrians and skateboards, etc.all share the same path system. Most of thecirculation along the length of the park occursalong the 25' wide Esplanade at the river’s edge,as it is the only paved north/south path. Bothcommuters and recreational users share thispath; therefore it can become very crowdedduring peak hours and lead to some conflicts.

Connections to the BridgesAlthough there are excellent views over thepark from the four bridges that cross over it,access into the park is frequently difficult.Connections are good to and from theHawthorne Bridge, using the pedestrian andbicycle off-ramps. Access to and from theMorrison Bridge, however, is from across Naito

Parkway, and is not universally accessible. Toaccess the Burnside Bridge, one must walk twoblocks into downtown before reaching the on/off ramp. There is a stair connection to/from theupper level of the Steel Bridge, but it is confus-ingly laid out, dark, and feels unsafe. The newergrade level connection along the Steel Bridge tothe Eastbank however, is well used.

Diagram of the current circulation routes and access points to the park. The red linesindicate the many barriers or lack of formal crosswalks into the park.


Inappropriate Use of the ParkThe northern part of the park, around the pumpstation site, is well known as the site of drugdealing and a relatively large population oftransients. The problem appears to be fairlyconsistent, despite constant attention from thepolice. Likely causes of the problem are the lack

A bathymetry diagram of the river, showing areas that flooded during the 1996 flood. A cross-section construction drawing of the seawall, illustrating the magnitude of thestructure, much of it below water.

of any legitimate activity or business that wouldgenerate more positive use, and an insufficientdensity of supporting uses such as residences,restaurants, office space, and commercialactivities. At present, there is little to drawvisitors to that part of the park as a destination,unless a programmed event was occurring.


Top : There is no visual access to the river from Naito Parkway.Bottom : There is no direct connection from the Morrison Bridge intothe park.

Maintaining Flood ProtectionThe sea wall was built in 1927 and is 31' tall.The ordinary high water mark today for thislocation is 16.6 NGVD or 18.00 COP datum.Technically, the top of bank would be 2' aboveCOP datum line or 20'. The 100 year flood isestimated at 28.7' and the 500 year flood isestimated at the 33.6' level.

In 1996, a flood exceeded the top of the walland almost flooded downtown. Historically inPortland (pre-seawall), the floodplain extendedto the western boundary of Naito Parkway. Theseawall is maintained today by the Bureau ofMaintenance, and moorage of visiting shipsmust be coordinated with the Harbor Master,Bureau of Maintenance, Portland Parks andRecreation, and Water Bureau.


A New Vision for Gov. Tom McCall Waterfront Park

The ultimate goals of the Master Plan are simple—to bring greater enrichment tothose who live, work, and seek recreation in downtown Portland, Oregon; to bringpeople together; to generate more life in the park; and to strengthen its connection to the

downtown. These ideas were a part of the 1975 plan and they remain powerful and

compelling notions. Much has changed in the city since then however, and a fresh approach

to achieving these goals has to be defined. The new concept maintains the park—as it was

stated in the original plan—as a “prime recreation resource particularly for those who

live, work or shop in downtown.” The Master Plan reiterates another goal from the

previous plan to provide a “strong formal framework for all present and future

elements…urban in character, harmonious with the order and form of the downtown, and

capable of handling large community activities… .”

Aerial photo of Waterfront Park and downtown, looking south. TheBurnside Bridge is in the foreground.


The seawall is a major element of the City’sflood control and protection system. Whilealterations are proposed for the seawall, thepark will be maintained at the same level ofprotection that both the current seawall andtemporary emergency panels provide. Primaryprotection will be provided by grading the parkto the same elevation as the existing seawall.

At a secondary level, protection will be pro-vided by temporary emergency infill panels,similar to what is used today.

While the intent is to retain what now works,the Master Plan also proposes changes toaddress current problems, enhance existingfeatures, and to meet future needs. Since the

Diagram showing alterations to the seawall proposed by the Master Plan (in red), and the extent of flooding during the 100 year flood.


1975 plan was completed, circumstances andconditions both in the park and around it havechanged. The downtown has emerged as atruly regional destination and the city is nowfinding ways to strengthen it even further as avibrant place to live and work.

As it was in 1975, Waterfront Park is a key partof this strategy and many of the proposals inthe plan are designed to solidify its role as aregional attraction. Where the original planfocused mainly on the park’s relationship to thedowntown, the new concept also seeks connec-tions across the river, to the Eastbank Espla-nade, to the Oregon Convention Center, andOMSI. The design team also looked for cuesfrom the North Macadam Project, the RoseQuarter redevelopment, and the transforma-tion of the River District. Linkages to all ofthese developing areas are embedded in therecommendations

To this end, the Master Plan includes a seriesof dramatic but very functional ideas. It main-

tains a large expanse of lawn while creating anew public plaza intended to be thedowntown’s new “destination space.” This newpublic plaza will be the scene for a constantlychanging schedule of events, activities andprograms. Civic celebrations have been a partof Waterfront Park from its inception in 1975and it is proposed that they will continue to bean integral part of the park.

Other improvements are designed to simplymake the park more beautiful and a more interest-ing place to visit. The ultimate goal is to create avariety of open spaces that can accommodatechanges in use, while offering ample opportuni-ties for individual and group activities thatcontinue, year after year. Ultimately, the parkwill attract people throughout the day,throughout the week, and throughout the year.

The plan also proposes changes to enhance andimprove the life of the city’s waterfront. A replace-ment dock is proposed to encourage more mari-time activity along the seawall. Existing docking

Other improvements aredesigned to simply makethe park more beautifuland a more interestingplace to visit.

An artist’s rendition of an aerial view of what the park would looklike under the proposed master plan.


View of the proposed design for Waterfront Park.


facilities are improved and the park’s historicfeatures are relocated to support this focus onthe waterfront. The plan supports continueddocking of the military ships along the seawall.

Finally, the plan emphasizes the park’s rolewithin its urban context. The Waterfront Plaza issited to reinforce the 2002 Downtown Portland

Retail Strategy, and the Meadow will serve theresidents that are expected to populate thearea just west of the park. The new Promenadeis a winding path that offers visitors a contrastto the compact and dense grid of the downtown.

Through the implementation of these con-cepts, Gov. Tom McCall Waterfront Park willmaintain its role as the center of the region’snetwork of parks and open spaces. With thisfresh vision for the park, it will continue toexemplify the love that Portlanders have fortheir parks, the downtown, and the WillametteRiver. Just as the downtown continues tostrengthen itself as the economic center of theregion, so will Waterfront Park maintain itsrole as the heart of the city, the place thatpeople return to again and again.

A perspective of the park when the plan in fully implemented.


Master Plan Guiding Principles

Integrate and connect the parkwith its surrounding city centerlocation.The plan must emphasize physical connectionsand functional linkages that reinforce the parkas Portland’s primary open space in the heart ofthe city.

• Ensure that the park remains the city’ssignature riverfront park and the focus of theurban open space and riverfront access systems.

• Create stronger pedestrian and cyclistconnections across Naito Parkway and acrossand along the river with the capacity to meetgrowing demands.

• Improve Naito Parkway as a component ofWaterfront Park with complementary usesand activities, including redevelopment ofvacant parcels along the street’s western edge.

Accentuate the riverfrontlocation of the park.The park will provide opportunities for diverseactivities, for visual and physical access to thewater, and should highlight the historicalimportance of the river for Portland.

• Increase opportunities for the general publicto view and interact with the river includingaccess both to bridges and the water’s edge.

• Create destinations within the park thatattract visitors and incorporate environmen-tal and historical interpretation and educa-tion into the park experience. Includefeatures in the park that support waterfrontactivity, including tour boats, historic ships,small cruise vessels, and short term dockingfor commercial and military vessels.

Facilities to accommodate future activities, such as a water bus, areproposed.


Create an environment fordiverse activity and expandedrecreational opportunities.The park will accommodate a broad range ofactivities throughout the year—from major civicgatherings to individual recreation or reflection.

• Create two major centers of activity (such asSalmon Street Springs) at key locations tofoster sociability and interaction, encourageevening activity, and improve a sense ofcomfort and security in the park.

• Create intermediate destinations within thepark that attract visitors and support diverseactivities throughout each season.

• Design the park as a venue for distinctivecivic celebrations, with features and infra-structure that support festivals and canaccommodate temporary art installations andperformance presentations during the dayand evening.

• Create an environment throughout the parkthat invites small group and individual use.

• Provide smaller areas with seating in additionto the large, open, and public spaces in the park.

• Design the park so that users feel safe andsecure, and sightlines for security are keptlargely clear of obstructions.

• Provide a variety of well-designed supportfacilities for visitors, such as securerestrooms, drinking fountains, benches,lighting, and other basic amenities to ensurethat the park is used throughout the year.

A range of expanded activities and opportunities will be encouragedin the park.


Major Development Concepts

Develop two major activitycenters in the park.The first is between the Hawthorne Bridge andSalmon Street Springs and already serves as anattraction in the park. It should be enhancedas a major center of activity and visitor servicesshould be improved.

The second activity center is located at theAnkeny Plaza. The new development willattract “children of all ages” in numbers thatwill discourage illegal activities; developmentshould include an interactive water featurecomparable in scale and vitality of SalmonStreet Springs. The existing dock should beremoved and provision made for replacementconstruction including secure and limitedaccess docking, water, sewer and electricalconnections and other services to accommo-date vessels 100–250’ in length.

Redevelop and improve thelarge lawn area north of theMorrison Bridge as the Meadow.The 1975 plan envisaged an open meadow asthe most flexible of open spaces. The meadowwill serve two primary functions : (1) anoverflow event space; and (2) general parkspace serving future residential developmentexpected in the area west of this section of thepark. It will also provide recreational space forfuture residents, downtown employees, andother visitors looking for a large stretch ofgrass. The area will be crescent shaped be-tween the street and the river and will includesitting steps between the meadow and alowered seawall and Esplanade. Because themeadow will be sloped to the east, everyonewill have broader views of the river from NaitoParkway.

Because the meadow willbe sloped to the east,everyone will havebroader views of the riverfrom Naito Parkway.

Salmon Street Springs is a key attraction in Waterfront Park.


Develop an all-weatherWaterfront Plaza in the vicinityof Yamhill and MorrisonStreets, bordered by the newcurved pathway.An all-weather plaza and adjacent lawn willcreate an improved area for existing civiccelebrations and expand opportunities forevents and celebrations throughout the rest ofthe year. The plaza will be able to accommodatea wide variety of functions including vendor cartclusters, small group performances, temporaryart installations, small festivals, displays, publicgatherings, and other similar activities.

Expand opportunities toexperience the park bydeveloping the Promenade as acurved pathway that meandersthrough the park.The Promenade will be part of an expandedpathway system that increases overall pedes-trian and bike circulation capacity whileenhancing visual access to the river. Thecurving path, which is anchored at one end bySalmon Street Springs, wraps around the riveredge of the Waterfront Plaza, swings backtowards Naito Parkway to embrace theMeadow, swings out over the river at theAnkeny Dock, then returns to the park at theentrance to the Japanese-American HistoricalPlaza. By following the path, visitors will seeand experience contrasting views of the river,tree-lined walks, an open public plaza, andsmaller, more intimate sitting areas.

Food carts are seen as a way to attract greater weekday use of thepark.


Development of the Promenade also createsthe potential for loops within the park, increas-ing the variety of walking opportunities. A newsidewalk along Naito Parkway will create agreater sense of connection between the parkand downtown.

Increase opportunities for thegeneral public to view and havecloser access to the river.Improving access to the water—both visual andfunctional—is an important theme in theMaster Plan and will be accomplished in severalways. Closer visual contact with the water willbe provided in the Meadow where the lawn isregraded slightly to offer a more expansive viewof the river from the eastern half of the park.The new slope, estimated to be about fourpercent, is designed to provide a balancebetween increasing views and providing a slope

that is visually compatible with the rest of thepark and which can accommodate events.

With this regrading, the seawall will be loweredby an estimated eight feet and a set of terracedsitting steps would be developed. In addition, anew floating walkway is proposed under theSteel Bridge to link the Esplanade with theWillamette Greenway trail to the north.

Waterfront Plaza will extend several feet outover the water to provide an expansive vista ofthe river looking both north to the Steel Bridgeand south to OMSI and Ross Island.

The Bowl will be improved at the shoreline toallow easy and safe access to the water’s edge.A sitting area along the new paved watersidepath will expand opportunities for viewingriver activities such as the annual Dragon Boatraces. Riparian plantings will be installed in thesouthern half of the Bowl along the shoreline.

Informal musical performances can help create a sense of life in thepark.


Integrate the Esplanadewith downtown pedestriancorridors and other regionalgreenway trails.The park is a vital part of maintaining thehealth and vitality of downtown. Plans for thedowntown now propose to reinforce Yamhilland Morrison Streets as anchor retail destina-tions. Links between these streets and Water-

front Park thus become more important thanever. To reinforce this connection, viewcorridors along major east-west streets shouldbe developed and extended into WaterfrontPark. By selectively removing some trees alongthe edge, a much stronger visual and pedes-trian connection between the park and down-town will be developed.

Linking the park at the Steel Bridge also is veryimportant. It is essential that a long-termsolution be found to achieve this critical con-nection, which is now compromised by infra-structure left by a former industrial era : ramps,barricades, a rail crossing, leftover pieces of land,and a generally uninviting character.

The Esplanade in Waterfront Park must be main-tained as an extension of existing and plannedriverfront paths from the North Macadamdistrict to the south and the River District tothe north. Connections to the Eastbank Espla-nade also are critical because it forms the easternhalf of a popular walking and cycling loop.An illustration of the proposed waterside path along The Bowl, looking south. Improvements will provide both seating and unobstructed views

of the river.


Circulation and Access

One of the fundamental aspects of the parkto be improved through the Master Planis the system of access and circulation. Theoverall goal is to provide more opportunitiesfor pedestrian and bicycle circulation withinthe park and to accommodate an increase inuse on the park’s paths and walkways, espe-cially on the Esplanade. Access into the parkfrom across the street is also addressed. Theseimprovements should be coordinated withprojects within the Naito Parkway corridor andwith redevelopment of properties immediatelyto the west, that effectively front the park.

Develop and maintain a systemof circulation routes in the parkwhich are linked to other down-town and east-side corridors.The circulation system in the park comprisesthree major elements:

• The Esplanade : a 20–25' wide corridor alongthe seawall with a minimum of 20' ofthrough circulation. It is expected that thiswill be a mixed-use corridor that extendsfrom the Steel Bridge to Riverplace. Theexisting Esplanade will have to be expandedin places to create this wider corridor.

• The Promenade : a new 10–15' wide mixed-use path that winds through the park fromthe Hawthorne Bridge to the Japanese-American Historical Plaza.

• Walkways and Sidewalks : a new sidewalkalong Naito Parkway will be 6–8' widethrough the full length of the park. Othernew east–west walkways to connect thesidewalk with the Esplanade will be 10–12'wide, and will serve as multi-use paths.

The park is not suitable for high speed,obstruction-free cycling; bicycle lanes onNaito Parkway will serve that need. The parkwill be suitable for cyclists willing and able toride slowly on a shared, multi-use path. The existing Esplanade is heavily used, currently serving as the only

significant path in the park.


construct ramps, stairs, or other verticalconnections to allow direct access betweenthe bridges into the park.

• Eliminate impediments to easy pedestrianand bicycle access to and from the bridges.

Work with other city and county departmentsand coordinate park improvements with plans

for the Burnside Bridge, the Morrison Bridge,the Steel Bridge, and the Hawthorne Bridge asa way of developing an integrated circulationsystem for everyone. The current plan calls fornew access connections from the park to boththe Burnside and Morrison bridges. The newaccess points are envisioned to include both astair and access for visitors who are disabled.

Proposed circulation system for the park and its surroundings.

Create stronger pedestrian andbicycle connections across andalong the river, with increasedcapacity to meet growingcontemporary and future needs.• Improve pedestrian and bicycle access from

the bridges into the park. Where feasible,


Events and Program Management

Public events have been an integral part ofWaterfront Park since its creation and it isrecommended that this continue, with the goalof attaining a balance between programmedand unprogrammed activities throughout thepark and through all seasons. Along with thisgoal are a series of recommendations designedto address existing issues and problems, im-prove the overall fit between the park andthese activities, and to establish a model forthe long-term management of the park.

A persistent problem for the informal park userhas been the proportion of summer monthsduring which much of the park is fenced off forthe installation, dismantling, and recovery frommajor events. It is an objective of the plan toshorten those periods of interruption of parkuse and limit the area affected.

Develop a long-term strategy tocoordinate programs andevents, oversee implementation

Aerial shot of an event on Waterfront Park’s lawn.


of the Master Plan, and provideoverall management of thepark’s operations.• In consideration of the unique character of

the park, establish a permanent entity towork with Portland Parks to develop amanagement plan, create and apply eventguidelines and ensure that the goals of theMaster Plan are, and continue to be, fulfilled.

• Work with other agencies to expand theinventory of additional sites for growing andexpanding events.

Manage the schedule and locationof events in the park to maintaina balance between programmedand unprogrammed activities• Use the Waterfront Plaza as the primary

location for events, civic celebrations, andfestivals staged in the park.

• Encourage smaller one- and two-day eventsin the park to provide a greater number andvariety of programs and to promote year-round use of the park.

• Encourage events that stimulate positiveactivity in the park during the off-peakseason (October–April).

• Expand the role of Portland Parks andRecreation in promoting and providingprograms in Waterfront Park.

Large scale and multi-day eventsshould be designed to respectthe signature location and highcommunity value of the site; tomake efficient use of a minimumnumber of areas of the overallpark; and to maximize theopportunity for general public

The Illuminata Festival is a good example of an event that focussedon the Willamette River.


access and enjoyment of thebalance of the park.A management committee will encourageevents to meet the following criteria:

• An event should be unique in character andquality, such that it attracts broad commu-nity and visitor attendance; generatesnational awareness of Portland and thePacific Northwest; celebrates activities,resources, artists and products distinctive tothe Pacific Northwest;

• An event should take full advantage of thelocation, characteristics and features of theriverfront site, utilizing the Willamette Riveralong with the adjacent lands, and drawingparticipation from throughout the region;and

• An event should celebrate the heritage,values, diversity and international relation-ships of the Pacific Northwest.

Establish guidelines for theexternal appearance of eventsalong Naito Parkway, theEsplanade, and along other edges.• Fencing may be needed in certain events for

security and fundraising purposes. To ensurethat the public access and aesthetic issues areaddressed, fencing plans shall be developedas a collaborative effort by event organizersand the Park’s management committee andthe fencing will be in place for the shortesttime possible to still accomplish those goals.

• Encourage the use of well-designed modularfencing along Naito Parkway to provide aconsistent appearance for events.

• The location of fence panels should beflexible enough to allow events to create adistinctive identity while maintaining acohesive and acceptable edge along the park.

Events that highlight the Pacific Northwest are encouraged inWaterfront Park.


Maintain public accessthrough designated corridorsduring events.• Maintain the Esplanade along the seawall as

a continuous public pathway during events;to the extent feasible, keep the new NaitoParkway sidewalk open and accessible as well.

• Maintain east–west pedestrian corridors fromdowntown as open pathways during events.Specific corridors will be identified for eachevent through the permit review process.The need for east–west pedestrian corridorswill be balanced with the need for north–south access during events.

Encourage small-scaleactivities to provide variety andlife in the park.

More seating areas, with views of the river, are proposed.

• Promote and manage the inclusion of foodcarts and other vendors in the park atstrategic locations.

• Develop a program, policies, and permitsystem to manage food carts and other vendors.

• Promote appropriate rental services forpark visitors (skates, bikes, etc.) to encour-age higher levels of activity throughout allfour seasons.


Interpretation and Education

Acomprehensive program of interpretiveelements is recommended for the park.Although the park includes several sites ofhistorical and cultural interest, very little isprovided to identify and describe them for thepublic. A system of new and updated interpre-tive elements should be prepared and installedin the park to instill an appreciation for theriver, the site, the park and other features, andtheir history.

Provide a variety of ways forvisitors to learn about the park,the river, and the site’s history.• Develop educational and interpretive

elements regarding the environmentalimportance of the Willamette River, thedevelopment and use of the adjacent lands,as well as preservation of vegetative buffers,and fish and wildlife habitat within theurban area.

• Develop the Salmon Springs activity area asa focal point for directions and informationon features of the park, amenities and servicesavailable, as well as adjacent points of interest.

• Develop interpretive elements at the AnkenyPlaza activity area for education on stormwatersystems from home to river and their relationto the environmental quality of the region.

• Wherever possible, incorporate interpretiveelements into the designs for built andexisting elements of the park (walls, walk-ways, light standards, bridgehead structures)to achieve a harmonious design environment.

• Develop a system of informational anddirectional signs to guide visitors within thepark and to other adjacent attractions.

• The signs and graphics should be coordi-nated with the designs for park fixtures andfurnishings to ensure effectiveness with aminimum of clutter.

Better interpretive signage is proposed for the park, such as thisexample from Baltimore.

Although the parkincludes several sitesof historical and culturalinterest, very little isprovided to identifyand describe themfor the public.


Public Art

Public art has been an integral part of thepark from its inception, expanding eachvisitor’s experience. A variety of public artinstallations and activities are proposed,including permanent sculpture, temporaryexhibits, and interpretive elements to enrichperception of the place.

Integrate public art throughoutthe park using a variety of mediaand cultural offerings.• Embellish the park’s sidewalks, plazas,

entryways and bridgeheads as opportunitiesfor artistic interpretations. Potential ideasinclude:

– water : river or fountainheads;

– vegetation : trees or landscaped areas;

– transportation : along street, bicyclecorridor, pedestrian walkways;

The Story Garden near the Ankeny Stage may find a more suitable setting elsewhere in the park.


– bridgeheads : including lighting,projections, and historical andinterpretive plaques; and

– plazas : include support pads andanchor points for both temporaryand unplanned performance, dance,festivals, and sculpture.

Integrate permanent public artworks into the overall design ofthe park.• As the park is redeveloped, design teams

should include artists as active membersthroughout the process.

Relocate existing artworks tosites that reflect their originalcontext and intent, and inaccordance with the 1990 VisualArts Rights Act (VARA).• Relocate the Story Garden and the Steel

Wall Sculpture to sites that provide anappropriate context for each piece. Thesesites may be within the park or at otherpublic sites. The artist shall be consulted aspart of the relocation process.

A variety of public artinstallations and activities

are proposed, includingpermanent sculpture,

temporary exhibits, andinterpretive elements.

An existing sculpture in Friendship Plaza, just south of theBurnside Bridge.


Memorials

The park now features three significantmemorials and many smaller plaquesscattered throughout the park. While theseadd to the overall character of the park, thereis a limit to how many memorials can beaccommodated with the dignity they deserve,and without compromising the many otherfunctions demanded by park users. Conse-quently, it has been determined that thereshould be no additional memorials. The goal isnot to discourage the commemoration ofindividuals or events but rather to enrich thepark without distracting from its basic attractions.

No further memorials will bepermitted in the park.• The existing city-wide moratorium on

memorials will be established in WaterfrontPark as a permanent policy. In general,memorials that are significant in size and aredesigned to be attractions in and of them-selves will not be permitted.

Park furnishings (any builtfeature, landscaping, fixtures, orfurnishings) that are designed toimplement the Master Plan maybe installed and identified ascommemoration.• Portland Parks and Recreation will manage a

process for establishing contribution levels andidentification standards for such commemoration.

• Sponsoring groups or individuals for theseprojects will be part of the planning anddesign process, but overall management andcontrol over the project shall be the respon-sibility of Portland Parks and Recreation.

• Existing memorials will not be expandedbeyond their current boundaries.

• Any change to existing memorials will be subjectto review and approval by Portland Parks andRecreation. The expansion and the additionof other physical elements will not be allowed.

Note : Policies on memorials in Waterfront Park shall be consistent with those contained in the pending Portland Parks and Recreation Memorial Policy.

By limiting future memorials, the dignity of these historic monumentswill be protected.


Vegetation and Landscape Character

Existing mature trees do much to definethe overall form and character of the park.The Master Plan proposes that most of thesewill remain. In some parts of the park, addi-tional plantings are recommended to achievedesign goals. Where possible, native speciesthat provide useful habitat or visual interestshould be used. Plant materials that provideseasonal color also will continue to be part ofthe park’s planting design.

Maintain existing mature treeswherever possible and wherethey are consistent with themaster plan.

The landscape character of thepark should reflect its urbanlocation, the variety of activitiesto be accommodated,

maintenance and operationconsiderations, andcoordination with plantingsalong Naito Parkway.• Large shade trees shall be maintained along

Naito Parkway and along the Esplanade,except along the water’s edge of the Bowland along the Esplanade north of theBurnside Bridge, where open views of thewater are intended.

• Informal groves of trees shall be provided inselected areas to provide specific areas ofshade without compromising visibility orsecurity.

• Plantings along the shoreline of the Bowlshould be low-growing native species consis-tent with the riparian character of thelocation, furthering the desire for open viewof the water.

Spring blossoms in the Japanese-American Historical Plaza, north ofthe Burnside Bridge.

Existing mature trees domuch to define the overallform and character ofthe park.


Use native plants extensively,though not exclusively, toenhance the educational valueof the park.

All plantings shall be designedand maintained to promote asense of security for visitors.• Trees species should be those that can be

limbed and pruned to allow views throughbranches and below canopies.

• Shrub beds should be maintained to allowviews over plants or to allow views throughthe plant materials.

• Shrub beds should be designed to avoidcreating blind spots that compromise security.

In selecting new trees for thepark, provide a mix ofornamental and native varieties,which are appropriate in scaleand form to each location.

Shrub beds and floral displaysshould be strategically locatedto highlight major park entries,complement memorials andother special park features, andto screen utilities and otherstructures as needed.• Because of their higher maintenance costs,

shrub beds and floral plantings should besited for maximum effect.

Smaller, more intimate seating areas are proposed along the edgesof the park.


Site Design

The overall character of the park will beinfluenced by a series of design decisionsas the park is redeveloped and maintained.The design of individual elements such asbenches and lighting fixtures should be part ofa coordinated palette of furnishings. A com-mitment to sustainable and environmentallyresponsible design should also be part of thepark’s redevelopment strategy.

Promote sustainability andexcellence in the design,construction, and managementof park improvements.• Minimize stormwater runoff from both the

park and impervious surfaces and collaboratewith the Bureau of Environmental Servicesto provide treatment and retention systemswhere appropriate.

• Design the Waterfront Plaza as a feature thatis permeable, easy to maintain, minimizesrunoff, and is consistent with the characterof the area.

• Reuse and re-establish existing utilitysystems which have been designed to servepark functions and events. Provide similarservice to support vendors in each redevel-oped area of the park as required. Theseservices include: water, sanitary sewer, powerand natural gas with quick connect servicevaults. Coordinate locations of vaults withevent planning staff.

Minimize environmentalimpacts of site developmentthrough responsible design andconstruction practices.

The overall character ofthe park will beinfluenced by a series ofdesign decisions as thepark is redeveloped andmaintained.


Maintain a set of designguidelines to govern theselection of site furnishings thatare found in the park.• These guidelines shall address at least the

following elements :

– Fencing

– Seating

– Trash Receptacles

– Drinking Fountains

– Display Fountains

– Telephones

– Lighting

– Signs

– Utility Monuments and Access

Comfortable places to sit and relax need to be part of a coordinated array of park furnishings.


Recommendations by Sector

The following section discusses the MasterPlan development recommendations indetail for each section of Waterfront Park.

The BowlThe Bowl will be maintained as a grassy openspace that offers unobstructed views of theriver and access to the water. It will continueto serve as a venue for informal events as wellas concerts and performances. The grassamphitheater will be maintained and a fewseating terraces will be added to provideadditional seating for informal use and forevents. Other changes are designed to : (a)improve the site for public access duringperformances, (b) enhance pedestrian circula-tion, (c) provide greater access for visitors whoare disabled, and (d) create a more accessibleedge along the water complemented withriparian plantings.

• Develop a series of terraces to providemore seating in the Bowl. The terraces willbe located towards the western edge of theBowl, to retain the large grassy area in thecenter. The terraces will be designed so theycan be used by events, for seating, or forbooths. The addition of trees to provideshade for the terraced sitting areas will beconsidered at the design developmen

Waterfront Park Master Plan - Portland, Oregon...Jacinta McCann, Principal Steve Hanson, Project...

Documents

Transcript of Waterfront Park Master Plan - Portland, Oregon...Jacinta McCann, Principal Steve Hanson, Project...