Reflections on public space strategies in Portland and Seattle
From the power of citizen activists to a stable funding model for parks, five key takeaways from a study visit to Portland and Seattle

In August, representatives of the five Reimagining the Civic Commons cities flew to the West Coast for the latest Civic Commons Learning Journey — an opportunity for civic asset managers, public space advocates, public agency staff and non-profit and business leaders to learn about innovative practices and projects from cities around the world. While on the same coast, Portland and Seattle offered very different lessons for those pursuing social impact through revitalized and connected civic assets.
Here, participants share their key takeaways that they hope to apply to their own work.
1. Activists can punch above their weight
In Portland, small groups of citizen activists working together — even some individuals who started out on their own — are doing significant on-the-ground work and making real change in civic assets.
Kelli Fetter, Downtown Akron Partnership: “One of the common themes that stood out to me in both cities was the idea that working together to accomplish goals — while often more challenging — is much more rewarding….We saw this concept play out in so many projects we visited: the bike lanes on Naito Parkway, the Oregon Public House, public/private partnerships in the Pearl District and park projects in Portland. True collaboration is challenging and messy, but the end result is far greater than if we all worked alone.”

Mallory McClaire, Rebuild Foundation: “Our team was especially inspired by the level of citizen activism seen in Portland. Not just the fact that residents are compelled to step up to the plate when local government can’t or won’t, but that they are able to deliver results on a pretty significant scale…. The work of Linda Robinson and Friends of the Gateway Green was especially inspiring. We were equally as impressed by her initiative to mobilize the City and her neighbors around building a park as we were by the Parks Department’s willingness to take on such an unprecedented project. Whether they will take on a partnership of this nature again seemed to be unclear, but I certainly hope that completing the project will change the way both parties’ approach collaborative projects in the future.”
Caitlin Murphy, Live6 Alliance: “During the Learning Journey, we were particularly intrigued by the sense of pride in civic engagement that was present when speaking with Portlanders. Nearly everyone that we connected with described that they spend their free time volunteering with non-profit organizations and advocating on issues that impact their communities and surrounding environment. Transit reform, connectivity and environmental justice were common interests….Many were ditching motor vehicles all together and opting into biking as a cleaner and healthier alternative.”
2. Creatively funding operations and maintenance over the long-term is possible
The City of Seattle Parks and Recreation Department shared how creating a Park District, with special taxing authority, offers a means for more stable and sustainable funding to support operations and maintenance for parks that have suffered from years of budget cuts and long-deferred maintenance. This model has allowed the department to fix and rebuild existing parks, and even create new parks and public spaces.

Jennifer Mahar, Fairmount Park Conservancy: “Moving the needle on increasing city budgets for operations and maintenance in parks and recreation systems sometimes feels impossible. Numerous reports (from Center for Active Design’s Assembly to Penn Praxis’s Civic Infrastructure) show that maintenance of our public spaces is key in generating civic trust, community engagement and public safety. And while it is easy to understand why capital projects are appealing to funders and political leaders (our cities need more innovative parks, the before and after photos are great press draws and neighbors are always thankful for improved spaces), supporting new spaces without increased capacity for operations perpetuates an ongoing cycle of decline and restore.


“From 2000 to 2014, Seattle Parks and Recreation saw reduced funding for operations and maintenance, suffered through 200 layoffs and built up an estimated $267 million in deferred maintenance. After years of budget cycle reductions, the Seattle Parks Foundation led an advocacy campaign for the creation of a metropolitan park district — a funding mechanism that can collect up to 75 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value. In 2017, at a rate of 27.5 cents, the Park District generated $49 million for the city’s park system. In comparison, Seattle’s park budget is twice that of Philadelphia’s — with about half the acreage.

“If Seattle can achieve public momentum and approval for a tax that supports the park system, so can Philadelphia. The city has a fleet of non-profit organizations activating public space, thousands of advocates in our park friends network and a forward thinking administration. Additionally, Philadelphia needs to capitalize on the momentum of Rebuild — a $500 million investment in park and recreation center improvements — and bring the maintenance and operating needs to the forefront. Learning about the Seattle model has given myself and my colleagues ideas and hope for prioritizing maintenance needs in our amazing park system.”
3. Language can paint a picture
Many of the advocates and officials with whom we spoke in Portland emphasized the importance of using storytelling to change negative perceptions about public space. One particular example, the Human Access Project’s work to bring Portlanders back to the Willamette River after decades of stigma, left a big impression.

Kelli Fetter, Downtown Akron Partnership: “The Human Access Project’s mission is to ‘transform Portland’s relationship with the Willamette River.’ The river, a once polluted and undesirable body of water running through downtown and the inner east side of Portland, is now home to beaches, swimming clubs, recreation and more. Yet when HAP started in 2010, this was far from the reality. Founder Willie Levenson shared with us how his group worked to the change the narrative about the river from a place that people would not even touch, to a place that now hosts thousands each year for the celebration that is The Big Float. HAP’s lesson is this: if you give in to the negative comments you have lost hope. Instead, work to change the narrative and show people they are wrong.”
Helen Hope, Memphis River Parks Partnership: “In Memphis, our work heavily revolves around bringing downtown to the bluff (editors’ note: the Fourth Bluff overlooks the Mississippi River) and the bluff to the riverfront and the riverfront to the water. Many people’s connection stops at the top of the bluff, never mind going out onto the water itself. How do you create and raise connections when people have been barked at to stay away their entire lives?

“The Human Access Project proved that life’s not always a beach, and you have to influence the language and thought to make change real. Frustrated by the negativity and jokes about the dangerous and dirty river, Willie Levenson worked to change this perception and invoke love, care, and pride into the riverfront. Through the ever-present activist nature in which Portlanders seem to have begun every project with, Willie organized The Big Float — a splash mob of inner-tubers in the river to viscerally change perceptions of the river and transform Portlanders’ relationship with it. People began to speak differently about the river. Their relationships floated from visual to tangible…. Continued change spreads, as people who saw the new access put two and two together and began to come down to the water. Now, one of the most popular spots for selfies by teenagers is at the end of a swimming dock jutting out into a river, a place that was dubbed dangerous and dirty only a decade or so prior.”
Caitlin Murphy, Live6 Alliance: “Overcoming environmental stigma at the Willamette River is a lesson that stuck with us and is very relevant to the outcomes that we seek to achieve in Detroit. This summer we began the conversation of environmentalism and access within local food systems during our Storefront Stories Dinner Series at Neighborhood HomeBase. As we continue and expand the series, our hope is that we will be able to dig deeper into our collective relationship with the local environment and the impact that it has on our daily lives. We know that access to nature and healthy foods are just a few social determinants of health, but we are learning that perceptions of vacancy and neglect also affect self-esteem and community relationships. The model for reclaiming vacant lots in the Fitzgerald neighborhood could lead to larger conversations regarding stewardship, care, and ultimately public health.”
4. Centering mixed income neighborhoods on civic assets
There is growing evidence that mixed income neighborhoods promote opportunity. Seattle’s Yesler Terrace, a 30-acre Seattle Housing Authority site that is in the midst of being redeveloped into a mixed income neighborhood, offers an example of anchoring a mixed income community through high quality civic assets — public places where everyone is welcome and diversity can flourish.

Bridget Marquis, Civic Commons Learning Network: “The redevelopment of Yesler Terrace –replacing 561 original affordable housing units, and building nearly 1,100 additional affordable units alongside 3,000 market rate units–could easily feel monolithic and devoid of social fabric. Yet by prioritizing high quality public spaces such as the Yesler Community Center, a LEED Gold building that opened in 2004, and the recently completed Yesler Terrace Park, you can see a glimpse of a future where diverse residents share space and a sense of community is formed.


“I believe the benefit of mixed income neighborhoods is due in part to the socioeconomic mixing that they support–the day-to-day interactions among a diversity of people that creates connections and develops bridging social capital. However, these shared public places are often an afterthought during the redevelopment process. By leading with public spaces that everyone will want to use, Seattle’s Yesler Terrace offers not only mixed income housing, but also the social infrastructure that can deliver the full benefits of that diversity.”
5. Connections matter
Public space experts sometimes consider physical connections — trails, paths and other infrastructure improvements — but the opportunity to think about how public places are designed, programmed and operated to connect people with one another is also vital.


Susan Dalton, Innovate Memphis: “Connections are important, and visual ones are easily consumed and effective. At the Arleta Triangle, a small lot near multiple crossroads, created an unwelcoming and potentially dangerous pedestrian experience. The historic car-centric streets were a barrier for many pedestrians attempting to walk to the nearby community center and park. Over the past 15 years, people have been working to ensure the streets serve people and provide connections to community assets — coffee shops, markets, parks, and more. The community identified the need for a place of social cohesion and physical haven — and they built it together. Carpenters donated time and skill to make benches, neighbors brought flowering plants and landscaping rocks, built a community shed and painted markers to invigorate the space with life. The space transformed into a pleasant place between crossing streets and a haven that citizens felt a sense of ownership around.”
Reimagining the Civic Commons is a collaboration between The JPB Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, The Kresge Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation and local partners.
