Buildings
52%480 of 716 ratedAssessed 2018
Maintenance · condition atlas
Published condition assessments for Portland's parks
This Atlas brings together 14,138 rated built-asset records from selected published City assessment layers, including buildings, bridges, playgrounds, courts, fields, paths, fences and amenities. Counts and assessment vintages appear below. This is a view of the included records, not a current systemwide inspection or a repair-cost estimate.
14,138
Rated built-asset records
15%
Poor or very bad (4–5)
250 / 316
Properties with assessments
72,310
Records in included inventories
Share of assets poor / very-bad
40% or more rated poor/very bad≥40%
20–under 40% rated poor/very bad20–40%
10–under 20% rated poor/very bad10–20%
Under 10% rated poor/very bad<10% poor/very-bad
No published ratingno rated assets
Dot size ∝ assets assessed
Each dot is a park, placed at its centroid and colored by the share of its assessed assets in poor/very-bad condition. Tap a park for its breakdown. Asset-level points aren't mapped — the public layers we use carry attributes without geometry — so this is a park-level read, not a per-bench map.
About the “86% in poor or very bad condition” headline
The October 2025 City audit reports the bureau's estimate that 86% of assets were in poor or very bad condition as of September 2024. This Atlas finds 15% rated 4–5 within 14,138published built-asset assessments. These populations, assessment dates, definitions and weighting have not been reconciled. The Atlas percentage does not validate or disprove the bureau's estimate.
The highest share is in buildings: 52% of the 480 assessed building records are poor or very bad (2018 survey).
Asset families
Condition by asset family
Share of rated assets in each condition band, good (green) to very bad (red), with the year PP&R surveyed it. Sorted by share in poor/very-bad condition.
Good (1)Above fair (2)Fair (3)Poor (4)Very bad (5)
Sport courts
25%240 of 281 ratedSurvey year not published
Playground equipment
20%931 of 1,127 ratedAssessed 2020
Pathways & trails
20%4,453 of 10,406 ratedSurvey year not published
Bridges
13%61 of 244 ratedAssessed 2021
Sport fields
10%273 of 707 ratedSurvey year not published
Fences
10%1,678 of 3,782 ratedAssessed 2022
Amenities & furnishings
9%6,022 of 8,183 ratedAssessed 2007 (2007–2026)
Separately, the park tree inventory rates 39,172 trees on an Excellent-to-Dead scale — 8%are poor or dead. Trees are a different asset class on a different scale, so they're kept out of the built-asset headline above.
Inventoried, no public condition rating
These families are counted in the City's inventory but carry no public condition score — an honest gap, not a clean bill of health. Pools and fountains in particular are big-ticket items missing from the public condition picture.
Retaining walls · 208Water features (pools, fountains) · 106Light poles · 3,427Picnic areas · 98Plazas & amphitheaters · 46Docks & ramps · 20Skate parks · 28Golf course features · 796Natural areas · 573
By park
Highest share of poor-rated assets
Parks with the highest share of assessed assets in poor or very-bad condition (20+ rated assets, to avoid small-sample noise).
- 1Frazer Park70%District 3 · 20 assets rated · surveyed 2007–2022
- 2Heron Lakes Golf Course67%District 2 · 21 assets rated · surveyed 2007–2018
- 3Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge51%District 4 · 41 assets rated · surveyed 2021
- 4Woodlawn Park48%District 2 · 120 assets rated · surveyed 2007–2022
- 5Gammans Park47%District 2 · 30 assets rated · surveyed 2007–2020
- 6Sewallcrest Park40%District 3 · 53 assets rated · surveyed 2007–2022
- 7Couch Park39%District 4 · 59 assets rated · surveyed 2007–2022
- 8Sunnyside School Park36%District 3 · 47 assets rated · surveyed 2007–2022
- 9Forest Park33%District 4 · 21 assets rated · surveyed 2007–2022
- 10Clinton Park33%District 3 · 73 assets rated · surveyed 2007–2022
The repair backlog, in context
The bureau's estimate and the limits of this inventory
The October 2025 City audit cites PP&R's $550–800 million restoration estimate. This Atlas does not independently validate that estimate. Its public assessment records do not establish complete repair scopes, unit costs, asset coverage or the bureau's valuation method.
Use the family-level assessment dates and counts below each measure. Records span different survey vintages and may not describe current condition. An asset condition rating alone does not establish safety risk, consequence of failure, utilization or investment priority. Reconciling the figures requires the bureau's dated inventory, definitions, weighting and cost basis.
Condition is rated 1 (good) to 5 (very bad), verified empirically (newer assets score lower); no score/0/NA means not yet assessed and is excluded from every percentage. No repair costs are shown — public layers carry condition and quantity only.
Data refreshed 2026-09-12
PortlandMaps — Parks AmenitiesPortlandMaps — Parks Building Assessments (2018)PortlandMaps — Park Bridge Condition (2021)PortlandMaps — Playground Equipment Condition (2020)PortlandMaps — Park Fence Condition (2022)PortlandMaps — Sport FieldsPortlandMaps — CourtsPortlandMaps — Pathways and TrailsPortlandMaps — Park Tree InventoryPortlandMaps — Park Retaining Walls (2022)PortlandMaps — Water FeaturesPortlandMaps — Light PolesPortlandMaps — Picnic AreasPortlandMaps — Plazas & AmphitheatersPortlandMaps — Docks & RampsPortlandMaps — Skate ParksPortlandMaps — Golf Course FeaturesPortlandMaps — Natural Area Land InventoryCity Auditor — Parks Fiscal Management audit (Oct 2025)