Buildings
52%480 of 716 ratedAssessed 2018
Maintenance · condition atlas
The real condition of Portland's parks
Every assessed asset Portland Parks & Recreation has published — 14,138 buildings, bridges, playgrounds, courts, fields, paths, fences and amenities — mapped and broken down by condition and survey year. Built straight from the City's own assessment layers. We show condition and the year it was measured, never a modeled repair cost.
14,138
Assets assessed (built)
15%
Poor or very bad (4–5)
250 / 316
Parks with assessments
72,310
Assets inventoried, all kinds
Share of assets poor / very-bad
Critical≥40%
Poor20–40%
Watch10–20%
Mostly sound<10% poor/very-bad
Not yet assessedno 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
That figure only appears if you count every asset that isn't brand-new. Across the City's own ratings, 86% of assessed assets are anything below pristine (condition 2–5) — but assets that are genuinely poor or very bad (4–5) are only 15%; about half sit at “fair.” The dollar backlog is real; the “86% failing” framing is the overcount.
The real concentration is in buildings: 52% of the 480assessed building records are poor or very bad (2018 survey). That's where the maintenance backlog actually lives.
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
Where it's worst
Parks in the toughest shape
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 2 / North-Northeast · 20 assets rated
- 2Heron Lakes Golf Course67%District 4 / Westside · 21 assets rated
- 3Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge51%District 3 / Southeast · 41 assets rated
- 4Woodlawn Park48%District 2 / North-Northeast · 120 assets rated
- 5Gammans Park47%District 4 / Westside · 30 assets rated
- 6Sewallcrest Park40%District 3 / Southeast · 53 assets rated
- 7Couch Park39%District 4 / Westside · 59 assets rated
- 8Sunnyside School Park36%District 3 / Southeast · 47 assets rated
- 9Forest Park33%District 4 / Westside · 21 assets rated
- 10Clinton Park33%District 3 / Southeast · 73 assets rated
The repair backlog, in context
A real number, honestly framed
PP&R estimates a $550–800 milliondeferred-maintenance backlog, cited in the City Auditor's 2025 Parks Fiscal Management report. We independently reconstructed it from this same public inventory and standard restore-cost fractions and landed near the middle of that range — so the dollar figure is defensible, even though it's a modeled estimate rather than a line-item invoice (those costs live in PP&R's internal asset-management system, not in any public layer).
What this atlas adds is the honest condition picture underneath that number: which assets, which parks, and how recently each was measured — assessment vintages span 2007 to 2022.
Why 15% here vs. ~19% in our written analysis: this headline pools every built family, including the 6,022amenities & furnishings last assessed back in 2007 — relatively sound, which pulls the aggregate down. Restricted to the newer condition surveys (2018–2022), the poor/very-bad share runs closer to 19%. Both are correct for their scope; neither is the “86%.”
Condition is rated 1 (good) to 5 (very bad), verified empirically (newer assets score lower); blank/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 2026-06-14
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)