A large old elm stood at NW 24th and Pettygrove. The city’s own tree inventory listed it in good condition and as an important part of the neighborhood canopy. Neighbors were then told it was diseased and had to come down.
At the same time, the city was rebuilding all four pedestrian ramps at that corner. Three were finished. The fourth ran into the elm’s roots, which had lifted the ground. I remember looking at that spot and wondering how they would handle the roots. Now I know. They removed a healthy, mature tree so the concrete would be easier to pour.
The city often goes overboard protecting trees when a private project is involved. Here, the tree lost to construction convenience.
I was a kid in NW Portland. I noticed some pedestrian crossings were easier in my wagon and, later, when riding my bike. Portland was an amazing place that had these little ramps at the very same places we wanted to cross the street. Even then, I thought some of the ramps were a little steep, but they were much better than the alternative: an 8- to 12-inch curb.
Over the years, Portland installed more and more ramps. The ramps got a lot better too. Soon our rollerblades and skateboards could glide block after block. These were huge improvements for our neighborhood, but the benefits were not shared across Portland. Even today, parts of Portland have enormous potholes and block after block of dangerous, sidewalk-free streets.
These days, Portland has many wonderful ramps. But it is replacing ADA ramps that, to my eye, seem perfectly fine. The old ramp gets demolished and a new one poured in essentially the same place, with slightly different dimensions, slopes, or transitions. All of that for just tens of thousands of dollars.
I understand why standards exist. If we are building a new ramp, it should meet the current standard. What bothers me is the priority.
There are streets in Portland with no sidewalk at all. There are corners where accessibility is genuinely terrible. Yet we are spending real money taking something that might have been a 95 and turning it into a 99, while somewhere else remains a zero.
That seems backwards to me, and a classic example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
Rules are useful, but they are not a substitute for judgment. A city has limited money, limited staff, and an unlimited list of things that could be improved. To me, getting ten places from zero to 85 does more good than getting one place from 95 to 99.
Note: I’m aware of the ADA ramp lawsuits and agreements behind this work. They don’t change how I feel about it.
Local governments are lucky to receive a lump-sum grant from a larger government to spend on something new and impressive. The thinking is that the public has gained an asset. Really, it has gained a liability. The ongoing maintenance and staffing fall on a local government that is already short of money.
Portland has unpaved neighborhood streets and unsafe intersections. Our parks run on tight budgets, with locked bathrooms. Our pools close early or don’t open at all.
Filling potholes and removing graffiti will never get a dedication ceremony. But this is the livability work that matters. We need to respect the environment, and I would argue that includes our current built environment too.
I first wrote a version of this about a proposed multi-million-dollar entrance to Forest Park. We go to the park to walk or bike. I would rather have the money spent on basic upkeep of existing park facilities than on a new building. No one reads the name over the door anyway.