Cultural Landscapes: an Argument for a Revised Cultural Landscape Selection Process

PRIORITIZING PLACE An Argument for a Revised Cultural Landscape Selection Process.

A Portland, Oregon Case Study.

Kelly Stoecklein June 2016

PRIORITIZING PLACE:

An Argument for a Revised Cultural Landscape Selection Process.

A Portland, Oregon Case Study.

Submitted in partial fulfillment for the Master of Landscape Architecture Department of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon APPROVAL PAGE

Student: Kelly Stoecklein

Project Title: Cultural Landscapes: An Argument for a Revised Cultural Landscape Selection Process. A Portland, Oregon Case Study

Project Chair: Roxi Thoren

Project Committee Members: David Hulse and Dr. Chris Enright

Roxi Thoren Date

David Hulse Date

Dr. Chris Enright Date ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my committee chair, Roxi Thoren, for her mentorship, guidance and support through the master’s project process.

I would also like to thank my committee members, David Hulse and Dr. Chris Enright, for their dedication, structure and nurturing steadfastness throughout the project.

A special thanks to Matthew Traucht and Charles Birnbaum from The Cultural Landscape Foundation, Thaisa Way from the Society of Architectural Historians, and Robert Melnick from the National Park Service for their cooperation and for offering an inside look into cultural landscape preservation practices.

Thank you to the many experts I have turned to for information, feedback and suggested resources along the way.

To our cohort, for being there through thick and thin along this wild three-year ride we have taken together.

To my mother and sisters, for their continued reassurance and support throughout this experience.

And to my father, for instilling in me all that he knew and loved about plants, people, and the landscape.

Thank you. ABSTRACT

Methods of selecting cultural landscapes by current leading organizations are successful, however, this paper argues that an expanded definition of ‘cultural landscape’, a less restrictive landscape age requirement, and local criteria should be included in the process. These additions strengthen cultural landscape selection outcomes and ensures that landscape selections reflect the unique local identity of a place.

This study analyzes the stages integral to selecting cultural landscapes for preservation purposes within the United States by three highly regarded organizations and an associated program. These stages include identification, evaluation, and prioritization of cultural landscapes while the organizations and programs featured are: the National Park Service’s National Register of Historic Places program, The Cultural Landscape Foundation’s What’s Out There Weekend program, and the Society of Architectural Historians’ Archipedia program. This project compares and critiques each program and synthesizes findings to create a location-based method of cultural landscape assessment.

To apply the proposed process, and to highlight the relationship between project outcomes and target audiences, a publicly accessible educational guidebook of Portland, Oregon is created. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Introduction 12 Project Introduction Project Goals and Expected Findings Study Area and Project Contribution Overview of Chapters

Chapter 2: Cultural Landscapes 18 Cultural Landscapes Introduction Cultural Landscapes Defined and the Importance of Preservation Brief History of Preservation Organizations

Chapter 3: Cultural Landscape Selection Process 24 Brief Overview of Organizations and Target Efforts Identification, Evaluation & Prioritization Process Programs Discussed Program Relationships

Chapter 4: Portland 48 Historic Portland The Olmsted Report Contemporary Portland

Chapter 5: Prioritizing Portland’s Cultural Landscapes 66 Identification, Evaluation & Prioritization Process of Portland Cultural Landscapes Revised Process Results Results Compared Critique of Revised Process Results Chapter 6: The Guide 92 The Model The Portland Guide

Chapter 7: Discussion, Challenges & Future Study 96 Discussion Project Challenges and Future Study Cultural Landscape challenges

Chapter 8: Conclusion 102

References 104

Appendix 108 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project process diagram 15

Figure 2: National Register of Historic Places process diagram 28

Figure 3: Definition of ‘site’ and ‘district’ defined by the NPS 29

Figure 4: Definition of ‘significance’ and ‘integrity’ defined by the NPS 30

Figure 5: WOT process diagram 31

Figure 6: Types of landscapes recognized by TCLF 32

Figure 7: Archipedia process diagram 34

Figure 8: Proposed process diagram 36

Figure 9: Programs compared chart 37

Figure 10: Program relationship diagram 44

Figure 11: Eighteen tenets of park planning 58

Figure 12: Portland Metro boundary 66

Figure 13: Proposed process diagram 68

Figure 14: Definitions of ‘Portland Districts’ and ‘Landmarks’ 71

Figure 15: Portland Historic Districts and Landmarks, and Conservation Districts and Landmarks 72

Figure 16: Olmsted map overlay 73 Figure 17: Identified sites 77

Figure 18: Evaluative matrix 78

Figure 19: Evaluated sites 79

Figure 20: Site clusters 80

Figure 21: Final evaluated and prioritized sites 84

Figure 22: Final sites for inclusion in the Portland guidebook 85

Figure 23: Results from the WOT process 88

Figure 24: WOT and Proposed Process Lists 89

Figure 25: WOT guidebooks by TCL 93

Figure 26: Portland guidebook by the author 95 LIST OF ACRONYMS

AHP: Alliance of Historic Preservation

ASLA: American Society of Landscape Architects

TCLF: The Cultural Landscape Foundation

NPS: National Park Service

NRHP: National Register of Historic Places

SAH: Society of Architectural Historians

SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office

WOT: What’s Out There LIST OF EXPERTS

Carl Abbott: Historian, author, planning and urban studies professor at Portland State University

Carol Mayer-Reed: Award-winning Portland landscape architect and Principal of Mayer-Reed

Charles Birnbaum: Founder and Principal of The Cultural Landscape Foundation

David Banis: Associate Professor of geography at Portland State University and co-author of Portlandness

Hunter Shobe: Associate Director of The Center for Spatial Analysis and Research at Portland State University and co-author of Portlandness

Kenneth Helphand: Landscape architecture professor at the University of Oregon

Laurie Matthews: Director of Preservation, Planning and Design at MIG, Inc. located in Portland

Mathew Traucht: Former What’s Out There Program Manager for The Cultural Landscape Foundation

Randy Gragg: Portland author, design expert and director of the University of Oregon John Yeon Center in Portland

Robert Melnick: Contracted NPS employee and landscape architecture professor at the University of Oregon

Dr. Thaisa Way: Historian, landscape architecture professor at the University of Washington and manager of the landscape portion of the Society of Architectural Historians Archipedia database INTRODUCTION Project Introduction

Designed and natural landscapes have the ability to quietly express cultural ideas, values, and norms as they change over time, and they have the capacity to represent the relationship people have with place. As mutable designs evolve, they reflect the transformative nature of culture and relay stories of cultural truths - 1 those we are proud of, and those we are not. Peirce Lewis writes in, The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes, “our human landscape is our unwitting autobiography, reflecting our tastes, our values, our aspirations, and even our fears, in tangible, visible form” (Lewis 1979). It is through these landscapes, if we know how to read them as Lewis suggests, that we are able to learn about the culture that shaped, altered or designed them.

According to The Cultural Landscape Foundation, it is important to protect our cultural landscapes as change occurs over time because, “neglect and inappropriate development put our irreplaceable landscape legacy increasingly at risk” and that, “the ongoing care and interpretation of these sites improves our quality of life and deepens a sense of place and identity for future generations” (The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2016).

Lewis suggests that cultural change is not a slow process but occurs in “great sudden historic leaps” (Lewis 1979). When these historic leaps occur, who determines which landscapes contribute to a sense of place or collective identity and therefore should be protected? Why is it important to preserve places that contribute to a collective sense of identity? How do we identify, evaluate, and prioritize landscapes? How does the preservation of these places relate to place- making and a sense of identity as a culture grows and changes?

These questions are particularly relevant in rapidly changing cities. Portland, Oregon is one of these cities. Portland is a discursive city that questions hierarchies and normative processes and is defined by civic attentiveness and commitment to environmental progressiveness. Portland is currently experiencing massive 13 14

Old water tower: Joshua Tree, CA cultural and formal transformation due to record population growth and a tremendous demand for housing. Because of this, the vernacular Portland landscape of sleepy, low, bungalow-type housing and private yards is being replaced with large, flashy, multi-story apartment structures. Carl Alviani from Design Week Portland predicts that, “the next five years are going to transform the streets and buildings of central Portland more dramatically than at any other time in living memory” (Alviani 2016).

What does this abrupt change mean for the cultural landscapes of places like Portland? How does this alter a city’s sense of place and identity? What stories do landscapes reveal about culture and what artifacts will be left to communicate that story as development encroaches? Which landscapes should be identified, evaluated, and prioritized for preservation and who should be involved in the process?

Landscape architects should be included in the conversation about cultural landscape preservation because their practice revolves around interpreting the landscape. They have the interdisciplinary tools to read the landscape that are necessary for identifying, evaluating and prioritizing landscapes as they relate to people and places over time.

Project Goals and Contribution

Because of the rate of change taking place in our cities, it’s important to develop method to identify, evaluate and prioritize landscapes for preservation purposes in order to safeguard places that contribute to our collective identity.

To explore this topic, the following questions are addressed:

• Which landscapes should be identified as critical cultural landscapes within a specific city and by what method? • What criteria should be used to evaluate a city’s cultural landscapes? • How does a target audience and desired outcome impact prioritization of cultural landscapes for inclusion in listings and guidebooks?

15 This project proposes a transferable process for selecting cultural landscapes after critiquing common program practices conducted by three leading preservation and cultural landscape organizations (Figure 1). The organizations explored by this project are the National Park Service (NPS), The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF), and the Society of Architectural Historians (SAH). The proposed process includes an expanded definition of ‘cultural landscape’, the addition of locally relevant evaluative criteria, and a less restrictive focus on the age of a landscape. To apply the proposed process Portland, Oregon is featured as a case study and a tool in the form of an educational guidebook for the general public is produced. This tool, in conjunction with other preservation materials, may increase awareness and advocacy of local cultural landscapes.

Critique NPS TCLF SAH NRHP WOT Archipedia

Synthesis

Revision

Identification Evaluation Prioritization

Application

Figure 1: Project process diagram 16 Overview of Chapters

Chapter 2 – Cultural Landscapes Defines cultural landscapes, presents a brief history of landscape preservation, and introduces the organizations included in this project.

Chapter 3 – Cultural Landscape Prioritization Process Contextualizes the methodology by introducing and comparing industry- leading identification, evaluation, and prioritization practices.

Chapter 4 – Portland Introduces the study area with an overview of historic Portland and current contemporary conditions.

Chapter 5 – Prioritizing Portland’s Cultural Landscapes Reveals the methodological process applied to determine the high priority cultural landscapes of Portland, Oregon, presents the results, and results- driven questions.

Chapter 6 – The Guide Introduces a model guidebook, the parts included in the model, and communicates the included parts of the project guidebook.

Chapter 7 – Discussion, Challenges & Future Study Reflects on project findings, acknowledges project limitations, and identifies future study opportunities.

Chapter 8 - Conclusion Extends final project comments.

17 18 CULTURAL LANDSCAPES C ultural Landscape Introduction

Cultural landscapes are places that contribute to a sense of collective identity, shared history and values. Through the preservation of cultural landscapes, these characteristics remain intact, affording a chance to better understand ourselves and, for future generations, the educational opportunity to understand the culture 2 that came before them.

C ultural Landscapes Defined & Importance of Preservation

In his 1925 book, The Morphology of Landscape, Carl Ortwin Sauer first defined the term ‘cultural landscape’ while he was a professor of geology at UC Berkley. Sauer defined landscape as, “an area made up of a distinct association of forms, both physical and cultural” and cultural landscape as, “something fashioned from a natural landscape by a cultural group. Culture is the agent, the natural area the medium, the cultural landscape the result” (Sauer 1925).

JB Jackson popularized the term ‘cultural landscape’ within the field of landscape architecture while he held the positions of editor and publisher of Landscape from 1951-1968. Jackson wrote about what he found to be the most compelling landscapes in America, the vernacular. To him, the American vernacular landscapes included everything from strip malls and highways to front lawns and roadside attractions. In ‘The Word Itself’, Jackson expresses, “it is with these commonplace elements that we should begin our study” because it is through these familiar forms and their associated practices that we are best able to theorize, “how certain organizations of space can be identified with certain social and religious attitudes” (Jackson 1984). In other words, it is through the study of everyday landscapes that we can best understand the values of the culture that created them. In this project, the case study will reveal how the social climate has influenced formal elements in the Portland landscape.

19 20

South Park Blocks: Portland, OR JB Jackson’s contemporary, Peirce Lewis, expanded on this approach and wrote, “it is important to think of cultural landscapes as nearly everything that we can see when we go outdoors” because cultural landscapes are those places in the environment that have been, “made by humans”. A cemetery, gravel pit, an amusement park and a trailer park are all cultural landscapes. He goes on to say that, “all human landscape has cultural meaning, no matter how ordinary the landscape may be” because it is these traces, these resulting products that offer clues about the identity and place-making practices of a particular culture (Lewis 1979).

While Jackson and Lewis use a broad definition of cultural landscape, preservation efforts focus on the extraordinary, not the ordinary. This project defines cultural landscapes in the gradient between the two, including the vernacular and also the extraordinary in order to identify a compelling mix of landscapes that best reflect a unique place. In this paper the terms ‘cultural landscape’, ‘landscape’, ‘site’, and ‘property’ are used interchangeably.

In Preserving Cultural Landscapes, Arnold Alanen and Robert Melnick propose that, by studying cultural landscapes, we better understand not only a collective culture but also ourselves and the environment around us. They write, “the cultural landscape provides considerable evidence as to how humans have used nature over time” and they continue, “…cultural landscape preservation can also assist us in understanding, appreciating and valuing an even broader rage of landscapes and landscape types, especially those we call ‘home’” (Alanen and Melnick 2000).

It is important to preserve cultural landscapes because they are relics that mirror the collective ideals and priorities of a culture at a particular time in history. Without preserved cultural landscapes there would be a void in understanding our cultural past and a vast array of landscapes that may have been developed or destroyed if not protected. Cultural landscape examples that have greatly impacted our national collective identity in the United States include Central Park in New York City, Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, or the University of Virginia campus in Charlottesville, Virginia. Significant cultural landscapes like these exist at the national level but also at the regional and local levels as well. In combination, these are the places, the cultural landscapes at all scales, that help define a city and set it apart from other places. It is imperative to preserve these national, 21 regional, and local landscapes in order to maintain a link to a historic past and sense of identity that is translated through time and place. However, we can’t preserve all cultural landscapes. Cities are, and need to be, dynamic in order to respond to changing populations, industries, and cultural values. Since we can’t preserve everything we need to prioritize landscapes that best preserve the local sense of place and history. We need to see the landscape, read it for clues, and interpret the meaning behind the components that make up a landscape, in order to identify, evaluate and prioritize these places for preservation purposes. The more prepared we are to do this now, the more intact our collective identity will be, contributing to a greater sense of place and community. As William Murtagh, the first keeper of the National Register said, “Preservation engages the past in a conversation with the present over a mutual concern for the future” (Murtagh 1988).

B rief History of Preservation Organizations

Prior to the 1970s, historic preservation organizations focused on buildings and treated them as objects. But unlike objects and buildings, landscapes are continuously transformed by natural processes, animals, and people, leading to distinct landscape preservation challenges. In the 1970s, The American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) first created a historic preservation committee. At the same time, the Association for Preservation Technology began to recognize landscape preservation, which resulted in the formation of the Alliance of Historic Preservation (AHP) organization in 1978 (Alanen and Melnick 2000).

Alanen and Melnick argue that, “the National Park Service, more than any other American organization or agency, [has] provided the most significant direction to the nascent cultural landscape preservation movement”. Since the 1980s, the NPS has contributed numerous briefs, publications and reports mainly focused on the preservation of federally owned properties.

In 1981 the National Park Service (NPS) recognized cultural landscapes as a critical resource and in 1984 published their criteria for identifying and defining cultural landscapes in the report, Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System (Melnick 1984). In 1990, Linda Flint McClelland wrote the National Register Bulletin 30: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic 22 Landscapes which further developed previous bulletin explanations of how characteristics of landscapes could lead to a better understanding of the culture that created them and offered guidance on how to document cultural landscapes (Landscape Lines). In 1994, Charles Birnbaum wrote the National Register Bulletin 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes to “provide a framework and guidance for undertaking projects to ensure a successful balance of historic preservation and change” while a cultural landscape is managed by the NPS (Birnbaum 1994). This brief clearly defines the cultural landscape types that the NPS recognizes, how best to document the physical elements of the landscape including vegetation, topography, water features, formal circulation, or objects/structures, and how to create a plan to best manage the landscape to reflect a particular, and important, time in history.

Many organizations at various scales have emerged within the cultural landscape preservation field since the 1970s. Landscape preservation advocate and president of The Cultural Landscape Foundation, Charles Birnbaum, worked for the NPS for fifteen years before he foundedT he Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF), a non-profit incorporated in 1998. TCLF recognized a need, “to show the hand of the artist of the landscape architect” because Birnbaum felt, at that time, no other organization was doing so. He felt that too much attention was paid to structures, documentation, and inventory methods and not the landscape itself. Specifically, Birnbaum felt, not enough attention was being paid to the art and artist, or as J.B. Jackson defined it, “the form and practice” behind the landscape. Birnbaum also wanted the freedom to work with landscapes outside of NPS’s scope of management. Through TCLF website, events, and publications the organization has increased the visibility of thousands of North American cultural landscapes and designers.

Landscape preservation scholars and advocates have more recently partnered with architecture-focused organizations such as the Society for Architectural Historians (SAH). Founded in 1940, the SAH has been focused on scholarship and education about the historic built environment. Landscape historian Thaisa Way, professor at the University of Washington, and member of the SAH, admits that the society, “has had a hard time figuring out where landscape fits within the organization” but has recognized the need to do so (Way pers. comm.). In 2004, the SAH created a Landscape History chapter and they continue to include landscape in their 23 traditionally architecturally oriented efforts including website, conferences, and publications.

This project studies the audience, tools, and outcomes of the NPS, TCLF, and SAH programs, and compares their methods for identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing cultural landscapes, to determine best practices in preservation. These three organizations were chosen based on their notoriety and recognition in the field and also because of their diverse approaches to landscape preservation. There are other influential and noteworthy organizations that blur the boundaries of history, landscape, and preservation that merit recognition, however, they are not studied in this project because of project time and resource constraints.

24 Cultural Landscape Selection Process

Brief Overview of Organizations and Target Programs

Current identification, evaluation, and prioritization processes use restrictive identification practices and universal evaluative criteria without considering the local context. Comparing the cultural landscape selection models of the NPS, TCLF, and the SAH reveals deep interactions and overlaps between the three programs, 3 and also clear distinctions based on the intended audience, outcomes, and tools created.

This chapter provides a comparison of specific organizations and programs. The organizations and programs include: the National Park Service and the National Register of Historic Places database, The Cultural Landscape Foundation and the What’s Out the Weekend database and city guidebooks, and The Society of Architectural Historians and the Archipedia database. Organizations and programs beyond the three identified are considered outside the limits of this project.

National Park Service: The National Park Service (NPS), Department of the Interior, is most well known for their stewardship of the 84 million acres in over 400 locations that make up the national park system. The NPS, “preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations” (National Park Service, 2016). The NPS also manages the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), a tool used to promote the preservation of nominated properties, including both publicly and privately owned lands, that meet the NRHP’s evaluative criteria.

The NRHP was enacted in 1966 with the signing of the National Historic Preservation Act. This program, “coordinates and supports public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America’s historic and archaeological resources” and provides a list of sites “worthy of preservation” according to criteria assessing property significance and integrity (National Park Service 2016). The 25 26

Denver Botanic Gardens: Denver, CO number of properties listed in the National Register now exceeds 90,000 (National Park Service 2016) and the NRHP preserves these properties using political methods. If listed, the NRHP provides properties with noteworthy recognition and property management resources, results of being recognized and approved by the rigorous federal nomination process.

The Cultural Landscape Foundation: The Cultural Landscape Foundation (TCLF) is a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C. most well known for cultural landscape preservation advocacy. Their mission is to, “provide people with the ability to see, understand and value landscape architecture and its practitioners, in the way many people have learned to do with buildings and their designers” (The Cultural Landscape Foundation 2016).

The What’s Out There Weekend (WOT) program is an example of an educational tool TCLF has created to promote advocacy and understanding of cultural landscapes in hopes of inspiring preservation practices. The program consists of a database and city guidebooks. The online database includes over 1,800 sites, and 900 designer profiles. There are also 16 supplemental city guides highlighting North American cities like Washington D.C., Toronto, New York, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. These guides are intended to, “draw people out into their communities to experience first-hand the landscapes that they see everyday but often overlook” (The Cultural landscape Foundation 2016).

The WOT program advocates for the preservation of cultural landscapes through events and functions that engage the general public which introduce people to 27 critical cultural landscapes and inspires stewardship.

Society of Architectural Historians: The Society of Architectural Historians (SAH) is a membership-based organization founded in 1940 at Harvard University with the mission to, “promote the study, interpretation, and conservation of architecture, design, landscapes, and urbanism worldwide for the benefit of all” (Society of Architectural Historians 2016). To date there are 2,500 members including notable architecture, landscape architecture and urban design academics.

One of SAH’s online efforts, in partnership with the University of Virginia Press, is Archipedia, an “online encyclopedia of American architecture”. There are two Archipedia databases, one exclusive for member access and an open version for public use. The exclusive database currently includes over 13,000 buildings drawn from the Society’s Buildings of the United States series while the freely accessible database features 100 buildings from each state. The free version provides a list of buildings, details, and a few images while a subscription includes more in-depth property descriptions and a virtual library of images.

Recently, it has been recognized that the database should include landscapes as well as urban settings in addition to works of architecture. Landscape historian and professor of landscape architecture at the University of Washington, Dr. Thaisa Way, has defined and is managing the selection of 100 landscapes and 100 urban settings from across the United States to include in the Archipedia database.

Archipedia is an tool grounded in academia and promotes preservation by providing a reference to increase the visibility of buildings, and now landscapes.

28 Identification, Evaluation & Prioritization Process

Each of the three organizations engage in a unique method of identifying cultural landscapes, evaluating the relative significance of identified landscapes, and prioritizing them to determine inclusion in databases or guides.

NPS & the National Register of Historic Places: Identifying sites for listing in the National Register is a nomination process performed by preservation groups, historical societies, governmental agencies, property owners, and any individual or group. The nomination is a bureaucratic process that begins at the state level, and through a series of stages, ends at the federal level, ideally with a successful property listing in the National Register (National Park Service 2016).

Identification SHPO Evaluation NPS Evaluation Prioritization

Figure 2: National Register of Historic Places process

Nomination to the NRHP is a two-tiered process that begins with structured property nomination forms that detail how a property meets the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Nomination forms are first submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for review by the SHPO and the state National Register Review Board. If approved, the nomination is forwarded to the National Park Service in Washington D.C. for federal review by the Keeper of the National Register. If the Keeper approves the nomination, the property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (Figure 2).

29 T o be listed in the National Register the property must fit within one of the five property types recognized by the NRHP and must also meet the National Register criteria for evaluation which assesses a property’s significance and integrity at the national level. The five property types include: buildings, sites, districts, structures, or objects. Note that cultural landscapes are not recognized as a property type by the National Register process. Most landscape National Register listings fall under the classification of a site or district (Figure 3). A site is the place where a significant event or activity took place while a district is a collection of linked sites.

Site: A site is the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archaeological value regardless of the value of any existing structure

District: A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.

Figure 3: Definition of ‘site’ and ‘district’ defined by the NPS according to the National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Form.

After a property is classified as an approved property type, the National Register criteria for evaluation are applied. This evaluation measures a property’s significance and integrity (Figure 4) as detailed in the National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Significance assesses a property’s importance in national history, and integrity assesses how intact the property is.

Embedded in the significance evaluation is an assessment of the property’s age. Ideally, a nominated property is 50 years or older. It is assumed by the NPS that this amount of time, two generations, is long enough to determine if a property is significant or not within the scope of American history (Melnick, pers. comm.).

If a nomination proves that the property meets one criterion of significance, and ideally all of the aspects of integrity, then it is successfully listed in the National Register. 30 Significance: the property has to meet one or more of four criteria

A- Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

B- Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

C- Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.

D- Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Integrity: the property should meet most, ideally all, of the National Register’s seven specified aspects of integrity

1.Location: the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.

2.Design: the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.

3.Setting: the physical environment of a historic property.

4.Materials: the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

5.Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

6.Feeling: a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

7.Association: the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

Figure 4: Definition of ‘significance’ and ‘integrity’ defined by the NPS according to the National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Form. 31 TCLF & What’s Out There Weekend: Site identification by TCLF for inclusion in the What’s Out There Weekend (WOT) database and guides is an active process that begins with TCLF requesting a site submission or ASLA members, landscape designers, government officials, experts, or any interested individual or group from the general public submitting a site on their own. The party nominating a site submits a WOT Profile Form to TCLF headquarters in Washington D.C. for review. TCLF staff reviews the submittal and evaluates the site based on a framework of evaluative criteria. Depending on the number of criteria met, the site is either included in the WOT database and/or a city guidebook (Figure 5).

Identification Evaluation Prioritization Figure 5: WOT process

TCLF uses four types of cultural landscapes, defined by the NPS, (Figure 6) as a discipline standard however, the NRHP does not use the same definitions of cultural landscapes even though they were crafted by the NPS. The four cultural landscape types are:

Historic Designed Landscapes: Landscape design is associated with a significant person(s), trend or event in landscape architecture.

Historic Vernacular Landscapes: Landscape that shows a particular way in which a group of people used the land.

Historic Sites: Landscape associated with a historic event, activity or person.

Ethnographic Landscapes: Landscape associated with a particular group of people including natural and cultural resources associated with that group. 32 Historic Designed Landscapes: a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master gardener, architect, or horticulturist according to design principles, or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. The landscape may be associated with a significant person(s), trend, or event in landscape architecture; or illustrate an important development in the theory and practice of landscape architecture. Aesthetic values play a significant role in designed landscapes. Examples include parks, campuses, and estates.

Historic Vernacular Landscapes: a landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped that landscape. Through social or cultural attitudes of an individual, family or a community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural character of those everyday lives. Function plays a significant role in vernacular landscapes. They can be a single property such as a farm or a collection of properties such as a district of historic farms along a river valley. Examples include rural villages, industrial complexes, and agricultural landscapes.

Historic Sites: a landscape significant for its association with a historic event, activity, or person. Examples include battlefields and president’s house properties.

Ethnographic Landscapes: a landscape containing a variety of natural and cultural resources that associated people define as heritage resources. Examples are contemporary settlements, religious sacred sites and massive geological structures. Small plant communities, animals, subsistence and ceremonial grounds are often components.

Figure 6: Types of landscapes recognized by TCLF from the National Register Bulletin 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes.

33 The WOT database evaluative framework created by TCLF includes the following criteria:

• Was the site completed prior to 1976 (the US Bicentennial)? • Was the site designed by someone whose career has been realized? • Is the site a significant, unique, or innovative example of landscape architecture? • Is the site listed on the National Register of Historic Places or designated a National Historic Landmark? • Has the design won a national award from the American Society of Landscape Architects?

The year 1976 or prior was chosen as the date of project completion because forty years from the current year is determined historically significant by TCLF, ten years younger than the ideal age of landscapes listed in the National Register. This gap in age allows for slightly more contemporary sites to be listed in the WOT database than the National Register. The term ‘realized’ in the second criterion refers to whether the designer of the landscape is deceased or retired in order to evaluate a landscape during the full scope of a designer’s career.

The five criteria are clear and objective except the third, which measures whether a site is unique, significant, or innovative. TCLF recognizes that these characteristics are site specific and that the definitions are, “intentionally loose and general” according the Matthew Traucht, former Program Manager for TCLF. Traucht says, “ultimately, the thing is not to identify significant, unique, and innovative designs. Because they all are really. The challenge is to identify why something is significant, what about it is unique, and how was it an innovative solution to a particular problem?” (Traucht pers. comm.). If the reason that the site is unique, significant, or innovative is strong, as determined by TCLF, the criterion is met which places a lot of power, and pressure, on the reviewer.

The What’s Out There Weekend program employs a two-tiered prioritization process with varying degrees of strictness. First, the more stringently evaluated sites that meet the majority of the criteria are included in the WOT database while, second, the sites that only meet a few criteria but are still regarded as “critical, threatened or artful”, may be included in the WOT guides (Birnbaum pers. comm.). This intentionally layered approach to prioritization occurs depending on the 34 intended audience and the desired result. If the site is included in the database, it must be highly defensible for more academic and preservation focused audiences. If a site is listed in a guidebook, it may meet fewer criteria as long as it merits inclusion given the guide’s intended result – an experiential guide to the cultural landscapes of a particular city for the general public. Therefore, TCLF is able to include different types of landscapes in the weekend guides that may not meet the full database criteria.

SAH & Archipedia: The SAH Archipedia database is a tool for educators. To develop the landscape listings, the SAH appointed editors to each state to determine 100 architectural properties to include in the Archipedia database. As the project developed, the importance of landscapes was recognized and the SAH decided to address landscapes and urban sites as well as buildings in the database (Way pers. comm.). Landscapes address parks, gardens, and other landscape-focused sites, while urban settings are broadly interpreted to include streets, plazas and neighborhoods. While some landscapes and urban settings are included in the 100 sites for each state available to subscribers, a secondary approach was taken to add a list of 100 landscapes and 100 urban settings for non-subscribers that address the entire nation.

To create the list of national landscapes state editors first submitted site recommendations to Dr. Way. She then determined whether the site warranted listing based on evaluative criteria she refined. Dr. Way researched the identified landscapes by turning to the NPS list of National Landmarks, National and State Parks as well as TCLF WOT database and other resources. This decision addressed

Identification Evaluation Prioritization Figure 7: Archipedia process 35 whether the site’s contribution is important, influential, and/ or significant to design history.

Building on NRHP and the WOT criteria, Archipedia focuses on three criteria based on project impact:

• Did the site change practice in any way? i.e. Haag’s Gas Works park as one of the first US reclamation landscapes • Did the site change the public’s imagination? I.e. The High Line as one of the most popular reuse projects • Did the site change policy or leadership? i.e. Overton park in Memphis as the first park to be allowed over a highway

Dr. Way analyzed and critiqued the NPS and TCLF criteria as her evaluative framework developed, and she also relied on her previous work, most notably, her involvement in the PBS series The 10 Parks That Changed America. She acknowledges that creating the evaluative criteria was an iterative process and one that continued evolving as she researched sites (Figure 7). For a landscape to be included in Archipedia it must meet at least one of the evaluative criteria.

As noted, two types of landscape sites are included in Archipedia: Landscapes and Urban Settings. As there were significant overlaps between Landscapes and Urban Settings, e.g. is Times Square an urban Landscape or an Urban Setting, one editor (Thaisa Way) was selected to address both lists. The distinction between the two lies in the form of the site. If the site is a bounded design, then it is considered a Landscape. If the site is a network within a city, then it is considered an Urban Setting. According to Way, “there isn’t a scientific method of distinguishing between Landscape or Urban Setting. It’s more a political act” (Way pers. comm.).

Way was acutely aware that the outcome of the prioritized list of landscapes for Archipedia should include a sampling of 100 Landscapes and 100 Urban Settings throughout the country if it were to claim to be an important resource for the history of the built environment. Additionally, Dr. Way wanted a variety of landscapes that are “chronologically, geographically and typologically diverse” and in order to achieve this diversity, she prioritized landscapes as necessary based on the evolving evaluative criteria (Way pers. comm.). 36 Programs Discussed

The flow of the landscape selection process is similar for each program and follows a sequence beginning with the identification of landscapes, evaluation of those landscapes given specific criteria, and prioritization of the evaluated landscapes given project goals and target audiences (Figure 8).

Identification Evaluation Prioritization

Figure 8: The general flow of the landscape selection process as conducted by all organizations.

Variation occurs during the identification and evaluation stages of the National Register listing process (Figure 9). The National Register typically does not request nominations creating a bottom-up process as opposed to the WOT and Archipedia processes where the organization requests nominations in a top-down approach.

The National Register also employs a two-tiered system of evaluation with multiple reviewers. The WOT process evaluates landscapes during a single stage by a committee appointed by TCLF, while the Archipedia process also evaluates landscapes during a single stage by a single reviewer. Because of this the three program processes are situated along a gradient of objectivity with the National Register process being the most objective, the Archipedia process the most subjective, and the WOT process situated between the two.

Further, the programs differ in the domains they operate within, the incentives or benefits properties receive by being recognized, the audience they target, and the end product they create (Figure 9). The following section further discusses these difference in detail and extends further critique of each program.

37 Org. Program Domain Incentive Audience Product

NPS • National Register • Political • Status • Law Makers • Database • Financial** • Property Owners • Property management • Preservation • Preservationists guidelines • Recognition TCLF • What’s Out There Weekend • Public • Education • General Public • Database • Events • Guidebooks • Advocacy

SAH • Archipedia • Academic • Education • Educators • Database • Visibility • Experts

Org. Program Definition Identification Evaluation Prioritization

SAH • Archipedia • Academic • Education • Educators • Database • Visibility • Experts

** Financial incentives and tax breaks differ per state

Figure 9: Program comparison charts

Org. Program Definition Identification Evaluation Prioritization

NPS • National Register • 50 yrs. + • Any individual • Two-stage by • Federally • Site or District or group state and nat’l defensible national review boards listing • 40 yrs. + • Request from • One -stage by • Index of national TCLF • What’s Out There Weekend • Designed, Vernacular, any individual TCLF (database) and city Historic Site, or or group appointed (guide) landscapes Ethnographic committee • No age req. • Request from • One-stage • Diverse national SAH • Archipedia • Landscape or Urban SAH appointed by one SAH sampling by age, Setting editors person geography and type • No age req. • Experts, • One-stage • Educational listing • Proposed Process • Extraordinary to preservation by one reflective of a Ordinary listings, travel person particular place sources N ational Register of Historic Places: The NPS, through the National Register, politically preserves places through policy and legal regulations. Their goal is to preserve historically significant landscapes in order to keep the cultural fabric of this nation intact. Listing in the National Register is a stringent, legally defensible and objective method that includes multiple levels of review including a final review at the federal level. The nomination process can be time consuming, expensive, and may be limited to individuals who have an understanding of historic preservation, who are educated about the specific steps of the nomination process, and who understand the NPS vocabulary which may skew nominations to include properties valued by a potentially elite group and not by a third party focused on preserving cultural heritage.

There is no limit to the number of sites listed in the National Register, however, there is a strong suggestion of a structure-based preservation approach throughout the National Register listing process. The way the criteria of significance and aspects of integrity are evaluated is best for determining the preservation of architecture, not landscapes. If ‘landscape’ were added as a property type in the NRHP nomination process it would be better suited for including meaningful landscapes that do not meet the site or district definition. The overall NPS organization recognizes, and even defines, cultural landscapes so why doesn’t the NRHP include this definition in their cultural landscape selection process? This is a massive weakness in this overall National Register process and hopefully it will be amended as cultural landscapes, and the preservation of them, become more critical.

Successfully nominated properties are listed in the National Register database and once listed, the property achieves status as a place worthy of recognition and preservation as defined by the US government. By itself, listing in the National Register does not offer protection, it only notes that the property is significant enough to be listed. This database is publicly accessible and makes the nomination form, photographs, and maps available. To the general population, the database may be cumbersome and the nomination materials unclear, unless the reader understands the nomination process, NPS language, and can read historic documents, including maps.

At this point, sites from 1966 – 2012 are located in the National Register Focus 39 Database while sites listed from 2013 to the present are found on the ‘weekly list search page’. The NPS is in the process of joining these databases into a single source but until then they are in two locations. A spreadsheet of all 90,000 listed properties can be downloaded with links to the nomination materials, however, using this document is inefficient and time consuming. Because accessing property information through the National Register database is inconvenient, the audience is mainly individuals who are invested in historic preservation and associated policy.

The benefits of being listed in the National Register database include, the status associated with being listed in the National Register, recognition as a historically significant property by the government and the state, potential federal tax credits, potential state tax benefits as determined by each state, feedback and resources detailing how to maintain the listed property and access to a broad network of individuals who own or manage listed properties (National Park Service 2016).

What’s Out There Weekend: TCLF, through the WOT database and guides, advocates for preservation by promoting landscapes through public relations and education. Their goal is to make critical designed cultural landscapes more visible to the general public in order to inspire stewardship. Listing in the WOT database is a less restrictive and less resource intensive process than listing a site in the National Register. People are less familiar with the WOT database than the National Register, which means the listing process is mainly driven by the organization as opposed to individuals or groups that desire listing status.

Similar to the National Register nomination process, in order for a site to be included in the database it must be nominated by an individual who has a thorough understanding of landscape design and has the vocabulary to communicate information like historic landscape types and landscape styles. The site must meet the evaluative criteria as defined by TCLF and be vetted by their team of experts in order to be listed in the database. Unlike the National Register, the WOT program focuses on landscape preservation as opposed to the preservation of structures and also focuses mainly on the built, or designed landscape as opposed to natural or vernacular landscapes. 40 The criteria used to determine eligibility in the WOT database are mostly objective evaluations of a site though they are not legally defensible as are the National Register listings. The third criterion of the WOT evaluative matrix determines if a site, ‘is a significant, unique, or innovative example of landscape architecture’ and is the only non-objective criterion in the evaluative framework which leaves an opportunity for subjective evaluative bias by the reviewer(s). Unlike the National Register criteria, the WOT criteria are not published and the process of how sites are selected is not transparent.

The second criterion, which assesses whether a landscape was designed by someone whose career has been realized, is an objective question, however open to critique. Is a designer’s work elevated because they are no longer living or practicing? And because a designer is currently practicing or young does it mean that their work is any less impactful or culturally significant? For example, Peter Walker, who is still practicing, lead the team that designed the 9/11 Memorial in New York City. Because he is not retired, the 9/11 Memorial would not meet the WOT second criterion even though this landscape is one of the most representative cultural landscapes in not only New York City but the United States. What other important landscapes are overlooked because of this criterion?

Similar to the Nation Register, there is no limit to the number of sites listed in the WOT database and the audience is most likely people who are interested in cultural landscape preservation and design history. The WOT database, as a tool, is user friendly, and easy to navigate, unlike the National Register, which opens their audience base to the general public, history enthusiasts, and, they are hoping, students and young people.

In order for a site to be included in a WOT guide the same evaluative framework is used as the database. It is preferable that most criteria are met, however, the guide is intended to be a publicly-accessible experiential tool used to “provoke interest, inform stewardship decisions, and enrich our understanding of our designed landscape history”. Because TCLF approaches preservation by educating to inspire advocacy, and because the target audience is the general public, sites are included in the guides if they are perceived by TCLF staff to increase the richness of the experience. This allows for the inclusion of cultural landscapes that may not meet 41 the database criteria but also opens the process to subjectivity.

Unlike the National Register and the WOT database, there is a limit to the number of sites included in the guidebooks. Based on previously published guides, the number of sites included is approximately 30 which reflects the spatial and temporal restraints on how many sites a person can visit within a weekend in a given city.

Benefits of being recognized in the WOT database and guidebooks include: recognition as a critical landscape, inclusion in other events, publications, and efforts conducted by TCLF, and increased visibility of the landscape to the general public, including a younger population, who are not typically engaged in cultural preservation practices. By engaging new demographics with cultural landscapes there is hope that new people will become excited about these places and participate in the preservation process.

Archipedia: The SAH, through the Archipedia database, focuses on sharing historical scholarship of the built environment and promotes preservation through academia. The goal of the program is to create a reference list of nationally critical landscapes. The nomination process, unlike the National Register and the WOT database and guides, is a relatively relaxed process instigated by the SAH requesting landscape suggestions from local experts.

Site inclusion in the Archipedia database is based on a single expert’s set of criteria and evaluation, not a peer or layered review process like the National Register and WOT listing processes, which exposes the process to subjective reviewer bias. Of the three programs addressed in this project, the Archipedia evaluation process is the most subjective and is least concerned with local character because the program focuses on projects that are of national significance. However, the structure of the evaluative criteria that make up this matrix ensures a rigorous and thoughtful evaluation that requires a depth of understanding about a landscape’s context and history. Similar to TCLF, the evaluative criteria are not made public.

As with the WOT guidebooks, there is a limit to the number of sites included in the Archipedia database, 100 Urban Settings and 100 Landscapes. Another opportunity 42 for subjectivity in this process is how a site may be defined as either a Landscape or an Urban Setting. The plasticity of these categories and the ability to move a site from one to the other category based on reviewer preference and the need to meet a quota, raises a question about the necessity of having two categories and the need to distinguish them from each other.

The Archipedia database is a membership-driven program by an audience of scholars and educators in the fields of architectural and design history who are willing to invest in membership, which means sites are made visible to a community of academics who are often writers, educators, and in a position to share the importance of these sites with others.

Additional benefits of being listed in the Archipedia database include, recognition of landscapes by a community predominantly comprised of architects, and acceptance by a community that historically has been centered on architecture as opposed to the broader built environment.

43 44

Olympic Sculpture Park, Seattle, WA Program Relationships

WOT NRHP Archipedia

Figure 10: The perceived relationship between the organizations criteria

Methodological and temporal relationships exist between the three programs (Figure 10), indicating an evolution of the landscape selection process that best produces a list of landscapes for a specific outcome and audience. Most notable is the relationship between the National Register and the WOT programs, likely because of Charles Birnbaum’s time spent working with the NPS prior to initiating TCLF. Archipedia is also connected to the other two programs as a response and refinement of their earlier methods.

The WOT evaluative framework nests the NPS’ National Register evaluative criteria in their evaluation by including the criterion, ‘Is the site listed in the National Register’. By including the National Register status as a criterion, TCLF is indicating that they think listing in the National Register is an important site characteristic and that the NPS criteria are valid and important. This is counterintuitive, given that the National Register mainly focuses on structures and TCLF mainly focuses on landscapes.

Further, the NPS method of determining significance is referenced in TCLF’s third criterion, ‘Is the site a significant, unique, or innovative example of landscape architecture’ but is highly subjective, perhaps as a response to the strict evaluation of significance and integrity through the National Register process.

45 There is a perceived relationship between the National Register, WOT, and Archipedia criteria because the Archipedia criteria were created by Dr. Way, who reflected on the National Register nomination process, and the descriptions of sites in the WOT database. The three SAH criteria may be viewed as a clarification or expansion of the WOT criterion, ‘Is the site a significant, unique, or innovative example of landscape architecture’, and as a response to the National Register’s evaluation of significance by specifically identifying how a landscape is significant.

Not only is there a layering, or nesting, relationship between the criteria that make up these frameworks, but a temporal relationship as well. First, the NPS created the National Register criteria. As a response and critique of the National Register criteria, TCLF created the WOT program and evaluative framework. Most recently the SAH Archipedia evaluative criteria are an expansion of both the National Register and the WOT frameworks, and it can be argued that this project further develops these evaluative frameworks and overall landscape selection process.

A Revised Landscape Selection Process

This project proposes a revised cultural landscape selection process in order to create a list of landscapes that better reflects a particular location. By prioritizing landscapes that represent a city, preservation efforts can be made to keep the identity of a city intact.

The criteria used to evaluate cultural landscapes, the audience, and the desired outcome must be defined in order to best prioritize sites. This study proposes a broader definition of ‘cultural landscape’ be used during the identification process, that locally-relevant criteria be added to the evaluative matrix, that the desired outcome be specific, and that the audience be clearly defined. The three reference organizations use a relatively narrow definition of ‘cultural landscape’ and they use national evaluative criteria, however, the three are aware of their project expectations and target audiences.

A less restrictive definition of ‘cultural landscape’ should be used when identifying landscapes to capture varied types of landscapes. In this study, ‘cultural landscapes’ are where nature and people interact but does not include objects

46 or singular structures. Evaluative frameworks should incorporate locally sensitive criteria that reflect the featured city in order to properly evaluate cultural landscapes within context and as a way to reflect that city’s unique character and sense of place. These additional criteria should draw out the intrinsic character of the city, and reveal sites that hold particular meaning to the city independent of age.

The three programs analyzed are linked to a product or a tool with an intended audience. Prioritization occurs when each evaluated landscape is assessed to ensure that the resulting site delivers the desired outcome for the specified audience. As an example, TCLF creates the city guidebooks as educational tools to inspire cultural landscape advocacy, and they are used by the general public during a WOT Weekend event in a specific city. Because of the audience and the goal, the guidebooks need to feature visually compelling landscapes written about in an accessible way. TCLF would prioritize and write about landscapes differently if their target audience was a group of preservationists learning about the histories of less intact landscapes.

To apply the revised landscape selection process, a pilot project is conducted. The goal of the project is to create a list of identified cultural landscapes, evaluate them using the adapted criteria, and prioritize them for inclusion in a publicly-accessible guidebook. Because the pilot study shares an audience type and product with the WOT program, and because of the nesting relationship between the three organizations’ criteria, the WOT criteria are used as a baseline for this project. Locally relevant and contemporary-landscape related criteria are added to the baseline framework to ensure a more site-specific and inclusive evaluation.

A specific location and context is necessary to fully conduct a pilot study. For this project, the location is Portland, Oregon and the context includes the area within the Portland metro boundary.

47 48

Maggie Daley Park, Chicago, IL Portland

H istoric Portland

Portland was platted in 1845 and even in the early years the founders incorporated public spaces in the city plan. Thirteen city blocks including The Plaza Blocks (now known as Chapman and Lownsdale Squares) and the South Park Blocks were the first city parks dedicated by William Chapman and Daniel Lownsdale in 4 1852 (City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 2016). A survey from 1852 also indicates that the land between Front Avenue and the west bank of the Willamette River was originally intended for public use. This particular piece of land was hotly debated over by early developers and proponents of open space which demonstrates that public land was crucial to Portland’s sense of place and identity from the onset (City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 2009). xposition E ansit Mall rban Growth Boundary Growth rban approved r X U T rive torn down for waterfront park waterfront down for rive torn D D t Plan eighborhood Association began owntown Plan owntown he Portland Plan he Portland D T N 1845: Portland first platted first 1845: Portland incorporated 1851: Portland public open space Blocks - first 1852: South Park bought by city of City Park 40 acres 1871: First report parks 1903: Olmsted 1905: Lewis & Clark 1921: Cheney Plan established Park 1942: Forest 1944: Moses Plan flood 1948: Vanport dedicated Sequence 1970: Halprin Open Space 1972: 1972: Plan Bill 100 - Statewide 1973: Senate 1973: Portland 1974: Harbor 1978: Portland Metro created government regional 1979: Oregon Plan Comprehensive 1980: Portland opens 1986: MAX light rail Plan Greenway 1987: Willamette City Plan 1988: Central Plan 1997: 2040 Comprehensive Block, opened Jamison Square, Park Pearl 2000: First development began 2004: South Waterfront 2007: Vision P 2012: 1912: Benne

Portland urban planning timeline 49 1866 Portland survey. Courtesy of the City of Portland

50 The city’s park system began to grow with the first fully gifted lands to the city by John Couch in 1869. Couch gifted five park blocks to the city, now known as the North Park Blocks which aligned with the South Park Blocks to create a green ribbon through the center of the city (City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 2009). Soon after, in 1871, the City acquired 40 acres inN orthwest Portland and dedicated it as City Park, which was renamed Washington Park in 1909 (City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 2016).

The original industries in Portland were trade-based, mainly to California, during the gold rush. These industries were concentrated around wheat, lumber, and fishing with trade mostly conducted by boat along the Columbia and the Willamette Rivers (Abbott 2016). Later industries included cattle and mercantile trade based on new transportation advances in railroad and steamboat technologies (City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 2009).

By the 1870s, Portland was, “a well-established and prosperous city” (Abbott 2016) with languid and continued growth that inspired new populations to move to Portland for employment. Portland’s population in the early 20th century

Intersection of Front Avenue and Stark Street in 1852. Courtesy of OregonEncyclopedia.com. 51 Construction of the waterfront in 1928. Courtesy of VintagePortland.com

Ships arriving for the Rose Festival in 1935. Courtesy of VintagePortland.com 52 included Chinese, Japanese, Scandinavian, Eastern European and Mediterranean communities which meant an influx of new influence on culture, design, and trends.

By the late 19th century, both public and private development was flourishing on both sides of the Willamette River. The Morrison, Steel, Madison and Burnside bridges were all constructed and the first electric street cars were operable. The city remained committed to open spaces and in 1894 governor Sylvester Pennoyer gifted to the city the first land intended solely for use as a public park which is still named Governors Park.

In the early 20th century, the city continued to boom and hosted a World’s Fair, the Lewis and Clark Exposition of 1905 (City of Portland 2009). To prepare for the exposition, leading officials and the newly appointed Board of Park Commissioners called on the expertise of John C. Olmsted and Frederick Law Olmsted Jr., sons of famed landscape architect Frederick Law Olmsted, to complete a comprehensive park plan for Portland (City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 2009). On December 31, 1903 John C. Olmsted submitted the Report of the Park Board which included advice on lands to acquire, characteristics of a successful park, importance of linking parks, creating a system with boulevards and parkways, and also notes on how to care for and maintain open spaces (Olmsted 1903). This report revolutionized the way Portland planned open spaces over 100 years ago and continues to be used by city planners today.

In the 1930s the Great Depression crushed Portland’s economy but allowed for Ormond Bean, elected Commissioner of Public Works, to use relief funds to hire unemployed architects and draftsmen to create a land use inventory of Portland. These maps were specifically intended to identify neighborhoods in need of new playgrounds and recreational facilities, the dominant types of open spaces developed at that time (City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 2009). A report completed by the planning commission in 1935 requested “one acre of park space for every 100 people or that 10 percent of city space should be devoted to parks” (City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability 2009). That benchmark grew in contemporary times to 2.4 acres for every 100 Portland residents (The Trust for Public Land 2014).

53 1905 Lewis and Clark Exposition map. Courtesy of VintagePortland.com

The 1905 Lewis and Clark Exposition. Courtesy of VintagePortland.com 54 Forest Park, on Portland’s west side, contributes significantly to the city’s per capita park acreage. In 1947 Portland’s city council voted to establish Forest Park using 4,200 acres of city and county land, a recommendation that was first proposed by the Olmsted brothers in 1903 (City of Portland 2009). Today, Forest Park is the nation’s largest urban forest with 5,157 acres of protected land and 80 miles of trails including the 30-mile Wildwood Trail (Forest Park Conservancy).

By the late 1950s corruption within the government and police force was revealed which lead to distrust and a drive towards activism. Carl Abbott writes, by the mid 1960s, a, “new generation of civic activists transformed the political discourse of the city” (2016). With this new voice and advocacy came a change in the way the City of Portland approached the landscape.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s Harbor Drive, originally built in the early 1940s between Front Street and the west bank of the Willamette River, was torn down to make room for what is now Tom McCall Waterfront Park. The city reallocated money from a freeway project to fund the first light-rail line connecting downtown to Gresham, and the Office ofN eighborhood Associations was created which increased the commitment of people to their communities. Lawrence Halprin’s revolutionary Open Space Sequence was dedicated in 1970, and a Downtown Plan was drafted that made way for character defining projects like the Portland Transit Mall and Pioneer Courthouse Square (Abbott 2016).

From the very beginning parks, open space, and plazas have been integral to Portland’s formal character. Many of these landscapes have, and continue to be, the main stage for Portland’s active citizens who often partake in political protests and community activities which contribute to Portland’s unconventional cultural identity.

55 Portland waterfront and Harbor Drive in 1968. Courtesy of VintagePortland.com

Halprin’s Forecourt Fountain dedication in 1970. Courtesy of HalprinConcervancy.org 56 The Olmsted Report

The 1903 Olmsted Report of the Park Board was, and remains, an influential tool for Portland’s planning and park design policies. At the time, Portland was one of many American cities, including Baltimore, Seattle, Charleston, and New Orleans, that turned to the Olmsted Brothers firm for feedback on urban and park planning. The Portland report would help the Olmsted brothers codify their universal recommendations for urban park systems in America which was driven by ideas of linking open spaces and a picturesque design approach.

In the Report of the Park Board John C. Olmsted listed eighteen tenets of park planning (Figure 11) that ranged from the importance of parks and park systems, maintenance, and the governmental and civic roles of those responsible for the success of a comprehensive park plan. These recommendations would become the foundation of all Olmsted planned parks in America (Hawkins 2014). The Olmsted brothers proposed a master plan for Portland’s park system that would eventually become one of the most important planning documents for the city and continues to be referenced by city planners and designers.

Frederick Law Olmsted Jr. and John C. Olmsted. Courtesy of Olmsted.org. 57 THS SUNDAY OREGOSIA, BORTLAXD, JUNE 12, 190.L 33

MR. OLMSTED'S PLAN FOR PORTLAND'S PARKS, PARKWAYS AND BOULEVARDS

The 1903 Olmsted Portland Plan. Courtesy of The Oregonian. 58 Olmsted Report Park Planning Suggestions:

Importance of municipal parks

Duty of citizens towards parks

Parks and park purposes should be defined in advance – park units

The parks of a city should be parts of a system

Park systems should be comprehensive

Park systems should be well balanced

Parks should have individuality

Parks should be connected and approached by boulevards and parkways

Parks and parkways should be located and improved to take advantage of beautiful and natural scenery and to secure sanitary conditions

Park systems should be in proportion to opportunities

Parks and parkways should be acquired betimes

The land for park systems should be paid for by long-term loans

The land for park systems should be improved by means of loans, special assessments and annual taxation

Park systems should be improved both occasionally and continuously

Park systems should be improved according to a well studied and comprehensive general plan

Park systems should be governed by qualified officials

Park systems should be improved and maintained by specially trained men

Park systems should be managed independent of city governments

Figure 11: Eighteen tenants of park planning quoted directly from the 1903 Olmsted Report of the Park Board. 59 In the report, Olmsted described Portland’s landscape context, projected growth, land acquisition strategies, challenging topography and expected eastward expansion given the extreme topographical conditions to the west. He noted specific landscape characteristics to keep in mind when selecting parklands and determined Portland to be, “…most fortunate…in possessing such a varied and wonderfully strong and interesting landscape features.” He suggested siting parks “so they will command the best possible view of whatever great landscape features there may be in the vicinity.” To Olmsted, these features included the Columbia and Willamette Rivers, the snowy peaks of Mount Hood, St. Helens, Adams, Rainer and Jefferson as well as the local features of rolling hills, buttes and islands. This recommendation remains an integral part of Portland’s planning doctrine as reflected in Metro’s Ten Essentials for a Quality Regional Landscape: A Guidebook for Maintaining and Enhancing Greater Portland’s Special Sense of Place where one of the essentials is to ‘Provide Access to Many Landscape Views’ (Metro 1992).

Olmsted’s comprehensive plan for Portland’s parks and parkways lists specific park improvements and recommends land to acquire for open space. In his recommendations, he suggests where to site parkways to take advantage of river views, where to place boulevards for pleasure drives, as well as what lands to consider purchasing, including the wooded acres of what is now Forest Park.

The report concludes with a list of design and care recommendations, a note on forest reserves, and the need for land owner cooperation in order for a successful park system to be fully realized. Without this plan it is arguable that Portland would not have such a strongly connected verdant network that greatly contributes to the character it has today including the Olmsted recommended 40-Mile Loop which now exceeds 140 miles of connected open space (40-Mile Loop Land trust 2016).

60 Contemporary Portland

Portland today is vastly different from when John C. Olmsted visited and is experiencing rapid growth. The city is now largely characterized by its DIY mentality, passion for the outdoors, craft coffee and microbrews, an ethos grounded in environmentalism, an urban homesteading approach to living, and civic-minded politics. Portlanders are not afraid to voice opinions and often counter mainstream trends. ‘Keep Portland Weird’ is the slogan and Portlanders mean it. They may be found lounging at one of the city’s nearly 1,000 coffee shops, riding bikes along numerous bike paths, or perhaps getting married at a doughnut shop. At the base of Skidmore Fountain, the city’s oldest piece of public art, reads, “Good citizens are the riches of a city” and Portland takes that to heart.

People are attracted to Portland for these reasons and what has historically been commonplace for Portland, the vast amount of open space and access to the outdoors, which is now highly desirable and people are moving to the city to partake. Because of this growth, Portland is at risk of losing cultural landscapes that contribute to and reflect its intrinsic character.

Carl Abbot describes Portland as, “an earnest policy-wonk city whose citizens read books, enjoying one of the nation’s most heavily patronized public libraries and largest independent bookstores, and place a high value on civic participation” (Abbott 2016). Much of Portland’s high livability rankings come from the way the city has been planned, with the foremost thought of environmentalism in mind and prioritizing landscapes as key factors in the success of the city. David Rusk points to the quality of life in Portland as a gauge of success of this planning process. He says, “the evidence is found in…parkland and other natural areas… in strong, healthy city neighborhoods…There is a depth and solidity to downtown Portland that compels confidence in its future” (Rusk 1999).

Cultural landscapes that reflect Portland’s civic-minded nature and ‘policy-wonk’ character include places like Tom McCall Waterfront Park, Mill Ends Park, and the South Park Blocks. Portland has paid attention to what the citizens want and how to provide open, green space for them to enjoy. Tom McCall Waterfront Park is the result of a demolished freeway while Mill Ends Park, measuring two feet in diameter, is a kitschy example of Portland’s discursive nature and definition of a 61 62

Director Park: Portland, OR park. The South Park Blocks are a formal representation of the city’s commitment to an open space network which have hosted innumerable public and political gatherings from the city’s nascent beginning to the present day.

Multi-modal transportation, pedestrian-scaled streets, a focus on sustainability, and a New Urbanism approach have long been Portland’s ethos in city planning. Portland has historically been focused on urban infill and increased density as a sustainable growth model, and in 1973 the city approved an Urban Growth Boundary in order to contain suburban sprawl common to metropolitan areas like Phoenix or Las Vegas (Metro). What’s abrupt for longtime Portland residents is the way the new urban infill looks. Already Portland has seen historic structures, districts, landmarks and places bulldozed for development. What is erased when these new constructions are erected and how does the new built environment effect the city’s character?

According to a Design Week article written by Carl Alviani, the types of building permits accepted by the city are changing, not the number of permits. Alviani cites local design expert Randy Gragg, saying that the number of building permits is not unprecedented and is still below the number of permits issued even in the early 2000s, but the types of building permits are different. Alvianai calls these new buildings “City buildings”. These are, “buildings for people who walk fast and ride the streetcar and take taxis, and stay up late and order takeout” (Alviani 2016).

Even with the intensive growth of today the City of Portland remains dedicated to the preservation of the outdoors and defines itself by the surrounding geomorphology. On a clear day Mt. Hood, Rainer, Jefferson, and St. Helens stand as sentinels in the distance while the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers merge at Portland’s doorstep. “The city is carefully ‘placed’ within its landscape, and residents of the region wrestle with reconciling complex and contradictory claims to the use of its rivers, valleys, mountains, and biotic communities” states Abbott in his book Greater Portland. Lloyd Lindley, educator, designer, planner and previous Chair of the Portland Design Commission, wrote for the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA) guide to Portland that, “We work every day to preserve our greatest asset: the beauty and accessibility of our environment. This is the foundation of sustainable Portland” (American Society of Landscape Architects 2016). 63 64

The MAX light rail: Portland, OR Mt. Hood: Portland, OR. Courtesy of Velonews.com Portland’s citizens are committed to the environment and it is evident in the vast number of volunteers and independent organizations that help maintain public lands. Portland boasts 11,415 acres of parkland, of which there are 203 parks, 50 recreational facilities, 14 community centers and 152 miles of trails. In 2003, 14,000 people and organizations volunteered over $5.5 million worth of services to help keep their parks maintained (Hawkins, 2014, 85). As it was in the early 1800s, Portland residents continue to be committed to open spaces and think of them as integral to the quality of life in the city.

Portland’s belief in environmentalism, accessibility to the outdoors, and appreciation of nature, is mirrored in the types of landscapes contemporary Portland has, and is, constructing. Lawrence Halprin’s open space sequence is a modern translation of the Cascade Range and the Columbia River that threads its way through eight blocks of downtown Portland, while Tanner Springs Park reveals the hidden historical hydrology of the site and the story behind Tanner Creek (City of Portland Parks and Recreation 2016). Pioneer Courthouse Square is embraced as the city’s living room while Director Park has recently become the city’s front porch increasing access to the outdoors even in the busy Central City. These are the places that make Portland special, they are the places that Portland residents are proud of and emotionally connected to.

As the 21st century continues, it will be interesting to see how Portland navigates the changing times, undoubtedly in its traditional civic-minded way, and to see what will become of the present day cultural landscapes and those yet to come. Which landscapes will be identified for preservation by whom and will there be a fair and locally representative evaluative process to determine prioritization when development encroaches? What publicly-accessible educational tools could be made to highlight the cultural landscapes that contribute to Portland’s sense of place? By answering questions like these significant Portland landscapes will become more visible and Portland’s culturally rich collective identity will be safeguarded from potential hasty change or development.

65 66

Tanner Springs Park: Portland, OR. Prioritizing Portland’s Cultural Landscapes

Pilot Study Introduction

This project proposes a revised identification, evaluation, and prioritization process using the WOT model and Portland as a pilot study to apply the proposed process. The audience is the general public and the desired outcome is a guidebook of 5 Portland’s significant cultural landscapes that can be visited within a weekend. The WOT model was chosen because the goals, audience, and desired outcome are the same as the pilot study. The WOT model uses local experts in order to identify cultural landscapes within a particular city, disseminates information to the general public through a guidebook, and provides an educational experience.

The 145.2 square miles of Portland’s metropolitan area make up the study area for this project (Figure 12) and was chosen because it is an often understudied city within the field of cultural landscapes with a wide range of regionally, nationally, and internationally notable landscapes. Advocacy for the preservation of, and education about, these significant landscapes is imperative because they are cultural artifacts and clues that reveal our emotional connection to the environment.

Figure 12: Portland Metro. Adapted from The City of Portland. 67 68

Crystal Springs Rhododendron Garden: Portland, OR T o strengthen the WOT model, this project defines cultural landscapes more broadly, places less value on a site’s age, and adds locally relevant criteria to the existing WOT evaluative framework in order to highlight cultural landscapes that reflect Portland’s unconventional identity. The full process of identifying, evaluating, and prioritizing the cultural landscapes of Portland follows a similar process used by TCLF and the SAH (Figure 13).

Identification Evaluation Prioritization Figure 13: Proposed process

Identification of Sites The goal of the identification stage was to create a robust listing of cultural landscapes that represents the city, the community, and the discipline.

To aggregate a list of Portland cultural landscapes three types of sources were referenced: popular published travel sources, preservation organization site listings, and experts in the fields of landscape architecture and historic preservation.

Specific example preservation and travel sources were: NRHP listings, WOT database, SHPO listings, the City of Portland historic landmarks and districts lists, the ASLA Portland travel guide, Travel Portland guides, and the 1903 Olmsted parks report. Experts consulted were Carl Abbott, Robert Melnick, Kenneth Helphand, award-winning Portland landscape architect, Carol Mayer-Reed, Portland design historian Randy Gragg, Portlandness authors and Portland State geography professors, Hunter Shobe and David Banis, and landscape historian, Laurie Matthews. 69 A broad definition of ‘cultural landscape’ was used while creating the list of initial sites. Sites included traditionally considered landscapes like parks and plazas, but also the more vernacular and ordinary landscapes as defined by Lewis and Jackson. An array of landscape types were identified including parks, cemeteries, boulevards, districts, or, as Kenneth Helphand commented, “the universal to the idiosyncratic.” The WOT definition restricts cultural landscapes as being one of four types which radically discounts many landscapes that inherently reflect the character of a city. This project expands on the WOT definition by adding more ordinary, everyday landscape types to better identify landscapes that truly represent the city.

In this project, initially identified cultural landscapes did not have to meet a specific age requirement which is not a common practice in the historic preservation field. The NRHP prefers landscapes 50 years or older and the WOT process recommends 40 years or older. By eliminating the age restriction from the identification stage a greater number of meaningful landscapes that represent the city can be included in the evaluation process.

Sites were collected until one-hundred were identified. The list was capped at one- hundred based on the project timeline and resources available.

Evaluation of Sites The goal of the evaluation stage was to assess the impact of each project on the city, community, and discipline, and to create a ranking of cultural landscapes based on the evaluative criteria.

The WOT criteria were used as a baseline for the proposed framework for the reasons previously mentioned. The WOT evaluative framework is a thorough and successful method of evaluating and prioritizing cultural landscapes as is, however, additional locally relevant criteria should be included in the evaluation process in order to select sites that best reflect a particular location, in this case, Portland.

Again, the WOT evaluative criteria are:

• Was the site completed prior to 1976 (the US Bicentennial)? • Was the site designed by someone whose career has been realized? 70 • Is the site a significant, unique, or innovative example of landscape architecture? • Is the site listed on the National Register of Historic Places or designated a National Historic Landmark? • Has the design won a national award from the American Society of Landscape Architects?

Additional criteria were added to the WOT framework because preservation organizations and their associated efforts use nationally relevant criteria which often omits locally important landscapes. Locally relevant and sensitive criteria were added based on expert-driven suggestions and Portland-based publications to extend the typology of cultural landscapes; to include contemporary landscapes, and landscapes that reflect Portland’s sense of activism, creativity, and questioning the norm.

Experts consulted were local Portland historian Carl Abbott, and landscape history professors Robert Melnick and Kenneth Helphand. These experts were chosen because of their depth and breadth of knowledge about Portland landscapes, history and character.

Additional criteria include: • Is the site listed in a Portland Conservation or Historic District? • Is the site listed as a Historic or Conservation Landmark? • Was the landscape identified in the 1903 Olmsted plan? • Has the design won an Oregon ASLA award? • Does the site represent Portland’s contemporary character?

First, adding criteria that assess Portland specific Historic Districts and Landmarks (Figures 14 and 15) is important because it recognizes properties that are defined as significant to the city which are sometimes different than nationally recognized properties. These districts and landmarks are designated by the City of Portland’s Office of Planning and Sustainability in order to protect and preserve critical Portland historic resources. These designations effect zoning, development, and growth models within recognized districts or in areas that house recognized landmarks.

71 Portland Historic District: a concentration of thematically related historic resources…and is significant at the regional, statewide or national levels”.

Portland Conservation District: “an area that contains a concentration of related historic resources” and is considered locally important, therefore, less significant than historic districts.

Portland Historic Landmark: locally designated by the City of Portland because of their historic, cultural, archaeological, or architectural significance and for their role in helping create Portland’s character.

Portland Conservation Landmark: individual resources that have been locally designated by the City of Portland because of their historic, cultural, archaeological, or architectural merit but may have a “lesser” level of significance than historic landmarks.

Figure 14: Definitions of ‘Portland Districts’ and ‘Landmarks’ according to the City of Portland.

72 28TH ST H URT BLVD FO

BLVD P O

ST O City of Portland Historic Landmarks,L Historic Districts & Conservation Districts AVE 138TH

D 18TH ST

A WAY R

M MAIN A G

R BROADWAY IN AN E M IH IL L D FT VANCOUVER L L E GI R PLAIN BLV

D V

E 232NDAV VE M A R A N.

G H REEN BLVD C

N. T

N. A 2

RAM SEY BLVD. R T 1 HU 1

OB RD LOMBA ISLAN D R Vancouver B IERGATE RIVE L L V 192NDAVE E DR D MAR INE 1ST ST A HAR BOR GATE SH U WOODR ST D MILL PLAIN BLVD B COLU M BIA E NW

BLV D. WAY AV DR ST T AV

AV T FIR L SCOU LER

RD E ELM AV A ALD ERVI EW D R Bybee Lake BROU GH TON DR AV R MOU NTA IN VIEW K MAR INA

D D R LN DOGWO OD AVE AV Y E CYPR U S CYPR U S R AV AV D Y BIRC H R E R DR B R CR ESTON AV

TIM E R U ALD ER R W FIR AV N E R ! R D D OIL DAPH N E AV D R RD ! AV

E CAM ELL IA R RD L WAY L I HOC KIN G RD M SUTTLE NW NW

RD BEGON IA E

NW AZA LEA H AMPT O RD RD N

FAR R S RD JA NTZEN BEAC H C EN TER WATER RD D R ST HEL ENS WAY AV BUR GAR D HAYDE N S RD RD

E MILL ER BUR GAR D N. I ISLAN D

NW L

CEN TER I-5 FW Y DR DR AV Y RD SEVER

RD JA NTZEN E R BEAC H E RD DR M Smith Lake N.

M cN A BAY COLU M BIA AV 192ND R SEVER CT AV HAYDE N M L MAR INE CG E JA NTZEN JA NTZEN IL B O LIV (U .S. H WY 3 0) R DR A W M DR Y NW BEAC H BLV D. AV LOTUS B E B N. P IER 99 S T L N. ST ELLSWORTH 20TH ST N TER MI NAL V D RD D B LV A NW RD FOR CE

Y R TOM AHAW K R LIN NTON EXPO Columbia River ER WB NW S LOMBA RD

N E AV K C D CT AN Y CH O L O

I R N ISLAN D AV N. HAR BOU R

E AV LSWIFT D DR ST COLU M BIA WAY U DR

HEL ENS AV AV D ROBER TS R BRAD FORD M LAKE AV

ST HU DSO N E AV MAPL ELEAF B N. BLV D. MAR INE R S AV RD AV UPL AND HAIGH T CED AR BANK I D DR BRID GETON V AV ST A T RD ST 112TH AV ST DR AV

BRU CE N A

JA MES RD T S AV 111TH2ND GANTEN BEIN VAN CO UVER VAN CO UVER AV 110TH MOOR E WILLIAMSAV AV AV A 5TH B H AV BLVD. FIR ST BELLI NGH AM L T 5TH 4TH AV AV ROTH ST

1 S K CR AND AL L KALM AR 3RD V 1 ST 109TH TOD D L D 1 3RD IVE DR AV BROAD AC RE DR ! ST AV HEN DR IC KS SUTTLE S T MAR INE DR AV BANK ALMON T ST ST T AV ST PORTLAN D ST ST BARR AV O MT ST ST ST JU N CTION AV MAR INE

WEYERHAEUSER ZIE GLER MAR INE R VIEW S ST SWEN SSON

VICTOR Y AV T R MAR INE RS

AV HAR TM AN RIC HA RD S ST ST 5 WAY DR H BLVD UN ION

PL 108TH ST O AV N. 13TH 109TH BUR R - 2ND PIER PA RK O E IRIS WAY ST LOOP

I T 108TH 1ST ST ARM OUR ST 107TH ST JOH N S BANK SOUTH

ST 5TH 3RD CT P AV AV R ASH SENE CA 2ND FALOM A K

ST 4TH 4 ST AV SWIFT ST WEYERHAEUSER JE RSE Y AV ST BRIS TOL CT SHOR E B N. SMITH N.

FOX 6 AV ST RD CH ARL ESTON AV PL 4TH AV LEON ARD PL ISLAN D R AV H ST ST MAR INE REN O ST AV BANK ST FES SEN DEN AV RD KELLO GG 105TH WIN DLE T 1 MID WAY S

AV W TR UM BU LL AV O # DR D 34TH ST A CEN TRAL ST ST OLYM PIA ASTOR ST EXPO R D A MID DL EFIELD R D ST ST E ST AV R C U.S. HW Y. 3 0 M KERB Y OU ST AV NT ST ST TAFT P DR R DR V Y AV AV A AV WILAR K CH ICA GO OREGON IAN O L W ST LE AV Y HOGE AV V O AV ST COLU M BIA IE O NW CATL IN U.S. HW Y I-5 W ALLEG HEN Y AV D AV N 6TH LN TYL ER ST HAYDE N MAR TIN

MAC KAY MEAR S AV AV S AV POLK COU RT LN.

L M TIOGA N. COLU M BIA N AV

MEAD OW AV SYRA CU SE AV RIC HM ON D BLV D. E LOMBA RD SENE CA AV AV AV CEN TRAL BUC HA NAN ST CATL IN OSWEGO CAL HOU N POWER S ST A WILL AMETTE MOH AW K AV BLVD.

AV BRETT BUR R MAC RU M AV GOLF S R IVAN H OE ST L OUI S WALKER K S LUTH ER Y EDIS ON ST FES SEN DEN ST CT

SKYVIE W L CH ICA GO FAIR HAVEN B IN ST DEN VER VAN CO UVER MEAD OW DR 13TH E AV DEC ATU R AV L AV AV N. K ST CEC ELI A GENEVA CEC ELI A ST A V ALMA COLU M BIA U.S. HW Y. I-205 I HU DSO N NASH TON LN. S D AV SMITH E AV R ROSEW AY ST MID WAY MC CON NE LL RD AV EDGEW ATER WAY AV WHI TAKER ROSAR IA AV ST FIS KE KING 98THE ST ST 33R D JOH N CAR EY L ST AV JE FFR EY LN. LOOP

COLU M BIA AV BLV D. SUN DE RL AND

V AV ST LIJA B L A AV I NEW YORK SEDR O DR L AV ST L LEON ARD ! CT JR . V A DAN A WAY

BLV D BERK ELEY AV C AV JU N EAU ST AV D AV

ST HU DSO N IDA AV 3RD KELLO GG ST

D AV ST Portland

R ST ST O N DR O ST CT BLU E

T BLV D.

NE W EXETER PORTSM OUTH ADR IATI C

L ST HOD GE RD

HEL ENS AV BUR LIN GTON D ! ST MAC RU M GERTZ LOMBA RD CEN TRAL ROC HE STE R ATTU PL

AV NEWAR K ST HER ON R AV S BALTIM OR E MIN ERVA WOOLSE Y NEWAR K ST

RD ATTU RD

D WY AV AV RD K AV D R ST AV DR LV B D HAR DY ST NEW MAR K ST RD WOOLSE Y L V IVAN H OE HU DSO N AV B E LOMBA RD AV ST SHER WOOD YL E D N ST I N W AV

A N AV AV D KISKA ALTA ST TR EN TON C W ! JE RSE Y FOU RTH NE O CT AV ! ST SUN DE RL AND AV

R MOH AW K LEON ARD R SKY ST

T RM A CR AWFORD A N

N E LEVEE DR O T

G O ST AV RD

DR W AV TR EN TON ST CH ASE SEWAR D A LILAC AV AV AV TR EN TON ST B ! AV N HAM LIN MT M PHILADELPHIA ST POLK PLYMOU TH OSWEGO LOMBAL RD HOU TE N E R R ST D V I E E B O CH AUTAUQU A W RD CT Y A G A A R LE B M AV SYRA CU SE HU DSO N

J N G NOR TH O LEAVITT GILBER T ST SCH ME ER

13TH

C N T E ALASK A ST AV M L H M AV ALASK A PL N.W. D RD

R O

F HOOD V O

AV H

AV AV AV A A CT International KELLO GG ST AV AV F K AV AV W D B

L JOH N E AV AV E VAN RD RD S AIRP ORT N R NW CT A Y

GENEVA AV AV KIMBA LL

S K FOR TU N E MC KEN NA BERK ELEY MT. PL W I ST PITTSB UR G N. HOU GHTON ST MAR INE O R 1 O ST JE RSE Y ST AV AV R DR N. TYL ER SEWAR D T N N. 4 E N. D CLA REN D ON HEPP NER N. N CT BUR LIN GTON

N AV R SO K SALEM 47TH A IK O MOH AWPRIN K C ETON AV BLVD. HOU GHTON COLU M BIA F ST ELR OD ER K O RD N. WASHB UR NE CH AV ASE M I O BR CH ARL ESTON N. ARGYL E O ST N. IVAN H OE AV RD AIRP ORT R AV Y OSWEGO AV BUR R SUPE RIOR CALVER T SKYLIN E E LEIF R A SPRI NGVI LLE N. AV AV GERM AN TOW N AV E L B M AV CU RTIS DEC ATU R WILBU R AV

WILL AMETTE BUR RA GE

Y LE HAVEN BLV D

A IL N. BAYAR D G M V BRID GE D G ! LOVELY D V ST IN BUC HA NAN AV L N. AV AV AV TYN D ALL

SYRA CU SE END IC OTT H R N. EDIS ON ST ST HU NT ST B P DR UM MON D OGDEN COU RTEN AY I AV AV HU NT ST NW L S CR AWFORD HU NT ST K MAR KLE POLKW WAY O JOH N S O ST WAY AV B L R RIC HM ON D WILL IS AV YB V N. HU NT ST S A A N. FOR TU N E AV ST I FIS KE L D M ST AV DR UID DWI GHT Y ST ARGYL E BLV D W E BLVD HAR RI S ALMA AV ARGYL E ST ST RAN IER V MAN SFIELD I N A B H N. ST BLV D PRIN C ETON Airport D U S L IDA

RD AV

W E ARGYL E AV AV E NW W T N. AV MIN ERVA AV ST MC GUIR E VI HI L L ID RD S ST DEC ATU R L CAR EY RD S ST ID WAY N. N. WILL IS BLV D PL DR M A WILL IS BLV D VAN CO UVER BAILEY N.

N N. ALBIN A I BLAN GUR NE Y ST EXETER D V AMH ER ST MAC RU M HEL ENS ST WESTA NN A BOWD OIN AV N. M SYRA CU SE SEWAR D A A SHEPAR D T DR I CR AWFORD NEW ELL M N ! O N EDGEW ATER AV AV AV !

U AV G E LOMBA RD ARL INGTON PL ST MC CL ELLA NDST

WOOD GLOUC ESTER AV ERIK SON ST MOH AW K

LEIF ST OBERL IN ST HU RST AV ! MC CLE LLAN ! ST AV EEWAY FR Y T HER EFORD E A ST

W ST N. N. NEW MAN BORTH WIC K E G ST DR EW E ID HAL LEC K N.W. E ST WHI TN EY PIER CE T PRIN C ETON ST M HALLECK ROD NE Y HAL LEC K ST V L ST L EW ST WALL VI W L AV KILPATR ICK ST A ST R ! INTER STATE D L E N I DEPAU W ST KILPATR ICK ST ELR OD IV ! COLU M BIA AV V E ST O R GIRAR D I N G HAR RI S ST SEW KILPATR ICK ST H C DR AV KILPATR ICK N T FOW LER RD R N A ST DR OLD GERM AN TOW N R D AV KILPATR ICK ST I T A RD

W AV VAN DE RBI LT DAN A R

ST SYRA CU SE CON GRE SS

AMH ER ST AV L AV SCH OFIELD ST TR AN SPORT 6 O R ST R WAYL AND

D ! T A E H ST AV BLV D. P R ST

FOSS

N L AV C MILL S ST ST A S L S WATTS WATTS ST

I TER R ACE AV

K PORTLAN D Y COM MER CI AL

M PENI NSU LAR

DR BLVD. GRAN D

W ARGYL E R AV Y ST ST WATTS ST ENW GERMANTOWN RD WIN CH ELL ST LEIF WILL AMETTE YAL E ST NW B L ST ST G AV ST AV DR RIVE RSI DE AV I AV WAY N CH ASE WIN CH ELL ST WIN CH ELL ST WIN CH ELL ST AV AV E DR AV ST MILL S AV ER ON L AV AV WIN CH ELL AV FEN WIC K D I KS ST EMER ALD ST AV AV PL S E

WACO AV N AV ST COLU M BIA EAST WACO V ST TER RY S I T TER RY AV WAY AIRPORT 11TH

AV # AV T A P DR NW L CT AV AV A E BLV D. BELKN AP TER RY AV U H ST R

WOOLSE Y ! V ARGYL E ST

T N DR L D HOLM ES AV # A

C E E INTER STATE FAR RAGU T ST

FAR RAGU T ST FAR RAGU T ST 14TH

M AV G I A F V BLV D. E E CT AV CH AUTAUQUBALDWIN A ST AV DELWAR E AMBAS SAD OR P DEN VER R L 17TH N L IA HAVEN 3

T FAR RAGU T KERB Y

O AV CT O C STA BLV D AV LAMB ERT C AV R WILL AMETTE MON TIE TH PORTSM OUTH M BALD WIN 21ST ST U A BRID GE AV HOD GE BALD WIN AV ST L M JOR D AN STOC KTON ST BALD WIN ST 33R D P ORA WACO DWI GHT ST BALD WIN ST

L D FIS KE U.S. HW Y I-5 O O MAR HAR VA RD DEPAU W OMAH A BRAN D ON C MC KEN NA VAN H OUTEN RU SSET RU SSET ST O C STAN FOR D SYRA CU SE BUR RA GE AV WIN CH ELL D I RU SSET ST AV D ERI R N. HU RON ST RD K SO N A PRIN C ETON RU SSET ST RU SSET ST RU SSET ST MC CAM PBEL L A AMH ER ST AV N. R BUTLE R ST ST O O

C AV N L M VAN H OUTEN LN. STAFFO RD ST CAR L ST ST ST AV E E LOMBA RD JOH N SON PL

N C GRAVENSTEIN

O DR UM MON D ST LOMBA RD PL

O ST 13TH LOMBA RD

M CH ATH AM LOMBARD LOMBA RD ST G INGL E ST

A PKW C V ELMOR E ST RD

O ST ST Y D A A

! AV ST

V V COR NFOOT

AV AV RA A AV ARGYL E

ST AV AV ! AV CR YSTAL

O V R AV AV V L V ! AV E

A NDVI AV

WARR EN AV O EW AV AV COLU M BIA GABRE SKI A A AV AV AV STAFFO RD ST AV ST C AV STAFFO RD ST N AV LAN E YAL E E AV AV BOYIN GTON ST

COM MER CI AL BUFFA LO

D H AV ST R FIS KE AV L

ST ST HOLL AN D AV BLV D.

ST AV

V O FOSS ST AV O

AD AV ST A STR ON G ST MEN LO HOLL AN D ST HOLL AN D MEYER S T A

R CT U ST RICKENBACKER ST

6TH CT A ST A N

WILL AMETTE WAYL AND L E O

AV ST

RID GE T AMH ER ST T LOMBA RD HOLL AN D D CH ASE HU RST E

O V ! SEWAR D AV ST HAN IS R O L E BUFFA LO ST W I C C OL N MAH UR AN ST L VISTA AV AV AV AV ROBBI NS O I N V W D ST ! T IN G V A E P ST N. AV O A R ME AV OLIN DAN A BUFFA LO ST COLU M BIA CT

P AV I O L CT HAN SON ST D W ASR D R KAISER NW PORT OF POR TL AND VISTA VINC EN T BUFFA LO ST ST FAL O ST N NE S Forest Park WASHB UR NE AV V AV BU F OR O A N W WILL AMETTE GREEL EY AV R D E MOR GAN ST ATLAN TIC 24TH SKYPOR T MC COSH ST CU RTIS BUFFA LO ST VILLA RD T I ISTA N

BLV D WABASH AV V 8TH 9TH IN

R/W 12TH

A . MOR GAN ST MOR GAN ST WAY

FEN WIC K ROD NE Y

CON COR D T

WILL IAMS DR

R E CAM PBEL L GREEN WI CH 27TH

VISTA AV AV MALL ORY AV

MON TAN A S AV 10TH 11TH G Y V DR V

A ST GENTIL E LVA N BLV D. PL MOR GAN

MISSISSIPPI

A AV AV SHIL LIN G

BOSTO N

MOBIL E N.W. SUM MIT 47TH BRYAN T ST AV ST CLA REM ONT COR NFOOT AIRP ORT LAN CAS TER S BRYAN T ST BUFFA LOST BRYAN T

7TH ST ST AV

AV BRYAN T ST

C 42ND 79TH RD

MAR YLAN D ERIK SON OATMA N O R 13TH

ST KNOW LES AV WAY AV SARATOGA SARATOGA ST BRYAN T ST L

SARATOGA ST AV ALBIN A MOOR E SARATOGA MAD RON A U RD AV ST # ST SARATOGA ST ALD ERW OOD LEIF # # CT NW M AV LOMBA RD

C E AV AV

GRAN D B RD

7TH ONEON TA ! FATH OM U DEKU M ST I AV DEKU M ST DEKU M T ! ST DEKU M ST DEKU M ST A WAY

PL ST

T AV ST D 46TH RD BASIN T R E ST A ST B CT

R LIBER TY ST

HAIGH T JU N IOR ST M LIBER TY ST JU N IOR ST MAR INE O U.S. HW Y. I-205 112TH C LIBER TY ST DEAN ST L VAN CO UVER WIN ONA 32N D HEL ENS I CON GRE SS

R N DU RH AM LIBER TY ST LIBER TY AV

AV C LIBER TY ST AV 59TH STATE HWY. 213

42N D 63R D L I ROSA PAR KS TER E way SKYPOR T N. ROSA PAR KS WAY NEW CAS TL E COLU M BIA N ROSA PARKS WAY FR ONTAGE

BORTH WIC K ST NE ROSA PARKS W AY

AV GLEN AV ROSA PAR KS WAY BLV D. RD LEIF ! LEVER MA N ALD ERW OOD

5 66TH

AV AV N. E NSIGN ST HIGH LAN D AV § ST ¨¦ B WID ING AV MORTON HIGH LAN D ST HIGH LAN D ST

7TH L HIGHLAND

ST 6TH 9TH 8TH U.S. HW Y. 30 V WAY W DR RD DR

D CT CU TTER

HOLM AN U.S. HW Y I-5 AV DR ERIK SON ST AV BLVD 38TH HOLM AN ST D AV AV AV AV HOLM AN ST A HOLM AN ST R AV E HOLM AN ST L AV AV KERB Y HOLM AN ST 78TH HOLM AN ST Y

L AV AV

COLFAX ST AV AV AV I HOLM AN AV AV AV HOLM AN ST

ST AV WILL BRI DGE ! AV

V ! AV AV

CU RTIS 33R D

JA MES AV AV AV DR

ASHL EY AV AV AV CIR CL E ST AV AV NG

MIC HIG AN I ! COLFAX

INTER STATE

R AV

AV COLWOOD

61ST 10TH 11TH 12TH 60TH

U AV 64TH AV MAR X P 13TH 45TH ST A

17TH 15TH 16TH 19TH I 18TH 23R D 24TH R 21ST 22N D AV S RD CU LEBR A NE MALL ORY P CLE VELAN D 46TH

AINS WORTH WILL IAMS ROD NE Y GARFIEL D AV O RD ST N N AINS WORTH ST NE AINS WORTH DR R AV ST 50TH

CON COR D 35TH 36TH 205 92N D

S 34TH 35TH 41ST 63R D NE AINS WORTH ST 37TH SIM AINS WORTH 80TH T

P ST AV ST S AV COLU M BIA § BLVD AV O AV AV

AV ¨¦ BASIN AV AV AV N AV AV AV NW SALTZM AN 62N D AV PAR K LAN E DR ST AV ! N.W. NW AV SIMPS ON SIMPS ON ST BLV D. N AV WILBU R SIMPS ON ST CT SIMPS ON ST

BUR RA GE A 61ST SIVER S

M AV

Z AV AV AIN SWO T W JA RR ETT ST SIMPS ON ST RT

L JA RR ETT ST 52N D 55TH H

I EAST PORTLAND FREEWAY 3 L CIR CL E A 60TH NW JE SSU P ST WIN

S AV

L ! AV A BOSTO N DETR OIT BLVD.

NW OMAH A DEN VER AV AV JA RR ET T ST

E DEL AW ARE

0 AV SALTZMAN S M

NWP SPRR INGVI LLEIN RD SKYLIN E JE SSU P KERB Y ST

L AV AV GVIL ST LEIF RD JA RR ETT NE AV 58TH

BALBOA AV JE SSU P ST AV

SALTZM AN E MIN NES OTA HAIGH T MOOR E JESSUP ST W RD 42N D

T # FR ONT ST A JA RR ETT ST JR. JE SSU P COLU M BIA

MISSOU R I MISSISSIPPI

T Y

AV 59TH FRONTAGE RD DEER IN G ST

NW CON COR D CH UR C H ST E # CH UR C H AV 122N D 57TH CH ANN EL ST CH UR C H ST INVE RN ESS AV AV

ATLAN TIC GREELY 62N D 72N D BLV D AV B ALBIN A M

A L KING DR M N 7TH A Z ALT WILL BRI DGE DOLP HIN V KILLI NGSW ORTH ST KILLI NGSW ORTH ST

S CESA R E. CHAVEZ R KILLINGSWORTH ST S NW 56TH AV D ST KILLI NGSW ORTH KILLI NGSW ORTH ST DR I KILLI NGSW ORTH N DOAN E ST 105TH E AV KILLINGSWORTH 5

AV ! KILLI NGSW ORTH CT PL ST

BLVD EMERSON ST AV K ERIC KSON WILL AMETTE BLV D AV

AV AV K ST KILLI NGSW ORTH CT PL 0

RD DR 55TH ! AV AV

! D

EMER SON AV

ST AV

LUTH ER

! 109TH Y AV ! EMER SON ST EMER SON ST 2 NW EMER SON ST

A EMER SON EMER SON AV

ST ST 46TH RD GREELY - LAGOON ROSEL AWN ST

53R D

54TH

WEBSTER ST GAY 47TH

48TH

L DEN VER V I MAR X

14TH

AV AV

AV AV AV SUM NE R AV AV AV AV PL AV

AV AV AV AV

AV ST I SUM NE R ST AV ROSEL AWN ST SUM NE R 112TH I COM MER CE AV ROSEL AWN ST AV ROSEL AWN ST AV AV SUM NE R ST ST ST S N L AV

82N D MAR TIN ST SUM NE R ST ROSEL AWN SUM NE R ST Willamette River ! AV SUM NE R ST NE AV N E BASIN AV WEBSTER ST COM MER CI AL WEBSTER ST SUM NE R WEBSTER ST E A ! E ST KILLI NGSW ORTH

S M AV A LTZ B ST

HEL ENS WEBSTER 73R D

VI 138TH AV WEBSTER ST 115TH A D AV

AV D CIR . AV ST MAR INE

ST AV AV R ALBER TA ST AV ST 57TH AV

ALBERTA 7TH V ST ALBER TA ST AV ALBER TA ST ST AIRP ORT A COVAN UVER ST MIN NES OTA 6TH ! D ALBER TA ST ALBER TA BENN ETT DR ALBER TA ST AV MAR X

86TH ST

HU MBOLT AV AV U.S. HW Y. I-205

ST MON TAN A

DEL AW ARE MAR YLAN D BALLA ST A NE ST

WYGAN T ST PL HU MBOLT ST HU MBOL DT

AV RD NW ! V AV ST 20TH 27TH 28TH

HU MBOL DT ST 22N D AV AV

23R D 24TH 25TH 26TH 29TH AV

ANC HO R 30TH 31ST ALBER TA CT AV CAM E

8TH 9TH AV AV AV R ON

32N D 32N D AV SAND Y

60TH AV AV DR 62N D WYGAN T ST WAY AV AV AV WHI TAKER WYGAN T ST WYGAN T L AV WYGANT ST WYGANT ST WYGAN T ST ST 80TH WYGAN T ST WYGAN T ST 92N D

87TH BLV D

AV U AV WYGAN T ST BLV D

52N D

AV FR ONT B AV

AV 75TH 76TH 77TH GOING ST 148TH

N 78TH 78TH GOING 100TH 101S T 102N D WAY

79TH

PL AV 104TH

CH ANN EL AV . 103R D 108TH 110TH 111TH DR

BLAN DE NA ST 106TH 107TH ERIK SON

I 91ST

55TH AV

NW ST DR O GOING GOING 90TH ST

GANTEN BEIN AV

AV GOING ST GOING ST GOING ST WYGAN T ST AV

AV AV

N CAM PBEL L R AV

LEIF AV MIC HIG AN KITTR ID GE GOGOINGINST T

G S ! BORTHWICK 74TH AV CON GRE SS

AV AV

BLVD

AV 96TH

PRES COTT J ST AV 89TH 98TH 99TH

ST 95TH 97TH WAY

88TH AV

PRES COTT ST PL NW ! PRES COTT ST 119TH AIRP ORT

P 86TH PL

RESCO PRES COTT ST CT

TT 85TH NE 118TH

136TH SKID MOR E C T PRES COTT ST PRES COTT 135TH

AV ST

AV AV SKYLIN E PORT AV AV 158TH AV LN SKID MOR E AV

DETR OIT AV PRES COTT

AV AV

! AV SKID MOR E ST BLVD. PL CAM PA IGN PRES COTT AIRP ORT

21ST S SKID MOR E TER . ST CEN TER 40TH EDN A PAR KWAY 41ST CT 38TH A SKID MOR E 91ST ST 88TH N 150TH E CAM PA IGN ST

Y AV 84TH AV D G 83R D CAM PA IGN CAM PA IGN S T AV I

AV D S

AV AV H Y ST 92N D ST AV WAY AV PL AV AV M R

E AV Y

17TH SKID MOR E ST AV AV AV 18TH 49TH AV T PL AV

15TH 16TH ST E

CR ANE SKID MOR E AV A ST AV AV

KERB Y 5 DR NE MASON ST SKID MOR E S V O ST AV I R MASON ST L 2 ! WARD PL O BLV D ST H EL ENS 121S T ST 1 SKID MOR E SKID MOR E ST R

AV SAND Y N

N COU RT ST

AV MASON

AV 90TH L DOLOR ES 185TH ST ST

E D D

OVERL OOK TER CU LLY D WAY

N 147TH

N R

CESA R E. CHAVEZ

ALAM EDA AV AV BLV D 2 2

NE SANDY BLVD MASON ST 3 19TH AV N

CASTL E AV AV D ST

136TH 3

AV AV ROD NE Y GRAN D ST 131S T 3 AV ST AV 130TH 3 O

LN NW E ! MALL ORY GARFIEL D G 33R D U MASON MASON 129TH 135TH 1

A E 1 DR MASON S 137TH

1 SHAVER ST 134TH CON COR D ST CLE VELAN D AV U.S. HW Y. I-205 Maywood M A

COLON IAL AV LONGV IEW V AV

AV SHAVER ST AV AV AV 122N D 141S T SHAVER PL AV ST L 26TH ST SHAVER SHAVER ST E OVERL OOK B LVD N ST C MAYWOOD

69TH

N V 63R D 68TH 70TH FAILI NG DU NC KLE Y 71ST SHAVER ST

WILL IAMS 64TH 66TH 144TH ! 65TH 67TH 72N D SHAVER ST SHAVER AIRP ORT DEVOTO

28TH AV R I AV ROC KY

RID GEWOOD 34TH

YEON E 35TH 35TH 36TH ! AV MON TAN A NE DR STU AR T 37TH AILIN G CT 2 FAILI NG F MEAR ES D R ST ST AV

! U.S. HW I-5 Y. FAILI NG ST BRYC E FAILI NG ST

EXPR ESS AV AV

RIGGS N. A

42N D FAILI NG ST R D FAILI NG D 142N

RD W ST AV LAID LA GREELY ! ALAM EDA ALAM EDA S T FAILI NG ST OVERL OOK # NE

DR Y AV N. ALBIN A K BUTTE

HAIGH T ST B MASSACHUSETTS MISSOU R I BORTH WIC K 4 D D I NG DR NW ST FAIL ST MISSISSIPPI ! ST ALTON 115TH L INTER STATE FAILI NG ST 105TH

! 47TH 113TH

91ST ALTON ST 112TH 114TH 116TH AV

DR V 109TH ALTON V ALTON MELR OSE 136TH

MC KEN NA AV ST AV CT ALTON ST 137TH D L 131S T AV BEEC H CT PLAZA AV ! BEEC H ST BEEC H ST D ST RD AV NE NW ST BEEC H CT BEEC H BEEC H Park H BEEC H ST

FIN ZER ST ST BEEC H ST ! AV R B AV T DR

PR INCESS DR S ALAM EDA TER 51ST ST

AV NT BEEC H BEEC H ST B ALTON ST

E 5 E AV

T D E C

S G BEEC H ST H 147TH SAND Y HOMP 3

O TH OMP SON FR ONT E EDGE ST R 1

RD MILTON R CT R E HIL L ST MILTON

148TH 149TH

G ST 3 N DR AV 145TH PL UP E CTR. AV

AV AV AV AV 152N D

AVE MILTON WAY R 3 C N AV ST EE C H ST MILTON RR

AV AV AV B H H ST PL AV AV BLV D

S A T AV 1

158TH

N. ST PL R 157TH P R ST FR EMO NT ST FR EMO NT T F E M NW E S P DR ER FR FR EMO NT O 156TH

PLEAS ANT

B EMON ST 154TH

T 4

139TH 140TH N E T FR EMO NT PL S L I ST AV 90TH FR EMO NT CT N N K A T ST N. ST T ST C RD DR PL FR EMO NT ST

Y DR IVY ST FR EMO NT 2 AV ST 125TH 126TH MILTON MILTON

L 1 ST AV PL D I LAN E MILTON 11 8 T H 11 9 T H 121S T ST N HEL ENS KAISER 120TH FR EMO NT ST E AV GREEL EY IVY ST FR EMO NT ST

DR 35TH DR 138TH

N MIC HIG AN

AV AV AV FR EMO NT

C AV AV AV AV AV ST AV AV AV 127TH

H 1 A MALTBY AV AV 1 O COOK ST PL N P R AV W CT L AV BOEHM ER ST I-8 4 AN I 2 N D AV AV AV 2 T G 38TH AV S A BEAKEY!ST AV AND RA PL

H O 8 FR EMO NT

AV L ST FR EMO NT AV

Y REVE RE BLVD. 33RD ALAM EDA D R

O 80TH K ST COOK KLIC KITAT 6 CT DR ST ST 79TH 81ST 129TH 1

M I 77TH 78TH T 76TH T 1 P O KLIC KITAT 75TH 130TH 150TH BLV D AV 74TH AV 131S T 3 FR EMO NT H S A R ! 73R D AV R ST H 3 O R R D H CT CH R 82N D

N A D 2 T

P RD N LEIF RD AV FAR GO ST DU DD LES ON ST KLIC KITAT 3

R AV N R 6

D I E A EN W FAR GO ST BLVD. N 5

AV SPRI NGBR OOK

HEN RY FOR EST L A M D AV ST

D FA ER G 72N D THOM X G E S KLIC KITAT KLIC KITAT 1

P DR Y ST ST NE S FAR GO ST D AV ALBIN A R

RD O E R ROSE GO 101ST CT NW CAD ET CT L E SISKIY OUST 88TH 135TH

AV AV

N AV PL 54TH 55TH AV AV AV 56TH 57TH 58TH 59TH CT

AV AV AV 53R D 60TH 61ST CT

A AV AV DYER ST

AV AV AV AV AV AV AV 51ST 52N D 71ST

AV AV AV AV DR

MON ROE ST AV AV AV AV AV AV AV AV AV PL FA 26TH SAND Y FAR GO R G S TL ST O . E MON ROE HIL L PAR KWAY SISKIY OU 158TH LEIF AV SISKIY OU ST A 83R D WAY FAR GO SISKIY OU 84TH C R SISKIY OU AV H ST I C SISKIY OU ST R

E ST D YEON VAN CO UVER ! BANFIE LD AV

142N D V JR. FR EMO NT ST CT

155TH RD GANTEN BEIN 87TH 126TH CT T L AV ! SISKIY OU ST B MOR RIS ST 141S T 143R D ROSE 157TH L 53R D E ST H EL ENS ST MOR RIS ST RD IE GUAM ST AV WISTAR IA D R 85TH CT 140TH DR T I R DR R CT N E 86TH - PAR KWAY N RD AV BEAU MON T MOR RIS IK A N. E 8 cD E TH OMP SON I MOR RIS EXPR ESSWAY 4 ST SISKIY OU ST ST M L NW S L S AV MOR RIS L K Y SISKIY OU ST AV I O ROSE

AV PL 7 MOR RIS

AV ST M STAN TON ST AV PL AV

COR NE LL BLVD N SUSS EX NEL A ST ! 0 PAR KWAY NW

U T ST DR ST SISKIY OU SISKIY OU 160TH STAN TON ST STAN TON V RD H LN ST BUTTE AV T BEATR IC E LAKE AV MOR RIS CT FA E ST STAN TON R SHER LOC K A G T C AV KERB Y AV O C 7TH ST

O 92N D 31ST STAN TON

V 111TH V ST

ST 89TH BRITTN EY A KING STAN TON MOR RIS ! L E

RD E 151S T ST 156TH

BLYTH 'S RD GRAH AM ! A N N WILL IAMS PL GRAH AM PL MOR RIS ST G

MATH ISON AV I-8 4 R R

ALEXA ND RA 32N D A H M ST

E . 8TH 26TH 27TH 28TH 77TH ST, A B 9TH 35TH LUZON ST BREW ER 35TH PAR KWAY D 32N D ROSE U D T 11TH 12TH 13TH 22N D 30TH 33R D 34TH SKYLIN E 10TH 24TH 25TH ST ! AV U ST DR AV 15TH 16TH 20TH 23R D 29TH 31ST O KNOTT R N H 22N D 14TH 19TH 21ST DR P AV 17TH 18TH K R ETT E 81ST O NIC OLAI AV AV K ! ROC KY 127TH H R IR IN MPSON AV C STAN TON ST CT BORTH WIC K

CT M B K AV

LN N AV ST A E SUFFOLK N. I NTER STATEAV KNOTT ! ALAM EDA TIMBERR IDGE AV ST ST R L ! ST Y A KNOTT BLVD. C ALAM EDA ST 76TH

L ST ! KNOTT WISTAR IA D A PL RD A 29TH ST W C ST IB R RU SSEL L 84

CT GROC E N A T R PI N RD NW ER U KNOTT CT L EE L 25TH B KNOTT ST PL BANFIE LD

Y R N. PL G ST, 141S T EXPR ESSWAY S §CT ST 25TH KA E 8 53R D IND US TR IAL ! S U KNOTT ¨¦ 26TH 133R D

D ! R ALBIN A BRAZEE 3 BLV D ST L ST CT AV AV N SEL L T ! CT DR T R HOLLYR OOD ST PL E S RU SSEL L ST T

AV D AV NW ! 122N D E KNOTT N ESSEX ROD NE Y DR SAND Y ! LUTH ER AV

N A RU SSEL L WISTAR IA ST HOES ODE RH L AV ST BREN D LE AV ! ST AV AV 123R D BRAZEE AV O BELGR AV E AV AV

N AV P S B CT AV 21ST AV AV RU SSEL L CT BRAZEE VA AV AV PL E AV ST, AV L N U AV AV BLVD BRAZEE ST E AV ! AV ST ST

NIC OLAI 30 !AV E PL G AV FR ONT 131S T DR A ! AV RU SSEL L B G H AV RU SSEL L ST R 159TH O AV

R ST AV AV V RU SSEL L DR PL MISSISSIPPI ! SACR AM ENTO POND D N BRAZEE! ST BRAZEE ST SAND YC RE ST TER . D ST US 26 N. ! AV AV O BRAZEE ST C AV

! 32N D

N AV SACR AM ENTO

CT DR PL BRAZEE ST N.W. REED ST AV ST RU SSEL L SAWYER ESSEX AV RID GE R U.S. HWY. I-205

T AV

H ST H 161S T D U.S. Y AV AV AV E DR U SHER LOC K AV SACR AM ENTO BRAZEE ST BRAZEE ST E E R CT 28TH ST T

! AV

ROSS 38TH 45TH

40TH 43R D R 37TH 50TH M D72N ST ST AV 44TH SACR AM ENTO AV BRAZEE 6 SACR AM ENTO

RKE S PL 49TH ST AV

HWY.

I E HIGH AV ! 46TH 47TH 48TH N A AV

DE N D ST BRAZEE ST AV 4 B ! RD ASPEN N ! AV S ST PS NW AV LORI NG PAGE N. PAGE ST SACR AM ENTO NE 1 OM ON T ST HWY. ST 28TH TH

! AV ST ALBIN A T 41ST AV BRAZEE ST

MILL ! V 22N D

! 42N D N AV AV AV 23R D TH O H H 23R D AV AV 93R D S

R LO M EW I EW YORK ST AV TH OMP SON AV T A T E BORTH WIC K AV AV D DR O 31ST RANRIVE DO LPHR AV SACR AM ENTO E 30TH FL INT ! AV ST H

B R L CLA RK AV MAR TIN SACR AM ENTO AV BENS ON WAY 36TH A ST U.S. TH OMP SON CT PL D

P R E ST ! ! R T N AV N AV

A B S ST TH OMP SON ST! TH OMP SON TH OMP SON SACR AM ENTO CT N E CT ST ST 3 5 D E V I-5 S TH OMP SON ST 102N D N C E AV BLVD. AL A V 5 E CT R A 5 O E L RD ST I ST ST 150TH 2 154TH E DR G ROOSE VELT D

MAYER S 1 1 U G

V AV 132N D 137TH 5 E NE

AV ST N ST 108TH AV

E I TH OMP SON 1

! N 130TH B E ! M P LEWIS R 131S T

AV AV TH OMP SON S O 121S T 144TH

AV ST O EUGEN E N W ST AV AV T H AV

CT ST AV ST R AV A AFAE L DR

EUGEN E R PL

O AV 142N D EUGEN E N CT A ST I T AV H ST SA

SICH EL CT W ROOSE VELT 24TH WILSON ST L TIL LAM OOK ST !

M AV CESA R E. CHAVEZ EUGEN E ST AV R SAND Y T U.S. GRA NT H

C A ST R ! R PL 86TH 117TH F WILSON AV EUGEN E 88TH 90TH ST PL RP LA DR CT

! 17TH M E C O E 32N D WILSON ST TIL LAM OOK ST 92N D 5 E T L S TER MI NAL ST M T L IN O ! ! EUGENE ST CT U R K M E S D LT ! TIL LAM! OOK 0 1 148TH ! 78TH 80TH 81ST

LAN GLEY ST 9 A DR E A NW ! !ST 79TH Y U.S. HW Y I-405 ALBIN A 3 E VAN CO UVER 162N D

R AV 106TH

CT E 1 3 5 20TH KERB Y

R VAU GH N ST 134TH 136TH

D 21ST L NEW 21ST R 82N D

SAN RAFAEL 3 TIL LAM OOK ST R E HOPE Z ST NE 1

AV TIL LAM OOK AV

ST 111TH 158TH L

WILL IAMS ST TIL LAM OOK ST 112TH 128TH TIL LAM OOK ST D

33R D N. ! RAIN MO NT I A C PL VAU GH N ! TIL LAM OOK ST NW VAU GH N ST S TIL LAM OOK ST SAN RAFAEL G # R 55TH

53R D

H 56TH AV 95TH NE

! AV 51ST M E SAN RA FAEL ST

U.S. ! 54TH D

61ST T 52N D 57TH 58TH 60TH NE

! 59TH AV I RU NN YM EAD E S

NW TH OMP SON 62N D

AV V PL 148TH

AV AV ST

T PL N. HAN CO CK ST 3 AV

RD ST 30TH HAN CO CK R ST UPSH U R AV SAN RA FAEL ST

MILL ER HWY. A

! ! AV SCH UY LER ST ! GANTEN BEIN ST Fairview HAN CO CK

UPSH U R ST ST ST AV ST 28TH AV HAN CO CK AV ENGL EMAN AV AV 149TH DR 30 AV HAN CO CK

ASHB Y AV DR AV AV ST

AV HAN CO CK PL AV

P AV PL

AV HAN CO CK AV

HAN CO CK AV ST

! ! 70TH AV AV PL CT A O DR ST AV ! ! ! UPSH U R AV BLVD. HAN CO CK ST HAN CO CK

CT 33R D CT AV AV

AV AV HAN CO CK ST 113TH ST T W TH UR M AN ST ST JONE

17TH S M SCH UY LER ST

23R D 18TH 35TH ST O HAN CO CK

AV M 19TH AV

24TH ! HAN CO CK R AV 36TH PL

AV E T ! ST N CT HAN CO CK SCH UY LER DR O F AV AV AV AV TH UR M AN ST NW SCH UY LER E ! M ! A AV AV E NW INTER STATE Y O ST

A 34TH W ST 84TH LN O LOOP ST 88TH 1 SCH UY LER

R ! PL L N 129TH G D ROSE U.S. SCH UY LER SCH UY LER ST AV ST 4 E DR E 91ST AV R D JR. 8 EN HALL ROSS AV AV BROAD WAY ST AV RD Y 1ST 90TH 143R D BROAD WAY

ST 2ND 114TH CAXTON BROAD WAY SCH UY LER ST NEW PORT T E HWY. ST AV 63R D 65TH ST CT YEON 3RD ! 64TH

O WAY FR AN KLIN ST E

H AV D F ST SAVI ER ! ST ST LE B CT RD SAVI ER DIXONN. B ENTON AV

M S 27TH 67TH 28TH

IS EN FI 29TH ! 125TH C ELD 31ST E ! AV BROAD WAY BROAD WAY H ST AV SAVI ER ST AV AV BROAD WAY ST BROAD WAY OAD NE

D K 32N D ST BR W N 30 VICTOR IA R 159TH

BARN ESLY E AV 142N D 150TH A M AV AV L

I-8 4 AV

E RAL EIGH ST R Y NAITO WEID LER ST L BROAD WAY WEID LER Y WEID LER AV AV ST

U KING, WEID LER ST AV E ! ST V JE WELL R ST

ST ! 42N D AV AV L AV RAL EIGH B 101S T ST F 127TH HALSEY

C ASPEN R I AV N ST 104TH AV

120TH

33R D 136TH

O NW B LV D V 41ST WEID LER ST RAL EIGH ST PL

34TH ! S E NW N. W HE ELER AV WEID LER

140TH L 75TH 76TH ST WEID LER 138TH

N ! NE 137TH 141S T V 40TH R 74TH 119TH

I 6TH 7TH ST

9TH 77TH

S HAL SEY ST E A 118TH PL ST K ST 68TH 78TH WEID L 114TH

COR NE LL ST 73R D ST 116TH 156TH QUIM BY 126TH AV 153R D

3 HAL SEY ST WEID LER ST

RD ST

RD CT

W NW ST ST GRAN D ST LUTH ER HA

QUIM BY Y LAR ABEE LSE A HAL SEY ST HAL SEY

HAL SEY 146TH

A AV AV

ABER NETH Y ST NE NE NE

AV AV AV HAL SEY HAL SEY 159TH

MAYFI ELD QUIM BY 25TH A ! ! ST HAL SEY ST

H M AV AV

PKWY CLA CKA MAS AV O 43R D

F B ST EUC LID AV AV ST CLA CKA MAS ST AV AV AV T U

4 L ST S D R NW VD MER IDI AN AV N MTN. PA R K ! PETTY GROVE CLA CKA MAS ST S CLA CKA MAS ST AV A ASPEN T E AV L A AV

RD N N AV

D AMS A W A AV CLA CKA MAS CLA CKA MAS ST

E LN M ST ! TE AV ST AS Z S AV I IN COR NE LL I ST AV

F V N CT S 57TH 85TH CLA CKA MAS ST M

Y R U I-8 0 T 58TH 59TH 60TH B CLA CKA MAS ST AV A I

A A I ! ! A AV

AV AVE 1 K

M 26TH WASCO ST DR D WASCO ST N L E M AV COR NE LL CT BRID GE U.S. HW Y. I-84 M VIEW 47TH 55TH F PL A C

AV ST 46TH AV L CLA CKA MAS

M OVERTON 37TH AV 53R D 61ST AV I ST L H WASCO 62N D ST E 92N D C R

E G COR NE LL ! MAR TIN ST WASCO ST WASCO L WASC O ST 26TH ! AV R ! IT WASCO D WASCO ST

R TH UN D ERB IRD AV

IRF 63R D E 88TH AV

A KPAR NW FA AX HWY. AV

E N. AV X T W AV NO. 1 E ! ST 78TH P ST WASCO E WASC O ST

E 69TH R AV AV AV

H 70TH AV

UR R E A 68TH E AV AV

R L AV

N L ST 71ST AV S

RD S ! ! 12TH S AV

A NOR TH R UP ST T MULTNOMAH MU LTN OMAH AV AV AV AV AV H S M IMPER IAL ST ST ST W L E MU LTN OMAH ST U.S. MU LTN OMAH E AV

Y ! AV A AV AV E P R N O MU LTN OMAH ST Y 134TH AV

84 116TH UN ION RD E BROAD WAY A N T N 51ST 52N D V D ! 126TH A O T AV A W A ! T A H A O L AV MU LTN OMAH ST ST F ! AV ! 42N D § M I

RD LU H V 3 M U AV AV AV MULTNOMAH MU LTN OMAH N ¨¦ T (TUN N EL)

RD E ST 9 HASS ALO ST H MU LTN OMAH MU LTN OMAH ST D M ! BLVD AV

MAR SH ALL

R E U.S. HW I-405 Y. AV AV AV T RD HASS ALO ST AV

AV ! AV AV 137TH HOLB ROOK AV R ST 6 A HASS ALO T AV HASS ALO R 53R D T R STATE ST C

COR NE LL A 8 HAS SALO 3 ST I 6 R E Y AV 11TH BLVD. PEER LESS 79TH ST AV 1 NW R ST

48TH HASS ALO 106TH Wood

! 2 13TH ST

! 1 AV LOVEJOY 1ST AV T O E

R AV ST AV L AV

AV S AV

AV AV AV A DR 117TH 118TH ST HOLL AD AY 135TH

D LN AV Y ST AV 119TH 131S T

O 65TH HASS ALO AV S

L AV RD AV HOLL AD AY ST HOLL AD AY ! A AV LOVEJOY ST U.S. HW Y. H A S N A D AV PL 64TH AV HOLL AD AY 120TH

L R N 84TH WAY OL LFE D ST AV E H ST AV E B A C U MB ERL A D ! 16TH H AZ PL PAC IFIC HASS ALO 104TH HOLL AD AY P R ST ST C N R ! HOLL AD AY

T AV HOLL AD AY D ! S ST 107TH ST ST

! AV T HASS ALO # ST AV C A 77TH ST SAND Y AV I

!R ! KEAR NEY PAC IFIC ST AV AV F

A R I AV R AV S I TER C LAURELHURST 73R D KY R TER PAC IFIC PAC IFIC ST PA OREGON ST 74TH 75TH 76TH PAC IFIC ST PAC IFIC D ! ! ST 72N D D E ! L OO B ! HOLL AD AY ST I ! ! I-8 4 PAC IFIC N HO LL A D AY PL H 33R D ST ST I C ! AV NOREGON ST T

N N N ST 80TH

! AV 81ST 82N D

AV JOH N SON

25TH PL PL AV

A ST 43R D AV

A ST

E 6TH ST

E 16TH A 15TH JOH N SON OREGON ST 27TH 108TH

20TH CT 91ST 109TH 111TH

17TH

R ! 21ST ST ! ST AV

E 18TH ! !19TH AV 110TH PACI FI C AV

T L 22N D ! AV 114TH

S R RD JOH N SON PACIFIC ST 23R D 112TH 113TH L R OREGON ROYAL ST T G ! ! 66TH C ST OREGON F E ! 24TH 25TH PAC IFIC

B ! RAN DA LL V 2 122N D H ST

I M NW WILL IAMS ROYAL CT L R RD OREGON ST P ! N E A A E E 405 LAWR ENC E

SPRI NG AV L ! 9TH T 63R D OREGON L E AV 128TH E POW H ! ST I CT BLVD VERA AV C 66TH AV L !!! IRVIN G ST IRVIN G OREGON OREGON 161S T AV ST OREGON ST ST 148TH

! M A ST N. L ST

! ! IRVIN G IRVIN G ST AV 41ST AV

S E P ! 10TH AV AV E § E ST L ! AV AV AV R ST A N

! ! ¨¦ 23R D

! ! ! 157TH N M AC IRVIN G IRVIN G ST T E L 29TH AV AV E L A BRID GE O 8 99TH N 155TH 160TH L IRVIN G ST AV A R IRVIN G ST OREGON ST O

!! LLOYD ! T 2 OR EG OREGON

' NW OREGON ST 127 153R D Y U D S R B AV AV N 152N D R !! AV IRVIN G ST OREGON (TUN N EL) AV WESTOVER ! !! AV

O !! O ST G C L

NW BROAD WAY ST ST IRVIN G ST ! !! HOYT HOYT U.S. HW Y. I-84 AV AV 30TH 87TH L NW RD N !

R PL L O I-4 05 ! T !! ST N ST PL NW CORNELL RD AV ER AV

! HOYT ! I AV NW ! O F Village E

R ! AV 16TH ! ST ST NW HOYT C ! ! PL AV T ST !! STE EL HOYT ST T PL ER D O HOYT ! ST IRVIN G AV ST COR NE LL A U HOYT 32N D 0 AV

T CESA R E. CHAVEZ ST 61ST 102N D

HOYT 61ST

C S 62N D 64TH H IRVING I R ! D HOYT ST HOYT ST NE HOYT P V G !! 68TH 69TH ST ST ! ! AV

15TH E !! I-405 ! A ST ST ! AV E HOYT ST HOYT HOYT ST

T ! ! AV HOYT 151S T

! 24TH AV H ! ! ST TH

! ! 19TH 20TH L

! 11TH N NW GLISAN

A 21ST ! 44TH U.S. HW I-205 Y.

D 22N D AV NE PL

VI V V 67TH 127TH S 125TH

RIO 1

T L ! NW GLISAN ST GLISAN ST BUXTON AV D

D ! ! GLISAN R D E V

HW Y. ST ST

A B L GLISAN

B ! GLISAN 70TH 92N D 93R D

I T V 106 127TH D L MIR IMA R ST V

N R

ST ! ! SE GLISAN

AV AV ! AV AV ST

O D AV

AV AV 118TH G R AV AV 108TH 117TH 150TH B AV

AV ST 116TH NE L M E E ! 120TH GLISAN ST NE

AV FL AND ER S GLISAN ST E PL R T R T ! L NE GLISAN ST

AV ST D B A ST FL AND ER S ST ! AV GLISAN

! 28TH AV AV H LA ! A

T V FL AND ER S U.S. 49TH AV AV

WI BU E I ! FL AND ER S AV FL AND ER S N ! S ! R ! ST AV 8 S T E !! IS T ! U FL AND ER S ST FL AND ER S ST S T A A AV

1 K R ED ST ! 5TH O R D RD

Y V L ! !! 3RD 2ND 1ST AV R AV PL 4TH !! 6TH L N D ! ! ! AV LN IN DR S I R FL AND ER S E S E FL AND ER S ST AV

D 'S ! ST AV AV T AV O TER AV ! V N ! M AV D B L T EVER ETT

O E Y AV

A ! EVER ETT E ! FL AND ER S ST PL L E M A E E ! ST ! ST BLVD. AV ST L DR FL AND ER S O U T L 26TH 27TH AV Q C EVER ETT EVER ETT EVER ETT 78TH 79TH T V IS M A ST L 80TH AV AV A E U ! R M ST Y ST L ! 43R D EVER ETT ST R D DAVIS 58TH AV FL D E

A 85TH ! ! ! ! NE S

H WARR EN A N ST W D 56TH E R S ST E NE R Y C T R D AV I 57TH R PL E O ! PKWY CT R VAL LE E ! O ! U H

H L E

N 8TH PL SAND Y PL V W AV ST EVER ETT ST EVER ETT AV

150TH PL

O IA Y ST PL

E A DAVIS PAR K ST G ST PL 14TH

! 11TH AV

M R B 12TH ! 13TH ! 63R D

E R ST DAVIS R R RD DAVIS AV ST EVER ETT EVER ETT R

V IM P E TE ! DAVIS ST AV DAVIS ORAL FL S ST DAVIS ST IN EVER ETT AV EVER ETT

ST T 52N D

Y 65TH 108TH

! ! 66TH AV DAVIS L

O ! COU CH DAVIS ST ST ST 134TH

! !! AV

B ! ! L

A ST BLVD ST D I DR D P 103R D PL 104TH

! 106TH 23R D NE DAVIS ST DAVIS CT

! DAVIS AV 105TH ST

N I T !! ST B ST AV 132N D NW ! AV H A COU CH L COU CH

T ! AV PL

M ST NW

V N 22N D ! COU CH ST 73R D R PL

COU CH AV AV

A ! AVE PL

COU CH ST COU CH 75TH 92N D T 126TH DAVIS AV

S AV 22N D ! ST 50TH DAVIS ST

O 20TH 9TH ST 92N D AV

A 1ST S CT E

A NAITO COU CH COU CH AV ST

NOR D R ! G ! ! ST 5 AV 67TH AV C OUC E

AV E 2ND NS DAVIS H E D BU R ID 2 CT N TR IN ITY ! E E COU CH ST ST ST DAVIS

E AV 110TH 156TH ENW A ! ! BUR NS IDE ST COU CH 1 COU CH BUR NS IDE AV ST

AV 100TH AV AV S BRID GE ! 116TH

L AV A D W. E. BUR NS IDE DAVIS ST C AC T AV AV AV CT SE R ST E B AV COU CH

B LA ! U R 130TH NW TER I T T GILH AM 128TH ST D ! ! ! N 74TH AV C ! E. ST AV

NW MOR RIS ON ! BUR NS IDE AV AV 62N D 66TH AV COU CH 149TH CT S V I U YAM HIL L ID S U AV

ST E ST 59TH AV 108TH ST E ! E MEIKL E BU RN SID E ST PL

L ! ! ! ST V

R SW ANKE NY PL V

NW TER 69TH ST AV N 140TH L R ST E BU RN SID E

I S D S ! ! ST COU CH 20TH ! !

MP A IN YAM HIL L AV ! BLVD. BUR NS IDE S D H A L E ! AV AV AV ANKE NY E ST 120TH AVE

H AV ! AV 113TH

! 147TH

C WRI GHT A AV BLVD. AV AV AV AV

E D ANKE NY T AV AV COU CH

RD ! ST AV S 118TH CO ST D E AV 125TH CT N ! !! AV AV U C H ! TAYL OR ASH N Y AV A ! I-5 KE ST BURNSIDE E DR R R B ANKE NY ST AN AV AV BUR NS IDE

H MAR CON I ST AV A

R T VISTA ST 44TH 66TH AV ST A

NE K AV R ! 70TH RDR AV ! ! ! ! ! AV AV E. L

O ! AV 60TH 61ST N AV M S ST ANKE NY A KINGS TON OAK ST 71ST ST BUR NS IDE T R AV B A ! AV AV AV C ANKE NY R ST

A SW ST C LA IR KING ST AV

G AV ! ST PL S P AV N H N ST ST U AV U L K PL ! ! AV ! ! ASH 65TH 72N D S ST S R R 13TH AV AV AV ST CT ! 15TH AV

R E O ST B ST Y AV K E ! ! ! ! 17TH ! P Y R H A PAR K PL AV ! ! ASH ASH SH L E R ST RD S BT AV ASH ST ASH AV AV ! P PINE ASH A L R ST R ANKE NY ANKE NY ! AV T U ! T ST

I ! S ST AV T ! AV ! ASH I D B T N ST O ANKE NY AV AV N I ! ! 11TH 57TH ASH I R ST H 79TH 87TH AV AV 113TH AV PL

STAR K ! AV ST 45TH 47TH ASH ST T ! A ! 21ST ! 76TH AV D ! ST ! 94TH E ! ST H S W ! AV 97TH P E L ! ! ! HWY. ASH PINE ANKE NY V ALD ER CT AV AV OO ! 30TH 48TH T A E ! ! AV 41ST 81ST 82N D AV NW T P ! ! ! 12TH I ST CIR

53R D G ! 13TH 137TH D 20TH ASH

14TH ! 55TH E ! PINE ASH MILL ER

! PINE ST E 22N D 24TH ASH ST ST CT N M MAIN ST 18TH 17TH IL CT M PL SW 3RD 8 S ASH

W ! SALM ON ! AV V ST ASH

! 30TH 49TH A H ASH ST 31ST

! ! ! 20TH 32N D AV I A A

F AV ! CT H ST ASH D R ! PINE A ST

A D A ! BL 16TH

! AV V C H CT

PAR K I ! WASHI NGTON ST !

D H ! ! ! PINE H T ST M

L PL ! E MAIN MOR RIS ON ! T R ! ! ! 6TH 7TH S

! ST 151S T 8 PINE

L ! U.S. 5

! ! 103R D 146TH

C 15TH PINE ST

BLVD ! ! OAK S T ST 134TH

4 PINE 83R D 84TH 85TH 91ST ST A T

V ! 8TH CESA R E. CHAVEZ 124TH 143R D AV

5 ST A

DOU GLAS 6 PINE AV

M ARD MOR E KING CT OAK V OAK ST PINE 141S T

E ! AV ST AV S.E PINE ST ST PINE ST 139TH

I V TH ORB UR N

52N D

!! SW ! ! ! ! 130TH 14TH OAK ST ST PIN E

SALM ON GRAN D 29TH 93R D 136TH N E ! ! ST

WI 16TH 18TH R ST

D 86TH PINE ST

V ! 133R D O U ST 132N D W ST ! OAKST 155TH

! ! 154TH L OAK ST

! YAM HIL L ! ! ! ANKE NY AV FR EEWAY

! !! AV PINE 153R D

ST ! AV E T MAD ISON RD B R MAD ISON AV JR.

BLVD AV OAK CT OAK ST 1 ! 109TH D PKWY AV I ! 108TH OAK G ! ! PL OAK ST AV 1 106TH A OAK 127TH 129TH

JE FFER SON ST ! ST 126TH B S R SW ! 10TH STAR K U ! ! ! 0 AV OAK

N N 21ST ! AV W R AV ST ST

! ! 72N D 90TH STAR K ST STAR K 3 A N ! ST 89TH

! 88TH I Y O RD ! AV BROAD WAY ! STAR K N Y TAYL OR S.E STAR K R ST N ST ! ! STA ST ! STAR K 105TH N ! RK ST DR E 70TH ! 67TH D GARD EN A ST STAR K ST B T ! ! ! SE STARK E ! AV AV STAR K 65TH

S ST WASHI NGTON 62N D ST

! AV PL R C M ST ST STAR K ST SE STARK ST SE STAR K BUR NS IDE N A ST ! WASHI NGTON ST AV AV AV ST ST I S SE R ! ! 35TH AV ! W D A WASHI NGTON ST WASHI NGTON S K ! MOR RIS ON ST WASHI NGTON ST C AV T T SALM ON !

ET ST LN WASHI NGTON AV AV

R N 19TH STAD IUM ST

! AV AV J F

! O AV 74TH AV ! CT AV AV

C U E AV T

F 21ST 9TH SW T WASHI NGTON ST SE

W ROSE O !

AV A O F

M ST WASHI NGTON 100TH ST RD DR

E ALD ER ST AV

O !66TH AV ALD ER WASHI NGTON ST

E M

! ! ! ST AV AV 48TH S V R PAR K NAITO BRID GE ALD ER 68TH AV ! 49TH 69TH AV AV PL R R ALD ER ST ALD ER ALD ER ST ALD ER

I I JE FFER SON ! ! ! ! ALD ER ST ST 52N D R ST AV AV

AV AV AV AV

S MAIN! ! ALD ER AV

S 20TH C I ST 70TH 71ST AV DR PL WASHI NGTON ST

27TH AV AV V CT S ! ! ! 41ST SW D T SW R ! ! O ST ALD ER ST AV O

!! 81ST AV

W D

S A ! AV C A N ALD ER ALDER

E ST 157TH S C ! ! RD P ST

WEST R ST

! 48TH 54TH 58TH 62N D AV E N T ALD ER ALD ER ALD ER ST E K

DR ! ! 46TH 47TH AV 160TH D COLU M BIA AV AV AV AV S DR MOR RIS ON ST ST I I N D MOR RIS ON ST MOR RIS ON ST A ! AV ALD ER

L ! ! 33R D ST ST

L Y ! ! MOR RIS ON ST MOR RIS ON ALD ER

AV R O ! AV I V A E BLA ST A R R ! ! MOR RIS ON ST CT CT

S E N

H 58TH 102N D B ER AV ST ! ST ! ST

L Y

G 134TH 57TH PL T ! ! !

F ! MOR RIS ON ST ! ALD ER ALD ER CT

R AV R 156TH M E PEACOCK

ST ! 162N D

! AV AV A I R R S ! AV R

U P ! ALD ER N I A

Y ! ! H ST AV E C 53R D ST T CT ! ! 164TH A N F 19TH ST ST 76TH AV

RD A C AV ! ! ST

C CLAY I - 405

F V BARN ES KING, AV AV 4 130TH BELM ONT MOR RIS ON ST DR

E ! ! 119TH 128TH

W ST MOR RIS ON MOR RIS ON D D O B BELM ONT 42N D AV 45TH ! 3 D ! 168TH R SW ST MOR RIS ON

ST I R T ! !CT ! S.E. BELM ONT BELM ONT 7 ST ! AV AV ST 37TH 38TH 51ST ST 65TH AV R TER E E E ! 1 E 18TH AV S.E BELM ONT

LN R WIN DSOR 19TH ST 43R D 136TH 137TH

R C E E NT AV D H ! 1 L MOR RIS ON O AV ! 72N D 111TH PL W BLV D I B ST

SW E R ST ELMO 112TH

L I S NT 114TH MOR RIS ON A ST MOR RIS ON 131S T

MILL T Y N T MAD ISON ! 9

KE TER 17TH AV ST

ST O V 153R D O T AV P ! ! S N 12TH AV W T ! SE

A MAR KET ! ! 6 DR R K D 67TH PL CT YAM HIL L 1 I ! PL AV T E ST YAM HIL L V L ! ST ST ST AV ! AV 151S T L HWY AV AV YAM HIL L YAM HIL L

YAM HIL L 40TH AV 148TH S X 11TH B ST! AV ! YAM HIL L ST ST YAM HIL L ST 141S T ST E E A L AV YAM HIL L E I YAM HIL L 29TH 30TH AV ST AV 142N D M DR K TH CH ERR Y AV ZION F COLU M BIA 28TH ST 166TH N ! R 18TH YAM HIL L A L 143R D 165TH F AV Y ! 5 52N D I M O 106TH IL 154TH M ! R N L ! ST U ! T ST DR YAM HIL L ST .S ! ! 11TH H PL YAM HIL L H ! . JE FFER SON ! 15TH 20TH YAM A R

SW H !12TH 17TH 170TH A O K G E AV 16TH I PAR K DR N L O R W §! 60TH L Y R B N AV AV AV AV O CT TAYL OR ST I SON CT

F Y TAYL OR ST 82ND

57TH Y SE AV R Y ¨¦ ST M TAY L O R ST

I A R 2 ! !ST AV AV L PL AV 149TH 155TH PL U.S. TAYL OR 6 8TH 9TH AV ! AV D S ! E TAYL OR TAYL OR L AV ! 10TH ! X D AV ST ST TAYL TAYL OR ST P D E A Y ST ! 13TH 14TH O U.S. HW I-205 Y. TAYL OR A YA M HIL L

P ER C ASC A W 25TH 80TH ST AV H ST

U T ! 78TH

V TAYL OR ST CT ST 26TH F ! ST TAYL OR

R H 56TH

61ST R M ! 122N D ON ST S CT TAYL OR LM MAIN ST SW RD H ON ! ! T TAYLCT OR

A O TER AV

E T A T 6TH P TAYL OR ST 4 G ! TAYL OR AV S H DR 1ST AV F 66TH 1 TAYL OR

A I R E ! O ST AV AV AV ! BELM ONT AV TAYL OR CT SE TAYL OR ST SALM ON ST CT M M ! AV ! SALM ON ST

N ! CT 1 TAYL OR

! 123R D S E SALM ON SALM ON

5TH ST ST 135TH R T R T AV AV R M D ST S.E. C BLOSSOM SALM ON SALM ON N ! 22N D 23R D AV SE. H AV

AV RD A O AV Y SALM ON ST 31ST CT 32N D ! 73R D E N CABL E SALM ON

CAR TE R ! 34TH 35TH 36TH AV AV AV 147TH DR ST 10TH SALM ON ST T SALM ON ST

V RD AV AV AV 117TH ST T D CLAY AV 138TH O U T A CT R 4TH SALM ON ST AV ST G HAL L 6 CT

9TH AV

T D S 104TH S V A HAWTH ORN E AV

57TH M ! ST ST 4 SALM ON SW T

H AV ST L LUTH ER S.E. ! AV D 3RD ST D HAR RI SON 1ST 3RD SALM ON 1 D N D LN AV

R PAR K 2ND AV ST 8 174TH 3

AV AV MAIN MAIN 1

ISO A N MAIN ST PL B N

! WATER AV N 6 N N I I ! MAIN ST AV MAIN AV A MAIN ST U

! AV L 2ND ST M W ! PL A MAIN MAIN

O MAIN 92N D

58TH ! ST ST ! AV SALM ON CT B L H LN MAR KET ST SE MAIN

MAIN ST ST 165TH

! S.E. ST

P G M ST 1ST ST ST MAD ISON AIN ST 172N D 169TH ST CT M 168TH

I MON TGOM ER Y ST AV BRID GE 52N D 163R D SE MAIN ST 2

VISTA 51ST MAIN S.E. 4

! 50TH R U MAIN ST H N ! ! MAD ISON MAIN AV

! 53R D 55TH 58TH ! R UPPE ! 63R D AV ST

H !

O MAD ISON ST 56TH 57TH

47TH AV MAD ISON ST

19TH MAD ISON AV 96TH AV

MILL ST 84TH AV PL

BLVD MAD ISON MAD ISON MAD ISON PL I BARR OWLN Y ST ST DR ST

BROADWAY 48TH MAD ISON AV 49TH ! AV PL

HAL L AV AV G ST

N ST AV

MAD ISON ST AV SE ON

JA CKS ON 11 5 T H 120TH CT AV IS 2

. 14TH AVE 1 PL E A COLL! EGE ST ST 114TH D AV MAD ISON

! 89TH H S.E. N 87TH 88TH 93R D 152N D A C HAWTH ORN E ST 86TH 60TH I BLV D S.E. MAD ISON 85TH 110TH HAWTH ORN E

AV 140TH

! 32N D 163R D ST HAWTH ORN E M

L TOR R 24TH 139TH CT 167TH

! MON TGOM ER Y 27TH AV L S HAWTH ORN E ! 29TH DR AWTH CT

AV BLV D 43R D H OR ST

! AV 109TH Y S.E HAWTH ORN E BLV D S.E. HAWTH ORN E N A RD CLI FTON T MAPL E HAWTH ORN E ST BLV D CLAY E HAWTH ORN E

! !! !ST ! 160TH PL

K N A 169TH HA CLAY 168TH AV

! WTHOR BLVD PL SE MAR KET D S ! ! ST AV NE ST 6 !

LN ! AV 2 D AV BLVD CT AV

AV 7TH ST 143R D 143R D Y 6TH CLAY ST ! ! HAWTH ORN E ST ST CT AV I LAD D AV

AV AV S.E. 100TH 174TH

AV ! !! U W HAR RI SON DR AV AV AV 172ND

AV CLAYST AV AV CLAY Y 72N D AV H ! AV D HOLLY ST CLAY DR

MILL W . ST PL AV ST

M 127TH W CT W 21ST AV ST MAR KET CLAY ST P N .S SW MYR TL E E. CLAY ST AV AV AV CLAY ST CLAY ST ST MAR KET ST MAR KET CT CT K U ! ! 74TH CLAY S ST

ST AV E AV A AV CLAY

I MAR TIN AV 31ST

F 32N D AV

S L 20TH GRAN D MAR KET AV ST AV ! AV L L MAR KET ST

FE MAR KET 33RD AV AV 157TH AV T R ATH R ST ST AV ST M AR

M MU LBER RY MILL N ! AV 71ST

V H 13TH HAZEL K E H I ! HAL L AV 19TH ! T ST H AV W BROAD WAY PKWY MAR KET M ST ST 16TH AV K L G LAU REL CA R ELLIOTT MAR KET ST MILL 152N D

L ST T I D A E N ST AV T A POPLAR ST MAR KET E

ELM MAR KET CT CT 151S T N E Y MAR KET MILL CT MILL 150TH AV R PL 6

AV 158TH ! ! ST AV 5 159TH H I L R M

LN L AV A AV AV ST MILL Y ST MAR KET MILL CT 4 L

P R Q MILL AV AV CT AV MILL CT 142N D 4 AV AV MILL ST CT E DR ST COLL EGE ST 1 IL MILL ST R R MILL AV AV ! 1 U B ST I D MILL AV MILL 167TH PAL M M M PL V AV ST 21ST 23R D 24TH ST CT D ST

AR AV CT CT MON TGOM ER Y 22N D 25TH MILL ST MILL ST 138TH N V DR W IS I HAR BOR A ST MILL ST MILL M

O ! ! 36TH V O ! N AV AV STE PHE NS ST ST SE ST H

! 35TH 37TH 41ST E

Y 18TH STE PHE NS MILL ST IL L

! 35TH E AV 110TH

SW ST 1 P N ST N ! 40TH N I MILL T VISTA G S.E. E ON G M 42N D 46TH 48TH

E NY A ! ST AV 47TH T S D 5

CT ! AV 44TH 45TH STE PHE NS AV AV

A 17TH V A ! ! JA CKS ON ST PL

C T S !AV S A ST STE PHE NS ST T

C SUN SET H WY. ! STE PHE NS AV AV

STE PHE NS 4 O 104TH N 10TH

H CESA R E. CHAVEZ

! AV H C N STE PHE NS

SPRI NG AV AV

! N STE PHE NS STE PHE NS ST 58TH 59TH N ST STE PHE NS AV AV AV T STE PHE NS E 4TH

CLI FTON 56TH AV T

55TH 60TH 16TH ST 57TH A AV N

N C O ! 54TH ST STE PHE NS

66TH T O T STE PHE NS AV PL ST H

O I AV AV 52N D STE PHE NS

U.S. HW Y. 26 AV 169TH C Y U ! AV . ST 131S T A N N ST

) ST T D AV AV 100TH 101S T

D ! A HAR RI SON AV

M ! ST H EL EN'S M C ANY ON R R I D ST STE PHE NS CT B T

( ! L N K !IST A ST HAR RI SON 76TH ST CT R DR HAR RI SON A HAR RI SON ST AV A V ! 27TH 28TH U T A E ST HAR RI SON ST STE PHE NS

! 165TH M ST

LOCU ST STE PHE NS 164TH

51ST

26 ! T ST ST STE PHE NS O V P ELIZABETH ! ! AV ST R T . DR R

£ 2

S N ST 84TH HAR RI SON S 80TH 130TH HAR RI SON ST ST HAR RI SON 104TH PL AV ¤ E

E DR 15TH E HAR RI SON 77TH HAR RI SON 151S T E Y . C 111TH HAR RI SON ST HAR RI SON ! R ! H AW H BRID GE ! HAR RI SON ST ST 155TH ST

W T H S

D ! AV 2 LIN COL N CYPR ESS ST

Y R W ST S.E. AV RD C S.E. T H R 4 PL 96TH 149TH AV

SW A 8TH HAR RI SON 150TH

O G AV T 9TH AV HAR RI SON E L 0 LIN COL N ST 160TH

S L O ST T Y N LIN COL N ST LAR CH 97TH 112TH Y R L LIN COL N LIN COL N ST CT ST AV 148TH 6 J I LIN COL N AV PL ST 161S T E L CT ST 10TH 12TH DR PL

SW I G 11TH LAD D LIN COL N AV

! 75TH H R - I LIN COL N LIN COL N

R E ST HAR RI SON H ! AV 147TH AV E E PL! 4 LIN COL N ST ST ST ST W DR N 0 HEM LOC K AV LIN COL N ST CT LIN COL N C ! E ST

SW O E RIVE R 8 P DR 5 AV 88TH CT P. ! GRAN T ST AV AV 11 5 T H LIN COL N ST AV

. R AV PL GRAN T 106TH

DR 30TH H CT 29TH ST AV LIN COL N

N AV GRAN T H VIEW HIGH ! 2 LIN COL N ST AV ST

RAAB RD ST R TER E. GRAN T 38TH ST 90TH

M E BIRC H AV

D ! ST MAR QUA M GRAN T ST AV ST AV 1 171S T

AV AV

L 14TH 20TH GRAN T AV LIN COL N

ST GRAN T AV ST PL LIN COL N AV

C DR

R WATER ST GRAN T MC LOU GHL IN U P G I AV K A T V ! T 135TH

RD P H O E 82ND GRAN T O

S E FF A GRAN T 26TH ST CT L INC L 161S T CT

PL ST R TAMAR AC K ST N W H A I

O DIVI SION GRAN T 158TH

P AV 1 S M GRAN T ST U AV W H LN ' R R A K AV S.E. AV IN ! A AV D BU C SHER M AN

GE V K ! ST LIN COL N CT E

CAN YON ST GRAN TST 155TH D N

I A W SPRU C E GRAN T CT 43R D LIN COL N

Y AV N D N R E L A Y AV AV U A AV PL ! G ! AV

C N R A N N SHER M AN ST AV L GRAN T W H SHER M AN GRAN T AV LIN C O 162N D E U R R PL

A ST ST ST GRAN T ST N AV

L 6 E C HEL M SHERMAN SHER M AN ST ST DR GREN WOL DE O AV AV 119TH AV 2 A Y W DC SHER M AN 6 I N CT GRAN T ST ST

S ST P M L E D D M AV 3 113TH 114TH NC OL A GRAN T

S PH R V E S AV 11 8 T H AV

50TH A 64TH U SUNSET HIGHWAY A D R F GRAN T GRAN T 120TH GRAN T

A O

N P N ST SE

M Y DR O 32N D

R A 0

64TH P R R 34TH SHER M AN K

P U O N 66TH ST M

UPPE R FER N SHER M AN ST 68TH 126TH SHER M AN ST

Y ! L AV ST RO D SHER M AN R

1 DR AV 72N D

A T ! T AV ST

L CAR UTH ER S SHER M AN CT

H S

K E R 28TH 40TH V CT B S AV ST SHER M AN ST H A

O E AV ST GRAN T ST R ST N

47TH AV B 14TH H BLVD R Y AV MOOD Y CT GRAN T AV

E CT D ST 7 E N 102N D SE Y M SW R CAR UTH ER S CAR UTH ER S ST 12TH CAR UTH ER S AV 139TH 141S T

CT ' E 143R D 145TH

CT HIC KOR Y ST 142N D

P 85TH 87TH H

C ST 84TH 89TH SHER M AN GRAN T

PERI AND ER AV ELLIOTT 59TH ST ST S ST

D SHER M AN H E 132N D SHER M AN F

E ST 117TH RM

5RD 153R P O

E 58TH AV

D U.S. HWY. I-5 CAR UTH ER S A S CARUTHERS 13TH AV CAR UTH ER S 70TH AV N ST

CR OSS 55TH

R ST ST 54TH S.E. A F

H 52N D 53R D 5TH ST ST CAR UTH ER S 57TH ST

G 32ND ST CAR UTH ER S

R 6TH AV 90TH N D BLV D HOM AR DR CT

BLVD DIVI SION 75TH 98TH 146TH I ST BLV D N SHER M AN CT ST 170TH

E S.E. T 154TH CT T E T S.E. DIVI SION ST ST

S 4TH ! AV

E ST CT O ST

R 110TH G MAR L ORAN GE 4

H LN PL N DIVI SION ST

AV D SHER ID AN PL TES SA ST

DIVI SION ! 147TH 159TH T

L ! 15TH ! ST S.E. CAR UTH ER S 0 S RD W A ST S.E. ST H TALBOT DIVI SION DIVI SION ST 83R D 174TH PL T I O T 1 DR ST T AV AV AV 152TH 156TH

AV 157TH

S ROBIN S AV WIN DSOR A DIVI L SI

L ! AV A ON CT

1ST WIN DSOR AV 121S T O E

D AV CT AV ! L S.E. ST P I D SW

I AV 122N D G C ANN DIVI SION

! C IN G ! AV AV 93R D 105TH CT RD N

Y L B BRAE AV AV IO SE

D AV AV AV AV VIS S N V AV IVON AV IVON WIN DSOR ST 115TH 116TH DI T FER RY M S R I ST AV IVON ST

64TH R IVON AV AV SE DIVI SION R O DR N G I MAR QUA M DR ST ME M IVON ST AV ST AV 76TH L

124TH N T PL R AV AV

H PL PL AV R H SE U L R AV E E BLVD O N ARTHU R AV IVON ST AV DIVI SION B HU MPH R EY O S P AV AV D ST PL ST 137TH SW

T BR AY AV IVON ST E T E O ADW AV AV AV ST DIVI SION M MOOD Y AV CT SE SE

EN LE RD AV AV DIVI SION ST

BLV D AV AV T R

E A AV

O D R AV AV R F A AV AV 80TH AV PL CLI NTON ST 13TH ! E KELLY AV CLI NTON CLI NTON AV CT G 3RD AV P AV AV AV

G R G ST 81ST W I AV 9TH 78TH AV

AV AV AV DR D AV N ST 47TH AV T L CLI NTON ST 43R D ST CLI NTON ST ST CLI NTON ST AV

CLI NTON AV SE

H 92N D AV AV AV HEW ETT R O L D AV SCH OLL S AT E R R ST I MEAD E

E N A E ! ST CLI NTON AV AV ST E

A H LN W AV

R N O

R AV AV

T AV SW CANYON RD O AV AV ! W A AV

W R

E AV AV AV

H SW T D U.S. CLI NTON

BUC HA RES T O D T GIDEON TAGGAR T AV

A CT AV GREEN WAY W Y N O TAGGAR T AV AV D !

U R H M 6TH ST

D S.E. AV

BLVD E 41ST 138TH AV A F 45TH AV IVON CT AV DR A C ! 14TH 30TH AV AV

E 29TH 34TH TAGGAR T ST AV

A 33R D AV AV ST CLI NTON ST

L OR 28TH AV AV R DR CT GRAN D CLI NTON 107TH

8 N 33R D 38TH 105TH 160TH TER WIL LIGER HOOKE R ST

R 28TH 77TH G E ST WATER COR BETT CLI NTON ST GR E MAR QUA M 27TH 35TH 36TH ST

E 35TH 37TH ST CLI NTON R E NS B ST CLI NTON CLI NTON ST

OLD 79TH

B F R SW WOODW ARD ST ST L

A AV 49TH 51ST C IN PL SW R RD WOODW ARD 48TH 50TH TAGGAR T 84TH 84TH AV W B D ST AV CESA R E. CHAVEZ 60TH 61ST T

15TH ! LA E ! AV 58TH 85TH C LI NTON

SW R HWY. 22N D 59TH 62N D ON CLI NTON

L N 23R D ST TAGGAR T ST ON

AV D WOODW ARD ST CT

E AV AV TAGGAR T ST C T

74TH

N ST ! 75TH LI N 73R D P WOODW ARD ST

A AV

Y GRE E A PORTER CT 168TH R

E K O ST ST TAGGART ST 170TH 154TH

RD AV 151S T 153R D 159TH

Y 2ND 98TH 165TH WOODS 54TH S N PL PORTER AV

F ! A 166TH 167TH

L E T ST SW 69TH

A O R S.E. POWEL L 68TH 71ST 125TH N

RD BROOK LYN 70TH TAGGAR T N K 64TH AV T B S MILWAU KIE ST ST

D 63R D 164TH

A L E 16TH TAGGART

50TH WOODW ARD ST WOODW ARD

DR BROOK LYN 46TH TAGGAR T ST 55TH C ROSS ISLAND BRIDGE ST ST ST AV

H BROOK LYN 103R D 134TH TAGGAR T R I-5 R ST BROOK LYN ST ST CT 6 133R D ST

BLVD 13TH PL

R WOODS 4TH WOODS BLV D Y A ST 145TH

WOODS CT ! 4 D E E O 142TH

AV Y 36TH BROOK LYN 121S T WOODW ARD WOODW ARD WOODW ARD ST

CT W A AV M J KELLY ST 120TH 137TH WOODW ARD

F AV 141S T R WOODS AV AV AV TAGGAR T ! AV AV

W R ST AV T 87TH 89TH DR WAY SW A

TIB BETTS AV ER A 17TH 18TH M Y ST 19TH AV AV 118TH PL AV N D H V W AV AV A N ST ST AV ST AV AV PL ST H

48TH 119TH O TIB BETTS H 65TH DW ARD WARD R ST H TIB BETTS ST BROOK LYN AV AV ST WOODW ARD W OO ST OD ST ST

G AV AV T O 159TH E T O CT KELLY CT WI T O ST AV BROOK LYN SCH OLL S BROOK LYN D AV 4 GASTO N S.E. 82N D ST WOODW ARD 131S T 144TH G E T I R AV W D A M GROVE R ST 6TH AV 101S T GREEN WAY WOODW ARD D AV GROVE R AV 3 R 5 I F TIB BETTS ST TIB BETTS 0 129TH 130TH CT 171S T S T O N O 11TH ST 1 H FR ONT

L ST CT 111TH 112TH BROOK LYN 1 TIB BETTS ST A AV S.E. AV 109TH

I S.E. PL L L R C AV DR

IL AV I POWEL L 31ST TIB BETTS ST

CT P U D AV 20TH KELLY AV ST AV

SW T H AV H HIL LSID E T AV FR AN KLIN ST KELLY AV

GROVE R DR AV ST AV ST AV I N D O 21ST 68TH BROOK LYN AV

AV B N M U SW T SAM 67TH TIB BETTS ST TIB BETTS ST DR PL O 14TH BETTS

U KELLY ST PL R T O ! GIBBS 26TH ST BARB UR ST K N N 25TH ST KELLY ST AV AV KELLY ST PL E AV AV WAY GIBBS AV L

AV ST SW 24TH TIB BETTS LYN CT AV AV L

FR AN KLIN BLV D ST AV K 142TH

AV C 55TH 56TH O 148TH

P RD 52N D 53R D 54TH 57TH O K Y

FR AN KLIN AV E

AV 90TH R 37TH I ST 81ST

SWEETBR IAR U FR AN KLIN AV AV L

! AV 80TH L L ST B ST

SWEETBR IAR BLV D AV AV 14TH ST 73R D 74TH

7TH 79TH AV . L

DR IVE 1ST KELLY TIB BETTS KELLY ST CT GALE S AV 76TH 78TH ST ST 161S T

WHI TAKER 12TH 13TH PERS HIN G ST 75TH 77TH AV 140TH Y T 64TH DR . 147TH KELLY ST C WHI TAKER ST 49TH FR AN KLIN ST FR AN KLIN KELLY ST SE FR AN KLIN ST SWEETBR IAR L ST Gresham

C SW AV 151S T 175TH

ST 55TH W R L ST S.E. ST

ES T AV E E 21ST FR AN KLIN ST

I S.E. PL 36TH D L

PATTON CT PKWY HAIG ST

SW RD SW 92N D 152N D M V I AV AV

AV BLVD FR AN KLIN 157TH ST FR AV V HAIG HAIG

ST ST 138TH A

TER AV AV N E BLV D AV 28TH PATTON AV HAIG U.S. HW I-205 Y. POWEL L K . H

110TH R 47TH PL

VIEW CT S E CU RR Y ST ST HAIG ST 156TH LI N ST S

43R D SE V L CU RR Y ! ER LEI GH 45TH 136TH 165TH 165TH

. 38TH 150TH C H V ST FR AN KLIN

DOWN S N D FAIR MOU NT C R ST A ST

L L AV W 63R D FR AN KLIN

AV E 44TH I

DOWN S VIEW CT O T S.E. 64TH 66TH ST 115TH AV AV

T 116TH AV

U S CT AV AV AV

F N C E AV W B S.E.

AV 71ST ST 166TH 167TH AV D O DOSC H T M R A 9 RH INE AV T HAIG A ST 16TH HAIG DR N 10TH 15TH RH INE ST

E A S KELTON ST 134TH S MT A PENN OYER HAIG H ST S.E. R AI G

DOSC H I WELL 1 ST D A HOSPI TAL A

R D U O BLVD S.E.

N S.E. POWEL L S.E. H

DR P POWEL L BLV D POWEL L BLV D 6

PL GAINE S AV RD L CT V

BLV D AV

AV M BLVD AV A Q

AV AV LAFAYETTE BLV D I

H 120TH N 1 I RO E DR R AV ST ST POWEL L POWEL L E

D L L O 127TH RH INE ST M R B A RD KELLY RIVE R

PL D O S M ST RH INE RH INE 57TH WESTD LAFAYETTE BLVD ST A O R HOOD ST 18TH AV 124TH SE P LE LAFAYETTE DR

R AV COR BETT 8TH AV

LABER E U ! GAINE S 162N D E S AV

RD DR L O MOOD Y ST S.E. LAFAYETTE RH INE CT RH INE ST A T ST

D ST AV 170TH W ES T LAN E O ST AV N ST L AV 159TH

AV 158TH

W BLV D O ST AV AV RH ONE PL AV 61ST AV

! AV T L ST

AV AV

AV 38TH J ST AV BLVD C LN AV RH INE

AV AV CT

E AV

I N MC LOU GHL IN 30TH 108TH W PL E 38TH ST LAFAYETTE ST

50TH S LN AV AV LAFAYETTE 84TH E RH ONE 22N D L A ST POWEL L CT AV R IM CH EHA LEM AV AV PL 52N D RH ONE ST A RH ONE ST AV AV H R LAN E RH ONE 57TH 69TH

48TH AV 16TH 15TH ST MAC AD AM AV 60TH LAFAYETTE POWEL L AV AV 144TH AY ETTE WIN DSOR R A CT KIE MILWAU F AV 68TH ST 143R D ST 141S T F CT E LD 14TH SW E RH ONE 54TH W G PL FOSTER AV OD 13TH 12TH

Y AV A TH OMA S 11TH BLV D A O ST ST 10TH 77TH RH ONE ST

A H OO D Y AV ST SE

9TH E AV L W R H R SE L ST R O BUSH ST T CT 118TH

L PL A D AV TE RH ONE RH ONE ST 174TH

AV CT

3 V I 36TH AV RH ONE ST

R LN DR N AV L AV E 6 L ABER NATHY AV AV ST 88TH L ST L CT

A AV AV AV 128TH D WATER BOND E

O AV BUSH ST

85TH W P 6TH ST

E N T W L PL WIN DSOR N ST C RH ONE O RH ONE 160TH AV

AV N MT ABER NETH Y BUSH ST AV

S CT U 11TH AV

F T ST E AV PL

H E AV P

A AV UA P PL ST

34TH D L TO T BUSH ST 32N D 35TH 86TH RH ONE ST AV AV AV RH ONE AV RH ONE A A 43R D ST AV AV BUSH AV AV AV 91ST RH ONE BUSH CT 166TH N AV AV S D L ST D T 39TH 40TH D Y SW 1ST AV 41ST 166TH

TH OMA S RD M TI N 21ST FR AN CIS BUSH I A

55TH P AR SW ST FR AN CIS R

ST L FR AN CIS ST AV A N

A TH OMA S RD AV AV ST

L ST 165TH 13TH 148TH R TER FR AN CIS BUSH BUSH

LOWEL L AV JE T A T AV R 14TH BUSH BUSH ST ST 164TH

SW ST TH OMA S ST

L W B SE BUSH ST A L D ST V 58TH ST U AV S ST

E AV R BUS H PL H

A S S.E. 154TH

AV 17TH ST 99TH H

CEDAR D RD C AV 119TH AV

AV PATR IC K ! ST SE PL H 57TH I A BUSH

C A AV

AV BLV D AV 76TH T

ST R K r 56TH AV 129TH AV 153R D

L E O E CEN TER ST BUSH ST O V I CEN TER CEN TER 51ST CT O

LOWEL L LOWEL L ST ST 49TH

LOWEL L ST M 74TH 151S T POWEL L 169TH MAR IE ST

ST AV 73R D FR AN CIS 91ST

E U U WY. ST AV AV 8 G 70TH

AV S.E. 71ST 72N D ST LOWEL L PL T

A 27TH L TER A F

PL LN ST AV ST CEN TER CEN TER 6 R N 26TH ST CEN TER 79TH 83R D AV 15OTH

132N D

C 62N D ST AV D FR AN CIS ST 1 A CT 40TH D IL C 33R D ST CEN TER AV NC IS

41ST I 33R D ST AV

D AV 42N D AV S.E. AV AV 167TH ST

S SE F R FR AN CIS

PL R AV AV GLAD STON E 44TH GLAD STON E N R ST

BLVD E e ST AV AV A PL C E T E BANC R OFT ST GLAD STON E ST FR AN CIS B AV 43R D T R CEN TER 149TH T DR BLV D O 3 44TH B S AV ST E BANC R OFT AV AV ST

H I ! 92N D F BOISE ST ST 105TH FR AN CIS T M AV ST FRANCIS ST

130TH RD AV AV

48TH AV 5 45TH FOSTER Y CT AV P S 52N D BANC R OFT R BERTH A O O GLAD STON E ST GLAD STON E ST 128TH CENTER SE E 67TH N

L 63R D 65TH 66TH 80TH CEN TER 146TH AV 48THWAY ST AV 64TH CEN TER

Y M R BOISE AV 122N D ST R E

N AV 51ST CT L STH AV 147TH H CESAR E. CHAVEZ 171S T

v AV 112TH C E AV TER AV BOISE ST ST 170TH

ALTADE NA B S N E

A BANC R OFT AV

ST GLAD STON E T N O 64TH O AV ST N

A T F AV BLVD V C E T ST B PL 28TH 28TH AV AV PL 133RD A H A 31ST 134TH

M U N i A DR A 29TH S C BY P B

CT NC R LYL E CT W V D 30TH 34TH BOISE ST S.E. T D

G OF 54TH BOISE GLAD STON E ST 2

T E O 11TH ST BOISE ST CEN TER GLA E W I AV 8 ST 47TH B COR A GLADSTONE CT N S A AV AV N R V

A NT M A M ST T COR A DR S.E. AV

SCH OLL S I O D ST 113TH 1

CT 58TH N COR A 114TH 115TH 116TH W O L

L IC AV 34TH ER A E DR R

K ST 1 GLADSTONE

A T O COR A BOISE ST 97TH 98TH CT ANN A

L H T B BANC R OFT ST BOISE

U R A 101S T 102N D 103R D CT Y R E W ST

E 100TH

T A T I L BOISE V N N L VIEW P OINT ST LORA IN AV 2

RED ON DO IG CT COR A ST RD B S AV 12TH COR A BOISE 4

CT E N E R MALL AV ST COR A ST ST

SANTA N 8TH 7 WY

R 15TH 16TH AV LEE 5

T SE L

Y 41ST ST BOISE 107TH E 40TH 36TH RD DR 57TH 59TH ST BOISE 31ST A SW ST 127TH P V AV HAM ILTON

HAM ILTON 37TH MALL ST SANTA MON ICA COR BETT COR A ST T

ST 52N D HAM ILTON ST 138TH

SW HAM ILTON ST R R 25TH PL AV AVe COR A O MON ICA ST 5 24TH AV D ST CT MALL ST AV 1 COR A ST 140TH

- 32N D 75TH D MALL ST

I REYN OLD S 52N D COR A O

ST 1 AV AV ST

AV CH AVE Z

50TH MALL COR A 126TH

48TH ST PL L 45TH 46TH 47TH

Y 44TH AV ST SW L ! AV HAM ILTON R HAM ILTON C T 25TH PL P CAR L BLV D COR A ST AV SE NAEGE LI HAM ILTON AV CT SW HAM ILTON W AV S

PL PL CT S.E. 141S T N ST 58TH AV HOLGATE 36TH COR A ST COR A ST

54TH AV H e BLV D S.E. HOLGATE 55TH ND

WAY A TO S.E. HOLGATE S.E. 56TH 57TH S.E. A E 104TH T H M I L . MAC AD AM S.E. HBLV D HOLGATE BLV D 61ST T

RI OLGA BLV D MALL L T L AV LY D S E S.E. HOLGATE 205 ST MALL ST C P

AV I N DR 6TH S S.E. HOLGATE Y

Beaverton N SW 4TH D AV L

AV 2 MALL ST CT . SE AV AV H L O DR CT 4 BLVD BLV D 89TH 91ST AV V t W

48TH HAM ILTON E 53R D 90TH I

55TH W CT HAM ILTON G A R U § E Y

DR 2 CT L PL 9 T AV L N W 49TH AV ¨¦ M T Y

ST Y B B WATER O OUR PL AV AV

O A

! G

M AV H 8 PAR DE E ST PAR DE E PAR DE E ST O R E

SEYMO UR Y D ST AV

53R D ST t PL 117TH D

AV PAR DE E ST AV SE S U E L L AV

E U 1 SEYMO UR MC LOU GHL IN AV R HOLGATE

ST 37TH AV AV PAR DE E AV BLV D AV R CON DOR

SHATTU C K S M ST L

60TH E AV

N E A Y PL R R

S 125TH M CT V SEYMO UR ST PAR DE E ST SE 135TH T D B AV HOLGATE BLVD E CT O B SW 35TH AV E O 35TH S

SEYMO UR 29TH D 27TH AV E LN U R ST 27TH U LONG ST AV AV AV AV V 39TH AV PL 78TH E N V AV AV AV BLVD Powell L AV AV AV M

ADM IRA L ST D 23R D LONG AV AV I 45TH R ST ST AV AV N Z AV PL 25TH KELLY LONG ST AV AV AV E AV E

47TH

e AV PL D

V O R AV AV E PAR DE E AV U ESTR L D I 136TH Q IAN AV CT H S LONG LONG ST W E Y D

AV PL 22N D ST CT 54TH U R 96TH ST AV N SEYMO UR S N DR T N D F PAR DE E A SW S 20 L LONG LN ST AV CT WY F S T SUN SET E R ST LONG 101S T

BLV D ST

H 19TH CESA R E. PAR DE E AV A AV R

R SEYMO UR CT 38TH PAR DE E

T 105TH DR ST B I T ADM IRA L LONG ST L AV

R JU LIA H SCH ILL ER AV HOLGATE A D CT DOSC H SCH ILL ER ST ST CT U

1ST 28TH 40TH AV JULIA C SCH ILL ER 29TH 31ST SCH ILL ER CT ST R R R W 17TH 18TH ST 83R D 84TH 85TH AV PAR DE E ST

R 58TH T

I T D 41ST

53R D C T H ST M R

87TH PAR DE E

88TH A D C ST

E I O R

C ST 113TH ST T B SCH ILL ER 174TH

T H M LONG

DR H E 69TH

70TH AV O m SCH ILL ER ST

59TH 35TH SW ST ST S.E. LONG AV

56TH U 5 SCH ILL ER ST 9 T A L E D K D 92N D ST 127TH

42ND D 31ST SCH ILL ER

O R R ST AV AV SCH ILL ER LONG ST 3 8 B O AV A BLV D

! - TIN D ALL AV AV ST S

D N LONG R I SW BEAV ERTON - 3 R RIC HA RD SON ST LIEBE 71ST AV AV ST

HIL LSD ALE HWY V ST 65TH

STATE HWY. 10 ST LA AV 33R D AV 66TH CT

S 33R D AV 59TH ST LONG

B B S S 60TH V E S I AV 61ST 62N D

A 36TH 37TH 72N D 120TH

SUN SET TYR OL FOSTER

VE LEE ST RAYMON D ST LIEBE ST 63R D 64TH P 18TH a

R AV 118TH SCH ILL ER E E TO O BA 79TH SCHILLER ST N LEE ST LEE ST ST K

CIR . RAYMON D 108TH

N 86TH

H W H l

AV N AV 94TH SCH ILL ER

BEAV ERTON -H ILLS DAL E H WY MITCH EL L S.E. 73R D T ST 74TH 82N D LIEBE ST ST AV 49TH O

SW RIC HA RD SON 51ST 140TH Y AV ST RAYMON D ST

PL RAYMON D 75TH ST

CT ST AV

8 A T CT RD AV 19TH AV l COLT RAYMON D 76TH 77TH Butte 62N D M AV ST LIEBE LIEBE SE

AV ST LIEBE ST SE CT PL AV RAYMON D

5 S O ST LIEBE

I LN S.E.

BOUN D ARY 38TH 26TH T DR RD ST ST BOUN D ARY ST 43R D 26TH i 24TH 25TH

ST AV RAYMON D D AV POWEL L VIEW CT AV PL MITCH EL L C RAYMON D 139TH

MITCH EL L AV CT 137TH

H 1STAV 16TH AV 104TH DR ST MITCH EL L AV H AV AV AV AV 51ST AV MITCH EL L ST MITCH EL L AV AV AV ST

AV AV AV

I 86TH 138TH ST L RAYMOND ST CIR CL E EL H L 52N D ST AV AV AV

AV L AV AV 128TH CT RD MI TC H DR ST RAYMON D RAYMON D 133R D I S 67TH L E BLV D ST 52N D AV 36TH ST MITCH EL L ST RAYMON D RAYMON D L T DSW D CT ST L C DR ST AV

MAR TH A E 35TH 97TH 99TH MAR TH A RIC HE NBE RG RAYMON D

ST S ID R MITCH EL L MITCH EL L AV A L ST N MITCH EL L D N MITCH EL L ST U D 2ND MITCH EL L 111TH HIGH LAN D DR CT TER AV AV

FAIR VAL E O BOUN D ARY AV AV B A SW ST 30TH ST AV 100TH AV L BOU N DA RY ST 34TH AV

33R D ST W 28TH 32N D

33R D

BEAV ERTON R AV AV MITCH EL L

46TH ST ST ST

Y E 49TH AV M

DR 48TH E I

W W 114TH

63R D 26TH

AV 115TH 50TH E 42N D AV

V STE ELE 44TH 47TH 50TH S.E. AV 2

SWEEN EY DR ST 43R D ST

SHATTU C K AV AV ST D BOUN D ARY S.E. AV MITCH EL L CT AV 108TH D B E N CT STE ELE 73R D

L V ST 78TH S STEELE S STE ELE ST 79TH MITCH EL L

GILLC R EST V 34TH T SW

CT D R T L ST

W STE ELE MITCH EL L SE RD 3 OOD 63R D CU LLE N 3 A N E B STE ELE STE ELE ST -H ILLS DAL E T A R E STE ELE S.E. ST STE ELE ST L 62N D ST S.E. D D ST

FL OWER MAR TH A L AV 9 STE ELE AV R AV AV STE ELE AV TER I 19TH 80TH STE ELE A AV 35TH AV 118TH ST 140TH CAM ER ON F G SWEEN EY INSL EY ST 57TH 65TH C M ST ST U.S. HW I-205 Y. STE ELE ST RD E ST AV 132N D U CT AV MITCH EL L ST AV A INSL EY CT AV PL CIR E ST AV CT E OAKS ST INSL EY L ST RD AV ST 120TH ST H 50TH

L TW INSL EY 87TH

S ST 88TH

U SET SUN INSL EY ST INSL EY

E T E O M R ST 14TH 60TH INSL EY INSL EY

AV W O INSL EY N E FL OWER R T 45TH AV

DR ST AV AV 37TH

AV D C AV 34TH ST FOSTER

ST A O INSL EY INSL EY ST INSL EY ST ST G ST TERWILLIGER N N AV AV CIR CL E

M HAR OLD ST 113TH 129TH SE

LN I 64TH 66TH 70TH

65TH 69TH 109TH T I AV ST ST HAR OLD

S DOVER COU RT AV S.E. AV INSL EY ST

59TH CT DOSC H DAL E HAR OLD L V ST

54TH FL OWER D HAR OLD 96TH

RIVE R 43R D S.E. ST

61ST 53R D CT AV

52N D B ST 3 L A HAR OLD JE NN E

TARA C T PL B R AV 105TH

V HWY. SUN SET I

50TH L D R VIEWP OINT FL OWER HAR OLD ! 114TH P L HAR OLD DR ST HAR OLD 89TH L MAC AD AM D ST ST SE 60TH TER 9 L

40TH AV AV

PEND LE TON KANA N MILWAU KIE AV AV

DR D AV AV AV AV AV 48TH W S 23R D T ELLIS AV AV 86TH SE 139TH F DR ST AV L K DR LFL O 54TH RD 91ST H AR OLD ST 56TH R O 137TH KANA N ST H W ER ST O R ELLIS AV ELLIS 38TH AV ST ST

E AV W AV

AV AV AV ! AV E E L O W V ST W DR ELLIS ST ELLIS ST AV ELLIS ST ELLIS ST LAN E

T AV

PEND LE TON AV O AV ELLIS ST

56TH

CT 68TH AV

ST PEND LE TON ST KELLY HOOD REED WAY ST 58TH 63R D 73R D AV AV A N DR KANA N 61ST REED WAY 71ST AV CT C PEND LE TON ST KAN ST ! ST ELLIS AV 135TH

ST AV

PL REED WAY FAIR VAL E SW AV DPEND LE TON OAKS 77TH REED WAY ST

H AV PEND LE TON AM NH ELTE CH PEND LE TON S.E. REED WAY 74TH AV ST

PL AV ST 44TH ST 46TH

Y 51ST REED WAY 97TH

U.S. HW I-5 Y.

A 84TH ST RL AV ST C RD W A A C ST ST TE NH ! REED WAY REED WAY ST

T B L A U AV K RAM ONA ST AV E E M 88TH DEW ITT RAM ONA 85TH D ST RAM ONA ST

E A AV 50TH ST

DR DR AV V H AV E

IOWA 47TH 48TH

ST E 86TH

PL ! AV R AV SW RIVE R JE NN E S 30TH R RAM ONA

DR 25TH C ST 124TH

T AV RAM ONA 125TH

O ITT RAM ONA 123R D AV 3 N W ST 145TH

ST E AV 99TH AV

IOWA TOL McLOU GHL IN 3 H 91ST T D I RAM ONA ST PL 23R D P

35TH B H

R BLV D A AV AV

E I 72N D ST

E AV WL C KNIGH T 80TH 23R D R L IOWA AV T IOWA KNIGH T ST ST KNIGH T ST

V T S N ST 65TH

BLVD 119TH 121S T W IOWA ST H D E 67TH V A C HWY KNIGH T AV KNIGH T ST S.E. 120TH RAM ONA ST

Y 52N D A ST

ILLINOIS N KNIGH T 136TH O 117TH RAM ONA

45TH BLV D L 21ST I ST ST AVE 115TH

18TH AV RAM ONA T ILLIN OIS E V 130TH AV AV ST NEW BUR Y AV ST ST ST AV T ILLIN OIS PL KNIGH T

80TH AV YUKON FOSTER 109TH RAM ONA

AV PL 15TH S.E.

ST IVE DR AV AV AV ST ST WOODS TOC K BLV D ST

A 41ST 86TH

BEAV ER AV RD ST ST A

36TH C

ST W TO K BLV D S.E. BLV 111TH H S D

O D S.E. WOODS TOC K S.E. ST AV A AV VIRGI NIA AV O RO W YUKON ST S.E. YUKON KNIGH T KNIGH T

CA EAGLES CAR OLIN A BLV D WOODS TOC K KNIGH T PL SHATTU C K LI WOODS TOC K BLV D Y CAR OLIN A S.E. W B YUKON 122N D 55TH N

ST OODS AV AV SE

SW TOCK RD 98TH 161S T LV ST

A ST MAR TIN S ST S.E. MAR TIN S ST ST ST 104TH 2 D H 47TH NEST PL B A ND L N XAVI ER MAR TIN

TER R I 60TH ST LN L AV AV

8 E AV NEBR ASK A DR

AV AV U M AV LOOP 40TH DAKOTA AV

50TH ST AV R H AV PL

39TH 37TH A E AV MAR TIN ST AV PL AV O 43R D 82N D

SW AV R MAR TIN ST AV AV ST

M AV 156TH

G T 27TH LI BARB UR LN

N G M E E 136TH N CT S A AV ST N DAKOTA 60TH AV

ST 55TH 56TH CAR LTON 69TH AV 128TH ST I H 57TH ST BU 13TH AV ST

IDAH O ST R L CAR LTON AV AV N MAR TIN 46TH PL S ST ST

O AV CAR LTON N

32N D WAY ST I ST

T 3 100TH BLV D 63R D DAKOTA NEBR ASK A 23R D R MAR TIN S ST ST B AV A R

HWY M AV AV AV MAR TIN 2 CESA R E. CHAVEZ BLVD S L AV AV 53R D PL 49TH Y PLATT E BLVD CAR LTON AV

AV ST ST N

AV CAR LTON AV 138TH

E R L ST

ST D 34TH L AV P.H. I COR BETT S

TOLM AN D 124TH R AV LVD L IDAH O IDAH O TER T NEBR ASK A ST ST T PL

B ST AV I V O H TOLM AN AV PL TOLM AN TOLM AN NEBR ASK A ST H N SE 141S T M

A ST SE O T

E K TOLM AN ST O 34TH TOLM AN ST 140TH A ALLEN R I

H O ST A T ST AV N LE

AV CA R L ST Y ST

IS A R V E IDAH O DAV 101S T CAR LTON R P A TOLM AN D I ST 102N D P 51ST

AV A TOLM AN HEN RY SW VERM ON T BLV D B ST AV SE C U RL S.E. ST 103R D 142N D FOSTER ST E IDAH O AV BERTHA I ST AV 25TH N AV 73R D 74TH HEN RY

36TH AV AV SE DR V 68TH 68TH M

ERM VERM ON T IDAH O ST AV D D

O SW ST 21ST ST 134TH R

20TH

NT G A HEN RY 22N D 31ST AV RD DR L D AV

ST HEN RY 19TH ST ST 103R D FOSTER

24TH 36TH HEN RY SE ST 19TH 18TH S.E. RD PAR KH ILL SW VERM ON T 91ST

ST 17TH HEN RY AV 83R D 84TH 84TH 85TH 87TH 88TH 89TH 90TH 92N D R DR ST 86TH 120TH TE CT RD S CT ST

30TH HEN RY ST HEN RY ST RD O 66TH AV AV AV HEN RY ST 158TH SW F JE NN E

29TH AV AV

AV AV R VERM ON T AV ST WOODS TOC K E IDAH O ST HEN RY PL PL KE S AV FOSTER T 159TH FL ORID A FL ORID A 13TH DU KE ST U AV

ST 61ST WOODS TOC K BLV D AV AV ST G 58TH 63R D 66TH D R FL ORID A I 80TH 81ST ST AV AV S.E. AV DU NBA R

PL FL ORID A ST DU KE S.E. DU KE ST DU KE ST AV

35TH CLAYBOU R NE ST

BU N L A SE 125TH H

CT 14TH C H ES CLAYBOU R NE DU KE PL L I M C 12TH L ST W T AV FOSTER FOSTER

AV O AV OOD L AV FL ORID A ST

PLAC E AV N W ST T ST W FLOR I 15TH 41ST 144TH 145TH

D AV AV COLL EGE 40TH AV N E

65TH 42N D CAL IFO RN IA A CLAYBOU R NE 42N D 46TH DU KE DU KE ST CAL IFO RN IA R 44TH 45TH 96TH E PL

46TH U AV AV AV ST MC KIN LEY RD

ST ST AV ST L

AV AV 36TH PL AV

E NE CLAYBOU R NE AV G W

R AV AV

AV T U AV ST 103R D

T AV AV 100TH

52N D 49TH AV AV 135TH ST R O E AV 11 0TH CLAYBOURNE

54TH 32N D CAL IFO RN IA PL AV

AV 128TH P EYT ST 38TH 94TH 139TH AVE ON 5TH B E 93TH LYD IA

E AS TEX AV AV 88TH AV

U.S. CAL IFO RN IA ST GLEN WOOD O

TEX AS ST 1ST ST

60TH Y CLAYBOU R NE

TEX AS ST TEX AS ST ST ST 131S T A AV GLEN WOOD ST AV AV AV

ST 51ST AV CLAYBOURNE! ST

BYBEE A AV AV

TEX AS 55TH AV

ST HWY S.E. GLEN WOOD AV 97TH R

RD D AV GLEN WOOD

AV L 122N D CT SE

AV AV AV ST 11TH 10TH ST 71ST 81ST ST 99TH A AV 70TH R

A !

H C

V AV 56TH V 72N D SW BLVD B 62N D B

NEVAD A ST AV 142N D

AV TEX AS AV 2ND L V

BYBEE ! REED 80TH T

H ST TEX AS ST L COOPE R GLEN WOOD 63R D NEVAD A S.E. ST R

ST AV B V AV D AV AV ST 37TH ST

AV BYBEE AV 106TH

53R D HWY. I-5 DR AV SE TEX AS A

62N D ST AV PL GLE

AV 33R D 23R D GLEN WOOD

NEVAD A D 52N D ST N

ST 34TH MAC AD AM W OO B

T CT A PL D NEVAD A H CH ESTNU T SW S.E. COOPE R ST AV 77TH ST E

A 75TH COOPE R ST 129TH 131S T ST CT 12TH BY COOPE R ST A NEVAD A D 8TH NEVAD A B EVE 90TH C

43R D ST S.E. E R 91ST O W B NEVAD A ST E G R EEN ST 89TH H O P

A ! 110TH

RU RAL 108TH

48TH AV DR ST E

12TH 7TH 50TH 134TH

N V 47TH N E VIRGI NIA T 11 5TH

29TH

R 28TH 27TH AV AV AV AV

AV AV R

0 NEVAD A 26TH 4 NEVAD A CT E B D S.E. CAPI TOL AV EVER GREE N COOPE R ST

MIL ES CT T BUR LIN GAM E R COOPE R 1 AV CAL DEW CT AV V COOPE R AV

M STH NEVAD A NIA VIRGI ST S AV CT 57TH S.E. ST AV 1 122N D T N AV AV DR I H

AV A AV BR

E 60TH W PL BYBEE ST O O I BYBEE KS 135TH L NEVAD A CT S.E. BLV D S.E. ID AV AV

AV S.E. T E D E R ST AV BLV D 40TH D R OGDEN ST 7 B 13TH ST 5 H

Y DR SW MILE S ST A L

E BYBEE BLV D AV AV

C A KNAP P 78TH 1

S 6TH U K AV T CT E S.E. MILE S MILE S CAL DEW ST 21ST AV F N N 1 51ST STT CAL DEW AV A AV AV SE

AV 2ND BYBEE AV GIESE R D

U SE F 4 ST 31ST B 14TH P 45TH AV DR ST R AV 69TH BLV D

O L P AV 68TH BLAC KBER RY

32N D L AV 66TH 67TH BYBEE

O I R PL 65TH BLV D L G

R RU RAL ST 63R D 64TH 4 54TH H T TER D 5TH 4TH 3RD MILWAU KIE RU RAL ST CIR SE 53R D A

1 52N D ST 1 S

AV ! T

13TH KNAP P 74TH B D 122N T C H 1ST ST RU RAL ST T C CT L O MILE S 2 117TH BYBEE AV CT MILE S 5 MILE S U ST BYBEE JA N TR EE CT ST MILE SST A AV

O E H AV AV AV 3 S N AV T PL RU RAL ST 116TH 155TH EE

45TH T L OGDEN ST 156TH B

LOGAN BLV D V AV 41ST OGDEN BY 9 T

I B 34TH ST ST 11 8TH AV CT E D SW AV OGDEN BYBEE BLVD ST 4 BLVD AV 82N D R

M MILE S AV MILE S E ST D P AV

A 37TH AV

PL ST BARB ARA D P AV PL ST ST R McLOU GHL IN OGDEN OGDEN

FL AVE L ST AV L A MILE S COR BETT 5 E 83R D 84TH 85TH R 4 ST W AV OGDEN LOGAN ST 86TH 87TH RU RAL P LOGAN S DR C LOGANST L

O I 124TH I-2 05 C A DR 17TH TER A AV IR O ST 44TH CT D OGDEN 48TH 50TH AV R 146TH DR DENNEY CU STER ST LOGAN ST KNAP P AV CT AV DR D CT AV ST P T 64TH R L AV E

RD 24TH IE R

AV W 182N D AVE KNAP P KNAP P P E SELLWOOD D

K 127TH V ST A 59TH CU STER ST E 53R D 33R D 19TH L ST REX R

ST CU STER 35TH CU STER B MILE S A

RD ST ST 13TH PL KNAP P ST ST

SW C L KNAP P KNAP P R 76TH AV L T CU STER ST S.E. D

L D KNAP P A R

CAN BY AV ST S.E 94TH N KNAP P

P SW ST HEN DE RSON ST V P O U ST

DR R HEN DE RSON HEN DE RSON R AV PL REX K Y

.. AV ST

D ST KN R L T PL B ! AP A DR POINT AV AV R P

AV 158TH

AV 22N D DR 20TH 118TH AV CAN BY CT ST 16TH HWY. F 40TH 30TH AV ST 46TH AV E H W RD

MALD EN 70TH 71ST AV S CAN BY AV AV E N DE RSON DR DR CT

51ST ST ST 18TH T D N CANBY 4TH E

T HEN DE RSON N WELC H E D

RD 1 27TH 26TH B ST H

27TH HEN DE RSON ST RD E CESA R E. CHAVEZ BLVD

30TH 25TH 37TH O CAN BY ST R

CLU B TR OY CU STER ST AV AV BLVD R 5 ST E 28TH FL AV E L

AV S R LN HWY U ST AV R 3

CT HEN DE RSON 11 3 T H S

B BLVD E 29TH 49TH HEN DE RSON O D R AV 103R D D 3 N PL 47TH R

5TH LAMB ERT ST U.S. RD BORSC H DR ST 1 PL

36TH 30TH CAN BY TR OY ST TR OY TR OY BLVD 54TH ST N FL AVE L ST 50TH 49TH ST ST W VIEW KELLY L FL AVE L

TR OY HOOD V A 31ST ST FL AVE L ST FL AVE L KNAP P E

L BLV D FL AVE L AV AV I 42N D ST 159TH LN AV I LAMB ERT M REX FL AVE L CT 112TH AV AV H ST N L ST FL AVE L H AV ST FLAVEL HU NT AV B ST AV G S 32N D 51ST MOSS L T ST 122N D FL AVE L A G CAN BY ST AV E ST

68TH MOSS ST I R FL AVE L CAPI TOL M G . DR BIDW ELL ST T REX SE AV SE RD AV TOL CAPI ! AV AV 17TH A TR OY 34TH A

ST O COLL EGE

MOSS M E T MALD EN ST MALDEN ST AV 107TH

PL SW S.E. SW AV MOSS MALD EN AV FL AVE L WAY 159TH E T MU LTN OMAH SW N R MALD EN AV AV

ST AV BLV D BLV D E 190THD R

MU LTN OMAH T 35TH DR

R ST DR M AV PL REX ST ST

ST L 101S T AV

70TH 69TH ST 30TH MOSS AV ! 31ST 36TH C AV U MALD EN ST T AV 152N DAV 14TH AV DR AV

D AV AV LEXIN GTON LAMB ERT ST A AV EVAN S BARB UR MT SCO TT BLVD MALD EN ST M 11TH MAC AD AM PL O AV EVAN S ST 44TH S CT

R WAY LAMB ERT CT AV R A I L EVAN S EVAN S B ST MALDEN CT LN AV AV ST ST ST LAMB ERT ST DR C TH RIC HE Y RD AV L HA AV AV

RT R AV AV 92N D 117 CT

D ST H AV

ORC HA RD RD V Y AV O C

K H

SW AV 80TH DR H T

H L HOM E B DR

162N D AV LAMB ERT ST 116TH AV E OLESON 28TH 27TH D S LAMB ERT MALD EN

AV 7TH . 108TH

R S

ST E T Y CR ESTLIN E T

FALC ON U MILL ER S . REED ST T MARY JEAN 110TH ST R D E W HIL L ST 98TH

AV LN AV FALC ON ST ST LEXIN GTON E 1

AV AV W MU LTN OMAH U.S. HWY. I-5 R A S.E. ST 70TH V 119TH 64TH 17TH 4

T 111TH 1

62N D LEXIN GTON A C ST 64TH 4

H P RY S 66TH 66TH H ARN OLD

SW T 65TH 68TH 1 61ST A 1 A GA T S A

RDE AV R GARD EN 1 N H PL CT T R O C AN TE RB UR Y 40TH 23R D L H T D 1 9 1 57TH 49TH P 1 A M L

E RD AV AV 34TH DR ST SE L AV AV S AV AV T LEXIN GTON B GAIBLE R GARD EN N HU ME 46TH AV BLV D LN

R SW AV AV NEH ALE M AV 48TH LEXIN GTON

ST AV ST 101S T R

D HU ME ST 34TH AV AV SPRI NGS 6 AV E A 120TH K 52N D NEH ALE M CT N KRIE GER

ST AV 41ST AV ST AV AV S A

D AV NEH ALE M ST 7 D S V

AV 59TH 54TH WO O 140TH A U

HU ME BLV D HU ME ST 3 B 2 ! E C ST M

H OM A LN

AV RD O BLV D AV M R AV F

AV AV AV AV CT NEH ALE M ST 75TH ST RD

AV ST AV

AV AV AV AV L S.E. LEXIN GTON T E AV AV AV AV AV H

37TH CT AV SPOKAN E MALD EN I 105TH RIC HE Y RD

HU ME AV ST AV 103RD 104TH E AV AV AV A T 145TH

14TH

AV TACOM A S.E. 106TH T 112TH ST C

AV CR YSTAL S PRI NGS BLV D 79TH 107TH K 1 V CAR SON 25TH S.E. 57TH SPRI NGS B LV D ELSAS SER

1 74TH AV CT AV AV

71ST ST T RD

33R D 24TH

N CR YSTAL 8 E DR 2ND L SPRI NGS C CAR SON 1ST CR YSTAL LN 1

AV AV ST 0 S

AV AV 39TH !

69TH ST 3

T CAR SON HU ME 22N D FR ONT BLV D AV SELLWOOD TEN IN O 1

ASH CR EEK 6TH 3RD BRID GE S.E. AV 8 N 13TH E SE CARSON ST 4TH TEN IN O

DR 12TH 11TH TACOM A ST B SE BLVD E

GRAN D ST TEN IN O MT SC OTT

19TH 45TH 51ST PL AV H ST T

E ST AV AV AV R T R TEN IN O AV A S

2 L

K AV

AV E PL TEN IN O H E M 7 L TEN IN O L EY AV F C CR YSTAL S PRI NGS BLV D

AV 21ST BLVD TEN IN O ST SPRI NG AV ST AV R R O 24TH T 82N D TEN IN O I ST SPRI NG GARDEN CT T ST 6TH 8TH 9TH TEN IN O AV DR DR O F BENTLY G 9TH ST

43R D 8TH 16TH 17TH A FR EEM AN R I A 10TH TEN IN O ST TEN R D E N 7TH 5TH BERK ELEY UM ATILL A ST 8 IN O D YS TAL SP R

47TH 45TH C DR UM ATILL A R I

58TH 59TH 57TH 56TH 46TH SPRI NG AV LN C N G

CT 61ST P ST R S ST

64TH WAY AV H

AV 60TH

65TH O 76TH Historic Landmarks FR EEM AN TACOM A A 62N D 41ST 5 74TH 75TH 78TH CT A UM ATILL A ST T

52N D ST 68TH 69TH 72N D 63R D 83R D E

50TH AV D S.E. 86TH ST 4 T

17TH M 64TH 89TH CO ST HAR NE Y TEN IN O E

C FREEMAN ST R R ST HAR NE Y SE N

ST § S.E. AV I D HAR NE Y ST I

N UM ATILL A S.E. 21ST O 44TH ST N O ST WELC H E ¨¦ ST UM ATILL A A R HAR NE Y ST D 3 49TH 48TH G ST TR AIL DOLP H ST ROBER T T FR EEM AN ST A R D HAR NE Y 1 TRID G CR YSTAL N CT C DR E AS E 20TH RD 72ND

AV S . 26TH JOH N SON DR AV 42N D Y S.E. I-2 05 ROU ND TREE G BLVD AV 1 CT CT . AV HAR NE Y T AV HAR NE Y DOLP H ST

44TH ST CT 4

S S.E. CT AV

DOLP H CT 15TH

AV HAR NE Y ST SHERRETT SHER R ETT CLATSOP D 0 ST SHERRETT ST ST SE WAY DR

DOLP H 25TH T A RN

62N D R CT E AV DOLP H ST H Y

O DR CR EEK BUFOR D CT HAR NE Y CT ST

AV R CR YSTAL H

19TH DOLP H SPRINGWATER ! J 77TH CT ST 170TH AVE L O DR LOBEL IA CT CT AV 1

ST AV

32N D H 3 A AV

AV AV CT CT BAXTER RD

AV AV AV AV AV BLVD E SHER R ETT ST SHER R ETT N VIEW D R 9

S.E.

S AV SHER R ETT CT ON 56TH 29TH

ST 24TH G

N DOLP H CT 65TH 70TH 75TH AV D H LOBEL IA ST AV S I T N T LOBEL IA 66TH 67TH EA STR

ST CLATSOP CLATSOP ST S.E CLATSOP 87TH N R H P AV A 9TH O ST 88TH H MC LOUGHLIN ST C E

MER LIN 21ST Y

L 57TH 93R D 57TH AV 30TH N SE 147TH BARB ARA L B L O ST O L LUTH ER CLATSOP ST A AV ST AV AV RD SE E GRAN D E AV FL AVE L RD CT D CLATSOP ST V CLATSOP ST SE CLATSOP PL R AV CLATSOP ST M

L MAR IGOLD MAR IGOLD D

55TH Y

MAR IGOLD AV 55TH 70TH ST

ST AV CLATSOP CH ELD ELIN R D AV CR EEK 58TH L ST O ' AV AV ST

FIR FIR

ST S AV E13TH R

L ALD EN R P RIM T T SUN C RES T M L R 33R D 36TH 5

23R D T K F R U VAN WATE RS S

LN DR VELM A CT C N BARB UR O E E MAR ION S AV B PRIM RO SE ST MAR ION G O

I PL ST T ST S 5TH T

R R

L I F HAZEL DR C O PRIM RO SE RD ST

ST 4OTH PRIM RO SE AV E R 0

G ST 23R D BLV D A AV A 45TH

F ST DR N

14TH Y S.E. RD

H AV 15TH

C ORC HID ST 141S C T T

T 7TH 9TH D

S AV CT LIN N O Y X BR D ST

I 45TH T LIN N ST

ORC HID ST ORC HID V

G CT SW 2 E ST E PAL ATIN E FER N ST FER N

37TH 36TH AV ST

I 35TH 145TH

E E R AV ST ORC HID 92N D

SW AV -

HWY

I L HIL Conservation Landmarks 26TH W

W 20TH 91ST T

42N D 25TH T AV

A 43R D ALIC E DR PL !

44TH ST A PL DR Y OCH OCO ST I 157TH AV

AV S L I BLV D ORC HID O 16TH FOSTER R D

S AV 15TH

R ST L AV D AV ORC HID HEN DE RSON 'S ST AV AV DEAR D ORF

51ST R

F 53R D 52N D 50TH 49TH L 54TH O ALIC E 28TH F OCH OCO

O O E I

ST TER T L

R G 10TH

DR W L 8TH 62N D R TER DAR LIN GTON

Y DR O S CT Y AV VAL ENTIN E AV R DR BAIR D ST SW E

A BRIA R E ALIC E ST AND OVER PL

R PL DR ALIC E

AV T AV

R BAIR D N MAC AD AM R

172N DAVE

L E D PL O H

NC E N P ST CT 22N D 1

N 2 D SE K 8 DR ST O RD

6 AV PLU M W T ST 1ST

H B VRANDENBURG

139TH AVE 190TH

Y Y 3RD 2ND

RD 4TH Y 55TH R E SAGER RD B L 8TH W D R

AV PLU M

AV N R MANCHESTER PL E 17TH

BRU GGER A CT 13TH ST BRU GGER ST 42N D F E

CAPI TOL T PLU M ST

ST R V 20TH T U L S COLL IN S CT N

D L

M E 43R D DR VIEW P OINT JO L C I P H

U N

AV PL Y S V I 12TH SW O L X BARBUR S.E. N AV R C B COR BETT RE P BRU GGER KELLY EK Legend COLL IN S ST R CT ST E

U.S. HW Y. I-5 PLU M T H AV E Mt AND RE WS

TAYL OR'S IV 6 L COLL IN S T M SW 48TH R E D 46TH TAYL OR'S D

FER RY RD SW S

SW COLL IN S E

41ST ST EVELYN A TIL LSTR OM R D PL CT C AV Historic Districts AV LAN E AV H

EVELYN AV LUC ILL E

ST AV AV ST AV H G 25TH

AV AV T ST RI 4 V D D DR 4 I AV AV BROAD LE AF DR G E 3 R PL

AV EVELYN EVELYNST (PACI FI C H WY) AV WILBA RD ST 35TH B 3

6TH L G A CAL LAH AN RD 60TH 59TH 57TH 5 ST V

56TH 55TH

AV RIDGECREST RD

0 D

32N D AV T N N ER D DR WILBA RD 31ST 30TH 29TH BA H ST MAPL ECR EST PAL ATER L CT HU BER 62N D ST WILBA RD ST P RD U

A 48TH WILBA RD ST CIR SW

BARB UR BLVD T

61ST V

53R D 52N D 49TH H RD R Scott S E

T RAD CL IFF HU BER ST AV E DR IVE ST L PL 4 A F SW 37TH R R RD City Boundary E CT 3 CT D O HU BER C PAL ATIN E ST RAD CL IFF VAL ONA ST D

59TH E E ALFRE D E L F

ST LN ALFRE D ST PL IF AV F B CT L

AV P L WAY ALFRE D AV C F

AV ST A I

AV 36TH M D N

CT L

FER RY A

47TH N

25TH LUR AD EL R Conservation Districts ST L C L

AV 32N D RD

32N D LUR AD EL D AV AV C AV

31ST !

RD 2 V

LUR AD EL 28TH RA RIVE RD ALE

ST 29TH Y

63R D RIVE RSI DE E 62N D AV . ALFRE D ST DR LUR AD EL ST ST E ST L HIL D D

64TH

57TH 43R D

DR AV E

AV R R AV

41ST

DR 42N D 40TH TR AC HSE L ST ! AV M S

30TH E

E ST V BORG

62ND AV 62ND I-5 V

HU D DL U.S. HW Y. I-5

ES RIVE RSI DE

14TH LN I O R CAR EY V

N GALEBU R N 35TH DR CAR AWAY ST MAR ICA RA A V ST ST MAR IC AR W ! A HOOD

EIR T RD S

PL A 63R D PL CAR AWAY CT INV L A E R CT E N LN SW

59TH C AV A BOONE S R S TE R TH

62N D 11 DAPH N E

HWY SW MAU S ST

DIC KIN SON N KIN SUMMERVILLE Historic Landmarks COLL IN A G

ST F HED LU ND E RD DR

DIC KIN SON ST AV KARI

S AV

33R D DIC KIN SON ST

ST AV S T

LOCU ST AV AV

H AV AV C AV AV AV

COM US ST CT 28TH DR SOUTH R IDGE AV COM US T I

ST ST 4TH

CT E AVE SW T L E RD COM US AV KING RD E COM US ST R

T ST ST W N L DR IVE COM US T

AV AV PASA DEN A AV KING RD F 32N D ARN OLD IL V ST 28TH 64TH 63R D 62N D 60TH S 61ST L P

A TNE ATIN PAL I A V

5 AV G L 2

66TH 65TH RIVE RWOOD

E A 29TH E

AV AV AV AV FR AN K T PASA DEN A CIR CU S RD T

AV AV O R I POMON A ST 1ST MOAPA TR YON N A B POMON A ST E L O A

2 SW DR R AV AVEN TIN E R 7

O PAL ATIN E O DR

) R I

Y T HED LU ND V

W I ARN OLD N H ST POMON A ST E S

IC P ST E O 1 IF HWY. 1 OAK R HIL L

ST C A L PAL ANTIN E RD S FigurePA 15: Portland HistoricS AN Districts and Landmarks and Conservation Districts and Landmarks. Courte- # ( HIL L C S VD T C L A

SW ESQUI LIN E R B W I RD B PAL ATIN E AV COLL IN A D M R ST S T L B U PAL ATIN E ST E T E R E V RD AV A Conservation Landmarks BA R D ELY SIU M D L M 16TH A R

ST AV E

T AV I BUD DI NGTON S W CIR CU S I RD I B R P O D O E O F R A AV 35TH BUD DI NGTON C A D E L D C O COR ONA DO ST AV E BREY MAN K L 53TH 51ST 35TH R BUD DI NGTON Happy Valley 5 R Y Y 47TH 45TH 37TH - 49TH COR ONA DO 43TH 41ST ST 31ST CT E M I 39TH O R R R

C E AV CT A D Y N A

H L NOR TH GATE ! T Y 33R D R A I

W RD ST N T AV E L N

D I

H S ! R I

O VE E CT . VAC UN A ST VAC UN A I A M RW ST ST AV V S T CT AV O

55TH . CT C 27TH CT COR ONA DO G U ST O T K 2

S RD E D

1 D L MILI TARY AV 56TH PL R ST

VESTA ST 3 VAC UN A L V ES I LESSE R CT TA Milwaukie

VAC UN A STE AVENTINE V RIVE RSI DE R 2 PH EN SO RD ! sy of Portlandoregon.gov. E N CT

SW T 60TH E ST R

61ST # H H N'GATE RD HIL EN S CT MILI TARY 62N D T PO E

T RW D 8

STE PHE NSON 31ST 9 CT E LN 2

ST VESTA ST M RD 2 SW 19TH AV R S 2 STE PHE NSON W. H. AV S D D RD AV T M

EP D V H C EN SW STE PHE NSON WAY SO RD N RD R T U LE SS E R RD S R

BLVD

1 AV

PL 2 R

D DR

CT Central City Plan District G A

AV AV AV

AV 27TH T L KERR

17TH O RD H ! TILLSTROM

P A D D SYLVAN IA 25TH AV 23R D AV I ICK EN

C SO N L N L K E N SON LN B E E TER WIL LIGER K T 64TH C MILI TARY R A TER R DR

I O H

59TH ! R 60TH E

N E MAN BREY

T V

V LESSE R E A S L A RD V JO S H U PAL LAY CT E

N T

PL 8TH E V A

B 1 NOR TH GATE R ARD HA ORC SY L

8 R W A 34TH AV ! H L U HAIN ES CLA RA T

ST T H

9 H ! L R N I L

5 29TH O D V ROAD Y R D L W 7 K L DR T LN IN G N E 33R D L D L

4 L R H I RD G H R I ! H E H ! U N TH ER ARD A M.F. C T Y

A G LN H S R F AV A C RD

AV S D ! R T

V R M G U Y F AV HIL L E . R N O A . E

S E D T N H D N W O O R C R RD R R I 9 27TH RD E O FER RY A Historic Districts ST N DR F

D M T A R 7 AV 2 LESSE R LN 2 F

T Y PL L F I R C O 2 L

65TH R 62N D

H 1

R 9 S C D BLV D 4 M DR WOO

R T NGL E E

19TH T DR E 0 D O C G

E KRU SE 6 RID GE BOONE S

RD 55TH PL D RD 1 D D D DOU GLAS B E RIVE RSI DE O K F ST AV 73 EN GLE W O

SW ! C SUN 8TH O NY 2 SIDE E R I S 22N D I R ! L O ELK N T L 1 M O U D N TAI N B LV O E (H WY 4 3) Conservation Districts T T H S E

R V W

I C L

L A I G

S 35TH AVE E R

B 1 LV A D D

L H L WALNUT R D D

O E T D E I

I-5 R R 7

E SE RIVER RD V Mt I C R R 4 F BERG R D OS E 1 S November 4, 2014 T R D Tigard D Lake Oswego R

City of Portland, Oregon // Bureau of Planning & Sustainability // Geographic Information System HALL The information on this map was derived from City of Portland GIS databases. Care was taken in the creation of this map but it is provided "as is". Feet The City of Portland cannot accept any responsibility for error, omissions or positional accuracy. N 0 3,000 6,000 9,000 \\bpsfile1\support$\gis\Projects\Citywide_Projects\Maps\34x44_Historic_Resources_WebMap.mxd The 1903 Olmsted master plan continues to influence Portland to this day. Because of this lasting legacy and continued inspiration as a Portland planning tool, the 1903 Olmsted Report of the Park Board master plan was included as an evaluative criterion. The criterion was assessed by overlaying the Olmsted master plan on a current map of Portland (Figure 16). If a park or boulevard exists today in the location that Olmsted suggested, it was evaluated as being identified in the 1903 plan. Additionally, if the Report of the Parks Board text specifically referred to a park, maintenance of it, or creation of it, it was evaluated as identified by the 1903 plan.

THS SUNDAY OREGOSIA, BORTLAXD, JUNE 12, 190.L 33

MR. OLMSTED'S PLAN FOR PORTLAND'S PARKS, PARKWAYS AND BOULEVARDS

Park/Plaza Parkway Cemetery School Other

Figure 16: Olmsted map overlay 74 The Oregon ASLA awards have been presented annually since 2012 and are given based on jury-recognized landscape designs that merit statewide recognition. Because the awards are for the state of Oregon and not the entire United States, they reflect landscapes significant to the state, designed by landscape architects from Oregon.

Finally, to determine the results of the last added criterion, experts were asked a specific question to determine which landscapes reflect Portland’s contemporary character. The experts consulted were: Carl Abbott, Robert Melnick, Kenneth Helphand, award-winning Portland landscape architect Carol Mayer-Reed, Portland design historian Randy Gragg, and Portlandness authors and Portland State geography professors Hunter Shobe and David Banis. The question asked was: “What 5-10 contemporary (built between 1980 to the present) cultural landscapes within Portland metro do you consider to be most representative of Portland’s character?”

To clarify the above question ‘cultural landscapes’ were defined as traditionally recognized landscapes like parks and plazas but also those more vernacular and nontraditional sites like food cart pods and farmer’s markets. Portland’s character was also left broadly defined in order for each expert to determine what they thought were the most intrinsic qualities that make up Portland’s character.

Once the sites were evaluated using the proposed evaluative criteria they were classified as A, B, C or D types depending on the number of criteria met. Sites that met six criteria were classified as A sites, B sites met five met criteria, C sites met four criteria, and D sites met three criteria. Sites that met fewer than three criteria were omitted for this particular project.

The evaluation stage of the proposed process follows a similar trajectory as the WOT evaluation stage - a series of landscapes positioned within a matrix and evaluated based on specific criteria. What’s different about the proposed process is the additional evaluative criteria and the transparency of the evaluation stage including the resulting list of classified sites. The WOT evaluation is a concealed stage conducted by an internal TCLF appointed committee which increases the likelihood of variability and decreases accountability. 75 Prioritization of Sites The goal of the prioritization stage is to take the evaluated list of sites and hierarchically arrange them given the desired project outcome and specific audience. This is the most inconsistent stage because it relies on criteria weighting and ranking which varies depending on project expectations and target audiences. To reiterate, the Portland pilot project deliverable is a guidebook and the general public is the identified audience. Based on that, prioritization in this pilot project was closely linked to a physical and temporal visitor experience, and used spatial clustering, the possibility for on-site educational experience, and visual variety as filters.

Spatial Clustering Filter: Because the goal of the project was to create a guidebook, the spatial relationship between sites was included as a prioritization filter for inclusion in the outcome - the guidebook. In order to determine the spatial relationship of the sites, each A, B, C and D site was mapped to determine clusters. A cluster was defined as two or more sites within two miles of each other. If a site was not clustered, it was removed from the list.

A radius of 2 miles was used as the maximum distance for a walking/bicycling cluster and any distance beyond 2 miles and within 5 miles was classified as accessible by vehicle/public transit. These distances were determined based on the distances used by Portland Walking Tours and personal experience with coordinating guided tour itineraries.

If a walking/biking cluster was located in an area of major topographical change or if accessing a site was unsafe by foot or by bicycle, then the cluster was reevaluated as accessible by vehicle/public transit. The change in topography and safety was assessed based on personal experience with the study area.

On-Site Educational Experience Filter: Each of the clustered A, B, C, and D sites were visited to determine if the site integrity was visually intact enough for educational purposes. If a landscape had deteriorated beyond recognition, or was not discernibly different than the surrounding landscape, it was omitted from the list.

76 V ariety Filter: The final step in the method of prioritizing sites for inclusion in the Portland guide was to ensure that the guidebook would introduce a broad variety of landscape typologies. In the event that too many similar types of sites were included, the least compelling examples of a specific type were dropped from the list as determined by the researcher.

The prioritization stage of the proposed process is a method of refining and ordering sites based on the target audience and the final product. The proposed prioritization stage is made publicly available while the WOT process is not which provokes questions around how TCLF prioritizes sites and what prioritization filters are applied to do so?

Overall, this project proposes a process of cultural landscape identification, evaluation, and prioritization that expands upon the WOT model. In comparison, the proposed process is transparent at every stage whereas the WOT process is not. The WOT’s veiled approach at both the evaluation and prioritization stages is, according to this project, a weakness in their process that this project corrects. This project also addresses the need for an expanded definition of cultural landscapes and the inclusion of contemporary sites during the identification stage, the addition of locally sensitive criteria during the evaluation stage, and appropriate prioritization filters to achieve an end goal for a specific audience.

77 PROPOSED Process Results

A total of one hundred cultural landscapes were identified (Figure 17) and evaluated using the proposed process including thirty-two parks, thirteen plazas, three cemeteries, seven streets, four schools, and forty-one other types of landscapes.

Burnside

Park/Plaza Parkway Cemetery School Other

Figure 17: Identified sites 78 Each site was evaluated using the revised evaluative matrix (Figure 18). To see the full matrix for all sites see Appendix. Unique, National significant, Portland Complet- Register innovative Within a historic Site ed Prior or example Portland or Identi- represents Received to National Received Designer’s of conserva- conser- fied by Portland’s an Bicenten- Historic a national career has landscape tion or vation 1903 contem- Oregon nial Landmark ASLA been architec- historic landmark Olmst- porary ASLA (1976) Listing award realized ture district listing ed plan character award

Alberta Arts District Amy Joslin Eco Roof Ankeny Plaza Benson Bubblers Brewery Blocks Burnside Skatepark Cathedral Park Chapman Square Children’s Campus- WOT Criteria Legacy Emanuel Additional criteria Chinatown Collins Circle Figure 18: Revised evaluative matrix Columbia Wastewa- ter Treatment Plant Results from the baseline criteria: Columbia ParkCompleted prior to 1976 or later 65 Crystal Springs RhododendronListed on the National Register or is a National Historic Landmark 17 Garden Received a national ASLA award 7 Dawson Park Designed by people whose careers have been realized 29 Director Plaza Unique, significant, or innovative example of landscape architecture 63 Duniway Park Ecotrust NaturalR esults from the additional criteria: Capital Center Located in a historic or conservation district 17 Considered a historic or conservation landmark 11 Edith Green - Wendell Wyatt Identified in the 1903 Olmsted plan 33 Federal BuildingWon an Oregon ASLA award 6 Elizabeth CaruthersRecognized as a contemporary site reflecting Portland’s character 28 Park Forest Park Governor's Park 79 Holladay Park Hoyt Arboretum Ira Keller Fountain Irving Park Jamison Square Japanese-American Plaza Kelley Point Park Kenilworth Park Kennedy School Khunamokwst Park Ladd’s Addition Lan Su Chinese Gardens Laurelhurst Park Leach Botanical Garden Leif Erikson Drive Lents Park Lewis & Clark College Lone Fir Cemetery Lovejoy Plaza Lownsdale Square Macadam Blvd Macleay Park Marquam Nature Park McLaughlin Blvd Mill Ends Park Mississippi Ave Mississippi Food Carts Mt. Tabor Park North Park Blocks Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge Oregon Convention Center Rain Garden Oregon Holocaust Memorial Peninsula Park Pettygrove Plaza Pioneer Courthouse Square Pittock Mansion Portland Airport Portland Internation- al Rose Test Garden Portland Japanese Garden Portland Memory Garden Portland State Univ. Portland Transit Mall Powell Butte Park

Powers Marine Park

PSU Farmer’s Market Reed College River View Cemetery Rocky Butte Sellwood Park Skidmore Fountain Smith & Bybee Wetland South Park Blocks South Waterfront

Stormwater Garden - Water Pollution Control Lab

• • • • • • ••• • • • A Sites • B Sites • • C Sites •• • D Sites • •

Figure 19: Evaluated sites

80 Because the initial number of evaluated landscapes far exceeded the number that people could visit within a weekend, the primary goal of the prioritization stage was to reduce the number of total sites to include in the guidebook. The prioritization filters produced the following results.

Spatial Clustering Filter: Each of the A, B, C and D sites (Figure 19) were mapped to determine spatial clustering and to determine how they would be best accessed (Figure 20). Based on the initial map, three sites were not clustered and omitted: Cathedral Park, Rocky Butte, and Willamette Cemetery.

A Sites B Sites C Sites D Sites

Figure 20: Site clusters 81 On-Site Educational Experience Filter: Three landscapes, Macadam Boulevard, McLaughlin Boulevard and Chinatown, were omitted because the on-site educational experience was not intact. The histories behind these landscapes are rich, but today they blend into the surrounding environment and lack strong connections to identifying features.

Variety Filter: Governor’s Park, Kenilworth Park, and Irving Park were omitted because they are similar to the other Olmsted-style parks, and they are not premiere examples of Olmsted-style designs as are Peninsula Park, Laurelhurst Park, and Mt. Tabor. The physical condition of these parks is also muted compared to other park examples of the picturesque in Portland.

Collins Circle was removed from the list because it is an example of design work by Robert Murase who is already strongly represented by other sites on the list. The on-site educational experience is also not as rich at Collins Circle compared to other listed landscapes.

The resulting forty-two sites would create a compelling and justifiable tour of Portland cultural landscapes but still captured too many sites to visit within a weekend. A second tier of prioritization took place to reduce the list further incorporating omissions and adjustments based on personal judgment and time spent reflecting on the results.

Other Omissions and Adjustments: Macleay Park was omitted because it is nested within Forest Park and does not have a specific boundary between itself and greater Forest Park. Similarly, Hoyt Arboretum, within Washington Park, was omitted for the same reason. In contrast, the Rose Garden, within Washington Park, is highly defined and treated as a separate space, which is why it and Washington Park are both listed.

The four sites that make up the Halprin Sequence (The Source Fountain, Lovejoy Plaza, Pettygrove Plaza, and Ira Keller Fountain) were combined into one site because the original intent of the project was for it to be a single, sequential experience.

82 Similarly, Lownsdale and Chapman Squares were also combined as a single site because they were identified as the Plaza Blocks at inception and are typically referred to as a single location.

Because of the iterative process involved while refining the proposed process and the project definition of a ‘cultural landscape’ four sites made it through the entire proposed process that should not have been initially identified. The project definition of cultural landscapes is broad, certainly, but does not include stand- alone structures or objects. The four sites omitted at the end of the prioritization stage that should not have been initially identified were: the Benson Bubblers, Skidmore Fountain, Pittock Mansion, and the Kennedy School. Both the Benson Bubblers and Skidmore Fountain are objects whereas Pittock Mansion and the Kennedy School are both structures with no significant relationship to the landscape.

With these edits the final site list included thirty-one cultural landscapes, thirteen landscapes within the downtown core that can be accessed by walking or biking, and eighteen that can be accessed by public transit or vehicle. Twelve of the sites are located on the east side of the city and nineteen on the west side.

One landscape did not make the priority listing, however, it was identified by all experts as a landscape that reflects Portland’s contemporary character. The reason this landscape did not make priority listing is because the results, even with the additional criteria, may still be skewed to include historic as opposed to contemporary landscapes. Further thoughts about this are shared in the discussion chapter. Because of the outstanding expert recommendations, Jamison Square was added to the final site list along with the other landscapes that make up the Pearl Park Blocks sequence: Tanner Springs, The Fields, and eventually Centennial Mills Park.

The total number of sites listed in the weekend guide is thirty-two including twelve parks, three streets or neighborhoods, seven plazas, two cemeteries, two schools and seven other types of landscapes (Figures 21 and 22).

83 According to the parameters set by this project and the goal of producing an educational weekend guidebook for the general public, these cultural landscapes best reflect Portland’s sense of place and unique identity.

6 met criteria - A 5 met criteria - B Mt. Tabor Park Halprin Open Space Sequence Ladd’s Addition Japanese-American Plaza Peninsula Park Laurelhurst Park Tom McCall Waterfront Park The Watzek House The Brewery Blocks

4 met criteria - C 3 met criteria - D Ankeny Plaza Legacy Emanuel Hospital Healing Chapman and Lownsdale Squares gardens Dawson Park Crystal Springs Rhododendron Director Plaza Garden Eastbank Esplanade Lewis & Clark College Forest Park Mill Ends Park Lone Fir Cemetery Mississippi Ave Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge Pioneer Courthouse Square Reed College International Rose Test Garden River View Cemetery South Park Blocks Portland Transit Mall South Waterfront Washington Park Terwilliger Blvd

Additional Landscape: The Pearl Park Blocks

84 The prioritization stage produced five A sites, four B sites, twelve C sites, ten D sites, and one additional site for a total of thirty-two cultural landscapes that met the proposed process goal of creating an educational guidebook featuring Portland cultural landscapes.

A Sites B Sites C Sites D Sites

Figure 21: Final evaluated and prioritized sites

85 Day One •0 Day Two

Figure 22: Final sites for inclusion in the Portland guidebook

86 Critique of PROPOSED Process Results

Upon review of the data, expected and unexpected results were observed. The proposed process successfully identified cultural landscapes that expanded the definition of ‘cultural landscape’ to include a broader typology of sites, contemporary sites, and sites that reflect the character of the study area. Example sites that increased the breadth of the cultural landscape definition include Mill Ends Park and Mississippi Avenue, while contemporary sites included Director Plaza and the Eastbank Esplanade. Sites that reflected the character of the city were Pioneer Courthouse Square and Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge.

Unanticipated results were observed in the initial list of evaluated sites. The majority of the sites classified as A or B types were expected, and included sites like Ladd’s Addition, Peninsula Park, Mt. Tabor, and the Halprin Open Space Sequence. However, a few of the C and D classified sites were unanticipated. Most surprising was Pioneer Courthouse Square, classified as a D site, which was outranked by lesser known places like Dawson Park and Rocky Butte. This was surprising because Portlanders identify Pioneer Courthouse Square as one of the city’s seminal contemporary landscapes and a higher ranking was expected.

Pioneer Courthouse Square barely made the list of priority sites which indicates that the revised evaluative framework may miss imperative, identity-defining, cultural landscapes, revealing a flaw in the criteria, the way the criteria were evaluated, or a need to adjust the method. Incorporating weighted criteria would effectively alleviate this type of result. For example, if expert opinion-reliant criteria were weighted heavier than other criteria perhaps it would mitigate skewed results as observed in the Pioneer Courthouse Square example.

Another reason Pioneer Courthouse Square ranked lower than expected is because the proposed evaluative framework consists of a disproportionate number of history-related criteria. Including more contemporary related criteria may alleviate the historic bias or a few of the history related criteria could be omitted. As is, the expert recommended sites and the Oregon ASLA design awards are the only two, of ten, criteria related to contemporary landscapes.

87 The D classification of the South Park Blocks was also unforeseen given the city’s focus on their importance as a city-defining landscape and how actively they are programmed. Upon reflection, the sequence of park blocks did not rank higher because they were not designed by a noteworthy designer, did not win a national or local design award, and surprisingly are not listed in the National Register or considered a Portland Historic District, though they are home to four National Register listed structures (Danaher 1979).

Other landscapes received D status as a surprisingly high ranking like Kenilworth Park and Macadam Boulevard. Both of these sites were omitted from the final list during the prioritization stage because they were not the best example of an Olmsted-designed park or an Olmsted-suggested boulevard. The fact that both of these landscapes made the final list indicates, again, that the criteria may be too historically centered.

Creating a list of featured sites to include In the guidebook was challenging because it involved, at times, subjective decision making strategies and the need to justifiably pare down an initially lengthy list. For example, the decision to combine sites was a way of reflecting the original intent of the landscape but also a way of operationally reducing the number of sites to meet the desired quota for the guidebook. Also, the omission of sites based on appearance and personal experience with the site may have lead to subjective decision making during the prioritization process.

In order to compare the proposed process results to the WOT model and to reveal any similar weaknesses in the model, the WOT process was conducted.

88 WT O Results Compared

The WOT identification and evaluation stages were conducted using their definition of ‘cultural landscape’ and the five WOT evaluative criteria in order to compare the project and WOT results. The prioritization stage was omitted because the WOT prioritization filters are not made public and because the evaluation stage only produced thirteen sites (Figure 23). Note that this list was not produced by TCLF and that their results may differ based on subjective decisions made during the process. The following section includes a discussion of these two lists.

A Sites B Sites C Sites D Sites

Figure 23: Results from the WOT process 89 WT O Process Results Proposed Process Results

A A Halprin Open Space Sequence Mt. Tabor Park Ladd’s Addition Ladd’s Addition Laurelhurst Park Peninsula Park Mt. Tabor Park Tom McCall Waterfront Park The Watzek House The Brewery Blocks B B Halprin Open Space Sequence Ankeny Plaza Japanese-American Plaza Colin’s Circle Laurelhurst Park Peninsula Park The Watzek House International Rose Test Garden C River View Cemetery Ankeny Plaza Tom McCall Waterfront Park Chapman and Lownsdale Squares Dawson Park C Director Plaza Chapman and Lownsdale Squares Eastbank Esplanade Washington Park Forest Park Lone Fir Cemetery Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge Reed College River View Cemetery Portland Transit Mall Washington Park D Legacy Emanuel Hospital Healing gardens Crystal Springs Rhododendron Garden Increased in Ranking Lewis & Clark College Mill Ends Park Decreased in Ranking Mississippi Ave Same Ranking Pioneer Courthouse Square International Rose Test Garden South Park Blocks South Waterfront Figure 24: WOT and Proposed process comparison lists Terwilliger Blvd 90 In comparison, the WOT identification and evaluation stages yield a valid list of cultural landscapes to visit in Portland, however, the proposed process produces a list of cultural landscapes that better reflects Portland’s character through a diversity of cultural landscape types, and historic as well as contemporary sites.

The WOT process produced a list that is historically significant but failed to capture important landscapes that define the city of Portland as it is today. In order to make a relevant and representational guidebook of cultural landscapes contemporary sites must be included using a justifiable method of evaluation and prioritization - the proposed process achieves this. Example landscapes produced from the proposed process that both contribute to the diverse definition of ‘cultural landscape’ and exemplify contemporary landscapes are the Brewery Blocks, Eastbank Esplanade, Director Park, and the Portland Transit Mall.

Additionally, using the WOT criteria produced a total of zero landscapes that met all five WOT evaluative criteria, five landscapes met four criteria, six that met three criteria, and two that met two criteria for a total of thirteen cultural landscapes. Thirteen landscapes are not nearly enough to produce a rich weekend tour of Portland cultural landscapes. How does TCLF add additional landscapes when this occurs, by what method, and based on whose judgment? Are five criteria enough to determine landscape significance? If so, how many criteria must a site meet to be included in the more critically evaluated WOT database as opposed to a guidebook?

The differences between the lists produced may be attributed to the proposed process incorporating a more inclusive definition of ‘cultural landscape’, a less restrictive landscape age requirement, and locally relevant evaluative criteria. Arguably, the proposed process produces a more diverse and compelling list of sites to visit when considering the experiential aspect of touring Portland’s cultural landscapes.

91 92

Laurelhurst Park: Portland, OR The Guide

A Model

T CLF’s WOT city guidebooks (Figure 24) were used as a model for the Portland, Oregon: A Cultural Landscape Tour guidebook. The WOT guides are image-rich, informative, and easy to carry, measuring 8” x 8”. The guides are developed for a two-day What’s Out There Weekend event that typically includes lectures and tours. 6 These booklets are durable, informational keepsakes from an ephemeral public event. Each guidebook includes an introduction to TCLF mission, a letter from TCLF president and founder, Charles Birnbaum, a map of sites and an introduction to the WOT program.

Each landscape is featured on a spread or single page. It is common for larger landscapes to be included as a single landscape while smaller sites from within the larger landscapes are included as separate locations. For example, Central Park is listed as a single landscape in the New York City guidebook and The Ramble, located in Central Park, is also included as a separate site.

Brief text describes the physical design, design history, and significant people associated with the landscape while rich imagery is used to capture the feel of the site. Each entry includes a sidebar noting the landscape type, the designer(s), and sometimes, the landscape style. Short, quick facts are included for some of the sites as ‘Notable’ information located in highly visible places on the page and the address is listed with each entry.

93 Central Park

011(JI. ttc..-tV"''1 ~ ...... d\OIIilllb""" • tp~I,Jtwrl ...... ,...e:-.,,*"91:~ ,.....~ ...~ ... Cl'..,._,~. alftint~ ...... ll:!a .e,...:;Dii~WCI,...~tur~~-. ••,i= ..... ~fll!rl ...... ,_.N...... _~Wd!;.,WC'III'•~....,.II'(II'I\•..,..· ~a'Uidlllamh--~ ...... ,..,....,, ...... ~ -...a.~WrMNrd ...... ~ ...- .dllllrl:-...... 1'11 .... '• ~ ... ,u...... ,..,~~ .....,.. •• ~ ...... 1'W~«,.....,.,.lftW't,.-'l~~CI ...... W ~----rJt'lt--~~--M..,,.._.,b:l{two ~w..·~~t~*'r~~ot~ ..... ~-~...... -tf.t..,..IIIQIII""' t.,..ct.,...... ,CJt .._...... c...... I'IWtllt._...~.,..u-.PIII'\*~'t·~~ ~ .. ICJW•"\'» IWkwtl.nl.ltPIIIU...... ,.11«•1111( ...... ~IFChler1""-' ...... 11 1M~'WI~--yt'l(....,....:fl ...... ~•c:fW\ aC..Wn.~'*''Q..,.,_,DP>~,..,...,_,..,v, a...!cllat.nJ~-~L.Jy~..,bJ')A,ttdS<~O... _,., r.Jf~Jdo« .....~~""ri:¥\U'~..-~ .....

- .. ~· -

~ ~.... - . :..:.:-::-~.. ·-~~-~.~.:. ·.:

Figure 25: WOT guidebooks by TCLF

94 The Portland Guide

The Portland, Oregon: A Cultural Landscape Tour (Figure 25) intends to inspire future stewards of cultural landscapes by promoting experiential interaction with the landscape and encouraging people to learn about their surrounding environment in a tactile and accessible way (Stoecklein 2016). This guide is a tool that increases awareness about meaningful Portland landscapes and draws attention to Pacific Northwest design heritage by questioning the definition of cultural landscapes and testing the limits of site recognition both temporally and spatially as factors such as distance, sequence and history are considered. The guide is meant to introduce people to important cultural landscapes within the Portland metro area over a duration of two days.

Using the WOT guide as a model, The Portland Guide of cultural landscapes includes a map of the featured cultural landscapes, a brief introduction to Portland as a city, including the Olmsted plan, a spread or page dedicated to each listing including images, text, interesting fast facts, and the landscape address.

Unlike the WOT guidebooks, the Portland guide includes a brief introduction to the process of how the sites were prioritized, and descriptions are based on interesting facts about the landscape, history, the design process, and horticulture information, not visual descriptions of the landscape. Text does not include visual descriptions because the guidebook is intended to be an educational tool that brings people to the featured landscapes where they can see for themselves what the visual qualities of the landscape are. The guide is split in two parts, featuring the landscapes on the east and the west sides of the Willamette River separately. This allows for visitors to spend a day on either side of the river.

95 LANDSCAPE SELECTION

ll'W~~.,~pe!IIIRI11Carlllll'W i ni!CIQO~~~ICCW'\ .no~~,_,._..,.J'ft$wl~u.~OJI'boll~~~_, ft~f!Ntr...-..~

UfJ2,c~'1111!11~t.f!IPJJ~tAtm~~~~Ma:WIC:. Wbo~RWM!~MtdW'.-,QW'i

• if"•h~~08ln1tm • lt~aiiQSQIPt~"I'W!Mior.~lllloU!In:RJUtOI~r.,a~ ~-...... · ioia=-~~aiU~~SOdllt;'ot~~t.!'l

,f,k.'-.~-A!!!'ttr:RGotCI~'"'" · l!tr•~aunllf-1t,J:Pka"ar~~~~_., · 11b~IIXJ»<1"'-.I~~attcmW"OISIIC.'t!' • llh~~·~MIIikiii:Cif~~ - llo&Cht~_..~cc,a~_~~~~~~ • fl'llaN~...-4'M'IDtC~mMJCO"~MSOIIOt~ ~~-1 • I!W~ICeSt'.tallllfitm~"'9'2fi'

~OI!II"'lft~l)511:a.-~~.,_~CII.I!2ftUJMiiQI:! IJW\¥.-GID~OM!IIMid~WWr.l~Jai~Oit~ ~~lllK:U.tD~!ft!l'le«

PORTLAND, OREGON

F\nJMtl M~rtJ f1N Oi~.J.pt!R!ntllt~~cmcd'folllltl 11'1tt"II!II'U.ptM"tnPj ~·---t00p~~1Dun"«tplf'!lii"' ~II'!Mnoil~lft~-~~~~~~ DPf'\IIPIGII-lflliMN.'ft ...... LCICIP. oM""·f'Qllr)l'ilf'IXIP~•Ut05110~ tanetiCICII'..-.10p~~t~.~ ....ur.e~ w •ns.1d}~~wta•fll!lll• '*'i""

~-Ctil;~t'lli&S~h.,._~~a,OIOiilnDa!GOOJCUt.:la:*'tllni.Tnf: CJ:tqlg~naiO~II"iWCA*h·Qid:~ot'Mc:ft14~ fiN1 ~-VlOM~)*o~~---OII:neCIO,~NII.ti'CI~ '""""'-"""' Qlll .. _ ~ _,.,..-~~ n.-.-...... _ ....

Cl:ll\-.clJOQIDrM-~'*lotlniiOI' papte«~1W.otj. onrGN 1Ual8l!Z~J__,.-.a~Ciilll'l'lf-.CN~ MIWI~~ IIQ)"WWa~~n~• ~~~~~nt~Ot'*fVil~~'o-ta rvY*~~0¥81Hl~~GIOMFI~a~Nldhtqlii«~ID ....,__ .. _ -v•.... _«-/ ... ,Y.'O'-f"'.,...,_..,...... ,.., _

Cirl!fllftaast...-... cJPWIR::\- ptn~a.ellain 1KJ IMWJi Din C. ~!OROf~~·!lft!Cl~I.M~--:!d~IJ!"qiGSf "'"''"'*""""-IIJIJIIt"f"''•o!!f~lll~r:r!.RlrU'If~li'II!OIIO"O~«lf'I5.•Na..eaaoOI'W!Il' ... ..,...... ,_.,_.....,._ ... tl)'ax&AOIIICC~Medirl':fa1~pjftii-'OQPII\IPIC!Sto~.I~Jfi~Hr'

Figure 26: Portland guidebook by the author

96 Discussion & Future Study

Dissi cus on

This project critiques existing identification, evaluation, and prioritization practices and suggests specific revisions to strengthen the cultural landscape selection process. The findings from this project may be incorporated in replications for 7 other cities. Beneficial additions to the cultural landscape selection process highlighted in this project include using a more diverse range of landscape types and a more relaxed approach to a landscape’s age during the identification stage; the addition of locally significant criteria during the evaluation stage; and a keen awareness of the desired project outcomes and target audiences during the prioritization stage.

This project proposes a way to strengthen the landscape selection process, however, surprising omissions revealed that cultural knowledge and personal experience with a city is key during the process. For example, in the Portland pilot study, no Portlander would overlook Pioneer Courthouse Square when listing landscapes that best reflect the city’s character because of the emotional connection citizens have with that particular landscape. The fact that Pioneer Square was nearly disregarded by the proposed process indicates an opportunity to refine the evaluative criteria or alter the overall proposed process in future replications to ensure that important landscapes like this are not accidentally overlooked.

Project Challenges & Future Study

Project challenges and areas for future study are resource related, semantics based, or linked to the project method and scope.

Given the timeline of the project, criteria were developed as binary yes or no evaluations. This decision may have impeded the depth of site evaluations, specifically when negotiating subjective criteria. Weighted criteria could be 97 98

Mt. Tabor Reservoir: Portland, OR implemented in the evaluation stage to strengthen site evaluations and address this perceived weakness of the proposed process. For example, in the proposed process, the criterion addressing whether a site reflects Portland’s contemporary character could have been weighted depending on the number of experts that mentioned a specific landscape. If a landscape was mentioned by more than one expert it could receive a higher ranking than those landscapes only recognized by one expert.

This leads to the use of experts in the project in the first place. By consulting experts and expert publications to guide project decisions and methods, the project may be skewed to include a potentially elitist perspective of cultural landscapes. Access to a range of highly knowledgeable and connected people who know Portland, or another focus city, may not always be an option. If experts are necessary in the process organizations should be prepared to find highly connected individuals from the featured city, researched through partner organizations or city programs, in order to identify critical local cultural landscapes.

This project may have been stronger and may have produced more diverse and inclusive results if a direct connection was made to the Portland Asian, Native American, and African-American communities. For example, there is a sensitive relationship between Portland and the African American community and historically identified African American landscapes. Potential future studies could help identify, evaluate, and prioritize cultural landscapes as viewed by the African American, Asian, and Native American communities because Portland’s character and sense of place may be different based on distinct historical legacies.

It can be argued that both TCLF and the additional criteria used in this framework rely too heavily on rational, data-driven criteria and not enough on emotional, intangible information. Emotional information could include oral history interviews, participation in local traditions, and gathering community feedback. To gather community feedback a crowd-sourcing component could be incorporated which would reveal landscapes that are important to the residents of the city. Community-driven definitions of ‘character’ and ‘identity’ could be solicited which would provide a direct reflection of the local sense of place from the bottom up as opposed to an expert drive top-down approach. 99 Additionally, this study could be spatially expanded beyond the city of Portland to include cultural landscapes within the larger region. What are the most significant cultural landscapes of Multnomah County? Of Eastern or Western Oregon? Of the entire state? As the spatial extent expands how would the proposed process and evaluative criteria change?

Other questions were raised while reviewing the proposed process results: Do people want these landscapes identified and listed in a publicly-accessible guide or is it preferred that these places maintain a degree of anonymity? What are the implications of being listed in a guide and are they all desired outcomes? Does increased visibility change the character of a cultural landscape?

Finally, the intended educational guidebook was drafted complete with a transparent discussion of how the included cultural landscapes were chosen, and inclusion of sites that embody Portland’s identity and unique sense of place. As an expansion of the guide app-based and web-based tools may be created to increase the accessibility of this information and interaction with users.

C ultural Landscape Challenges

There are complexities within the field of cultural landscape preservation and the process of preservation. Primary challenges include: landscape preservation efforts are largely architecture-based, there is a lack of a common language to talk about landscapes, and landscapes, by their very constitution, change over time and space.

The approach and the language used to talk about landscape preservation have been critiqued and defined as problematic. Alenan and Melnick think “… the technical language used in cultural landscape preservation - especially in the documents prepared by governmental agencies and organizations - often poses problems, since many terms and definitions are borrowed directly from architectural preservation” (Alenan and Melnick 2000). Landscapes are not architecture and should not be approached for preservation purposes as if they were.

Elizabeth Meyer, in ‘The Expanded Field of Landscape’, also talks about the lack of a 100 common language when referring to cultural landscapes and the need to address this issue. She calls on the landscape architecture community stating, “if nature is a cultural construct, one that evolves as our society changes, shouldn’t the field that is most concerned with shaping the land develop a shared language that reflects these hybrid relationships?” (Meyer 1997). In order to preserve landscapes there needs to be a common language to talk about them effectively.

In order to have a common language there needs to be a common definition of components that make up the larger landscape, like cultural landscapes. Should the collectively agreed upon definition include those diverse ordinary landscapes as JB Jackson and Pierce Lewis proposed or should the definition be reserved for the extraordinary landscapes as defined by the NPS?

The landscape architecture language evolution Meyers advocates for occurs within the relationship between a society and nature. Cultural norms, values and identity change over time, and landscapes, because they are made of biophysical components, living, moving, eroding things, transform over time as well. This constant trajectory of change over time and space makes it difficult to preserve landscapes. How do we preserve something that inherently evolves?

It is in the act of preservation that organizations and people prioritize which landscapes should be protected and how these preserved landscapes contribute to a culture’s sense of identity and place - like those identified in this project for Portland.

101 102

Jamison Square: Portland, OR Conclusion

What do landscapes reveal about culture? What stories do cultural relics communicate and how will these stories change as the character of a city continues to grow? In order for a city to maintain an individual sense of place and identity, it is imperative that cultural landscape preservation practices clearly craft transparent methods of cultural landscape selection, recognize project audiences, and define 8 desired outcomes to match project goals. This project proposes one process of identifying, evaluating and prioritizing cultural landscapes by synthesizing the methods used by the NPS, TCLF and the SAH. Identification practices should include a more diverse definition of ‘cultural landscape’ and less restrictive age requirements should be placed on landscapes, while locally specific criteria should be incorporated in the evaluation of the identified landscapes, drawing from the context of where the selection process takes place. Establishing the intended audience and project outcome during the prioritization stage is paramount in creating specific deliverables like the publicly- accessible educational travel guide of Portland, Oregon created for this project.

This process may be expanded upon for future replication and is transferable to other cities within the United States. The guide, or other created materials, in conjunction with efforts made by the NPS, TCLF, the SAH, and other cultural landscape preservation organizations may be used to help energize local preservation efforts, increase advocacy, and make significant cultural landscapes more visible.

103 104

Lewis & Clark College, Portland, OR References

40-Mile Loop Land Trust. 2016. “History of the Loop”. Accessed April 7. http://40mileloop.org/wordpress/?page_id=6.

Abbot, Carl. 2001. Greater Portland: Urban Life and Landscape in the Pacific Northwest. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Abbott, Carl. 2016. “Portland.” Accesses January 20. http://oregonencyclopedia. org/articles/portland/#.VrJQaDYrJE4.

Alanen, Arnold R., and Robert Melnick. 2000. Preserving Cultural Landscapes in America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Alviani, Carl. 2016. “Portland’s New Building Boom.” Design Week Portland. Accessed January 9 2016. http://designweekportland.tumblr.com/ post/97812409183/portlands-new-building-boom-by-carl-alviani-if

Birnbaum, Charles. A. 1994. Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes. Washington, DC: USDI, NPS, Preservation Assistance Division.

Birnbaum, Charles. Interview with author. November 7, 2015.

City of Portland. 1866. “Map of the City of Portland.” Last modified 1869. https:// www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/146718.

City of Portland. 2014. “Historic Landmarks, Historic Districts & Conservation Districts.” Last modified November 4. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/ article/130727.

City of Portland. 2016. “Individual Historic Resources and Landmarks.” Accessed January 11. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/132551.

105 City of Portland Parks and Recreation. 2016. “Tanner Springs.” Accessed April 8. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/finder/index. cfm?propertyid=1273&action=viewpark.

City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. 2009. “City of Portland Civic Planning, Development, & Public Works, 1851 – 1965: A Historic Context.” Accessed January 15, 2016. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/299256.

City of Portland Bureau of Planning and Sustainability. 2016. “History 1852 – 2000.” Accessed January 15, 2016. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/parks/article/95955. The Cultural Landscape Foundation. 2016. “What are Cultural Landscapes.” Accessed January 11. http://tclf.org/landscapes/what-are-cultural-landscapes.

Danaher, Lana and Portland (Or.). 1979. “Historic Summary of South Park Blocks”. Portland City Archives. Paper 34. Accessed May 18. http://pdxscholar.library.pdx. edu/oscdl_cityarchives/34.

Elizabeth K. Meyer. 1997. “The Expanded Field of Landscape Architecture.” In Ecological Design and Planning, edited by George F. Thompson and Frederick R. Steiner, 45–79. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Forest Park Conservancy. 2016. “Experience Forest Park.” Accessed February 16. http://www.forestparkconservancy.org/forest-park/.

Forest Park Conservancy. 2016. “Park Facts and User Guidelines.” Accessed April 7. http://www.forestparkconservancy.org/forest-park/facts/.

Hawkins, William. 2014. Legacy of the Olmsted Brothers in Portland. Portland: Self- Published.

Jackson, John Brinckerhoff. 1984. “The Word Itself.” In Landscape in Sight: Looking at America, edited by Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz, 299 – 306. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lewis, Pierce F. 1979. “Axioms For Reading the Landscape.” In The Interpretation of Ordinary Landscapes: Geographical Essays, 11 – 32. New York: Oxford University 106 Press. Longstreth, Richard W. 2008. Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Melnick, Robert 1984. Cultural Landscapes: Rural Historic Districts in the National Park System. Washington D.C.: US Department of the Interior.

Murtagh, William J. 1988. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. New York: Sterling Publishing Co. Inc.

The National Park Service. 2012. “Park Cultural Landscapes.” Last modified July 3. http://www.nps.gov/cultural_landscapes/.

The National Park Service. 2016. “Landscape Lines 3: Landscape Characteristics.” Accessed January 8. http://www.nps.gov/cultural_landscapes/Documents/ Landscape_Lines_03.pdf.

The National Park Service. 2016. “About Us.” Accessed January 8. https://www.nps. gov/aboutus/index.htm.

The National Park Service. 2016. “National Register of Historic Places Database.” Accessed January 8. http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/index.htm.

Olmsted, John Charles. 1852 – 1920. “Portland: Report of the Park Board: Portland, OR (1903).” University of Oregon. Scholarsbank (http://hdl.handle.net/1794/9046).

Oregon State Historic Preservation Office. 2015. “Oregon Parks & Recreation Department: Oregon Heritage: National Register.” Accessed January 11. http:// www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/SHPO/Pages/index.aspx.

Portland Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects. 2015. “The Landscape Architect’s Guide to Portland.” Accessed February 20. http://www.asla. org/Portland/. Metro (Or.). 1992. “Ten Essentials for a Quality Regional Landscape: A Guidebook for Maintaining and Enhancing Greater Portland’s Special Sense of Place.” Metro Collection. Paper 21.

107 Rusk, David. 1999. Inside/Outside Game: Winning Strategies for Saving Urban America. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Sauer, Carl Ortwin. 1925. The Morphology of Landscape. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Stoecklein, Kelly. 2016. Portland, Oregon: A Cultural Landscape Tour. Eugene: Self- Published.

Traucht, Matthew, e-mail message to author, January 19, 2016.

The Trust for Public Land. 2016. “2014 City Park Facts.” Accessed April 7. https:// www.tpl.org/sites/default/files/files_upload/2014_CityParkFacts.pdf.

United States Census Bureau. 2015. “Portland, Oregon Quick Facts.” Accessed December 25. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/4159000.html.

Way, Thaisa. Interview with author. November 11, 2015.

108 Appendix

Unique, National significant, Portland Complet- Register innovative Within a historic Site ed Prior or example Portland or Identi- represents Received to National Received Designer’s of conserva- conser- fied by Portland’s an Bicenten- Historic a national career has landscape tion or vation 1903 contem- Oregon nial Landmark ASLA been architec- historic landmark Olmst- porary ASLA (1976) Listing award realized ture district listing ed plan character award

Edith Green - Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Elizabeth Caruthers 109 Park Forest Park Governor's Park Holladay Park Hoyt Arboretum Ira Keller Fountain Irving Park Jamison Square Japanese-American Plaza Kelley Point Park Kenilworth Park Kennedy School Khunamokwst Park Ladd’s Addition Lan Su Chinese Gardens Laurelhurst Park Leach Botanical Garden Leif Erikson Drive Lents Park Lewis & Clark College Lone Fir Cemetery Lovejoy Plaza Lownsdale Square Macadam Blvd Macleay Park Marquam Nature Park McLaughlin Blvd Mill Ends Park Mississippi Ave Mississippi Food Carts Mt. Tabor Park North Park Blocks Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge Oregon Convention Center Rain Garden Oregon Holocaust Memorial Peninsula Park Pettygrove Plaza Pioneer Courthouse Square Pittock Mansion Portland Airport Portland Internation- al Rose Test Garden Portland Japanese Garden Portland Memory Garden Portland State Univ. Portland Transit Mall Powell Butte Park

Powers Marine Park

PSU Farmer’s Market Reed College River View Cemetery Rocky Butte Sellwood Park Skidmore Fountain Smith & Bybee Wetland South Park Blocks South Waterfront

Stormwater Garden - Water Pollution Control Lab

Swan Island Tanner Springs Park Terry Schrunk Plaza Terwilliger Blvd The Fields The Grotto The Source Fountain Tilikum Crossing Tom McCall Water- front Park Tryon State Park University of Portland University Park Unthank Park Vera Katz Eastbank Esplanade Vera Katz Park - Armory Vietnam Veterans Memorial Washington Park Watzek House West Delta Park Willamette Blvd Willamette Cemetery Willamette Park Zenger Farm Unique, National significant, Portland Complet- Register innovative Within a historic Site ed Prior or example Portland or Identi- represents Received to National Received Designer’s of conserva- conser- fied by Portland’s an Bicenten- Historic a national career has landscape tion or vation 1903 contem- Oregon nial Landmark ASLA been architec- historic landmark Olmst- porary ASLA (1976) Listing award realized ture district listing ed plan character award

Alberta Arts District Amy Joslin Eco Roof Ankeny Plaza Benson Bubblers Brewery Blocks Burnside Skatepark Cathedral Park Chapman Square Children’s Campus- Legacy Emanuel Chinatown Collins Circle Columbia Wastewa- ter Treatment Plant Columbia Park Crystal Springs Rhododendron Garden Dawson Park Director Plaza Duniway Park Unique, National significant, Portland Ecotrust Natural Complet- Register innovative Within a historic Site Capital Center ed Prior or example Portland or Identi- represents Received to National Received Designer’s of conserva- conser- fied by Portland’s an Edith Green - Bicenten- Historic a national career has landscape tion or vation 1903 contem- Oregon Wendell Wyatt nial Landmark ASLA been architec- historic landmark Olmst- porary ASLA Federal Building (1976) Listing award realized ture district listing ed plan character award

ElizabethAlberta Arts Caruthers District Park Amy Joslin Eco Roof Forest Park Ankeny Plaza Governor's Park Benson Bubblers Holladay Park Brewery Blocks Hoyt Arboretum Burnside Skatepark Ira Keller Fountain IrvingCathedral Park Park Chapman Square Jamison Square Children’s Campus- Japanese-AmericanLegacy Emanuel Plaza ChinatownKelley Point Park Collins Circle Kenilworth Park Columbia Wastewa- Kennedy School ter Treatment Plant Khunamokwst Park Columbia Park Ladd’s Addition LanCrystal Su Chinese Springs GardensRhododendron Garden Laurelhurst Park Dawson Park Leach Botanical GardenDirector Plaza LeifDuniway Erikson Park Drive EcotrustLents Park Natural CapitalLewis & Center Clark College

EdithLone GreenFir Cemetery - WendellLovejoy PlazaWyatt FederalLownsdale Building Square MacadamElizabeth CaruthersBlvd MacleayPark Park Forest Park Marquam Nature ParkGovernor's Park HolladayMcLaughlin Park Blvd MillHoyt Ends Arboretum Park MississippiIra Keller FountainAve MississippiIrving Park Food Carts Mt. Tabor Park Jamison Square North Park Blocks 110 Japanese-American OaksPlaza Bottom Wildlife Refuge Kelley Point Park Oregon Convention CenterKenilworth Rain ParkGarden OregonKennedy Holocaust School MemorialKhunamokwst Park PeninsulaLadd’s Addition Park PettygroveLan Su Chinese Plaza PioneerGardens Courthouse Square Laurelhurst Park Pittock Mansion PortlandLeach Botanical Airport Garden Portland Internation- Leif Erikson Drive al Rose Test Garden Lents Park Portland Japanese GardenLewis & Clark College PortlandLone Fir MemoryCemetery GardenLovejoy Plaza PortlandLownsdale State Square Univ. PortlandMacadam Transit Blvd Mall MacleayPowell Butte Park Park PowersMarquam Marine Nature Park Park PSU Farmer’s Market McLaughlin Blvd Reed College Mill Ends Park River View Cemetery Mississippi Ave MississippiRocky Butte Food Carts Sellwood Park Mt. Tabor Park Skidmore Fountain North Park Blocks Smith & Bybee OaksWetland Bottom Wildlife Refuge South Park Blocks Oregon Convention CenterSouth Waterfront Rain Garden StormwaterOregon Holocaust Garden -Memorial Water Pollution ControlPeninsula Lab Park Pettygrove Plaza Swan Island Pioneer Courthouse TannerSquare Springs Park TerryPittock Schrunk Mansion Plaza TerwilligerPortland Airport Blvd The Fields Portland Internation- alThe Rose Grotto Test Garden PortlandThe Source Japanese Fountain GardenTilikum Crossing PortlandTom McCall Memory Water - Gardenfront Park TryonPortland State State Park Univ. UniversityPortland Transit of Portland Mall UniversityPowell Butte Park Park Unthank Park Powers Marine Park Vera Katz Eastbank PSUEsplanade Farmer’s Market VeraReed Katz College Park - ArmoryRiver View Cemetery Vietnam Veterans Rocky Butte Memorial Sellwood Park Washington Park Skidmore Fountain Watzek House Smith & Bybee WestWetland Delta Park Willamette Blvd South Park Blocks Willamette Cemetery South Waterfront Willamette Park ZengerStormwater Farm Garden - Water Pollution Control Lab

Edith Green - Wendell Wyatt Federal Building Elizabeth Caruthers Park Forest Park Governor's Park Holladay Park Hoyt Arboretum Ira Keller Fountain Irving Park Jamison Square Japanese-American Plaza Kelley Point Park Kenilworth Park Kennedy School Khunamokwst Park Ladd’s Addition Lan Su Chinese Gardens Laurelhurst Park Leach Botanical Garden Leif Erikson Drive Lents Park Lewis & Clark College Lone Fir Cemetery Lovejoy Plaza Lownsdale Square Macadam Blvd Macleay Park Marquam Nature Park McLaughlin Blvd Unique, significant, Mill Ends Park National Portland Complet- Register innovative Within a historic Site Mississippi Ave ed Prior or example Portland or Identi- represents Received Mississippi Food Carts to National Received Designer’s of conserva- conser- fied by Portland’s an Bicenten- Historic a national career has landscape tion or vation 1903 contem- Oregon Mt. Tabor Park nial Landmark ASLA been architec- historic landmark Olmst- porary ASLA North Park Blocks (1976) Listing award realized ture district listing ed plan character award OaksAlberta Bottom Arts District Wildlife Refuge Amy Joslin Eco Roof Oregon Convention CenterAnkeny Rain Plaza Garden OregonBenson BubblersHolocaust MemorialBrewery Blocks PeninsulaBurnside ParkSkatepark PettygroveCathedral ParkPlaza Pioneer Courthouse SquareChapman Square Children’s Campus- Pittock Mansion Legacy Emanuel Portland Airport Chinatown Portland Internation- Collins Circle al Rose Test Garden ColumbiaPortland Japanese Wastewa - terGarden Treatment Plant PortlandColumbia Memory Park Garden Crystal Springs PortlandRhododendron State Univ. PortlandGarden Transit Mall PowellDawson Butte Park Park Director Plaza Powers Marine Park Duniway Park PSU Farmer’s Market Ecotrust Natural CapitalReed College Center River View Cemetery Edith Green - WendellRocky Butte Wyatt FederalSellwood Building Park SkidmoreElizabeth CaruthersFountain SmithPark & Bybee ForestWetland Park Governor'sSouth Park BlocksPark HolladaySouth Waterfront Park StormwaterHoyt Arboretum Garden -Ira Water Keller Pollution Fountain Control Lab Irving Park SwanJamison Island Square 111 TannerJapanese-American Springs Park TerryPlaza Schrunk Plaza TerwilligerKelley Point Blvd Park TheKenilworth Fields Park TheKennedy Grotto School TheKhunamokwst Source Fountain Park TilikumLadd’s Addition Crossing TomLan SuMcCall Chinese Water - frontGardens Park TryonLaurelhurst State Park UniversityLeach Botanical of Portland UniversityGarden Park UnthankLeif Erikson Park Drive VeraLents Katz Park Eastbank LewisEsplanade & Clark College VeraLone Katz Fir CemeteryPark - ArmoryLovejoy Plaza Vietnam Veterans Lownsdale Square Memorial Macadam Blvd Washington Park Macleay Park Watzek House Marquam Nature ParkWest Delta Park Willamette Blvd McLaughlin Blvd WillametteMill Ends Park Cemetery Willamette Park Mississippi Ave MississippiZenger Farm Food Carts Mt. Tabor Park North Park Blocks Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge Oregon Convention Center Rain Garden Oregon Holocaust Memorial Peninsula Park Pettygrove Plaza Pioneer Courthouse Square Pittock Mansion Portland Airport Portland Internation- al Rose Test Garden Portland Japanese Garden Portland Memory Garden Portland State Univ. Portland Transit Mall Powell Butte Park

Powers Marine Park

PSU Farmer’s Market Reed College River View Cemetery Rocky Butte Sellwood Park Skidmore Fountain Smith & Bybee Wetland South Park Blocks South Waterfront

Stormwater Garden - Water Pollution Control Lab

Powers Marine Park

PSU Farmer’s Market Reed College River View Cemetery Rocky Butte Sellwood Park Skidmore Fountain Smith & Bybee Wetland South Park Blocks Unique, South Waterfront National significant, Portland Complet- Register innovative Within a historic Site Stormwater Garden ed Prior or example Portland or Identi- represents Received - Water Pollution to National Received Designer’s of conserva- conser- fied by Portland’s an Control Lab Bicenten- Historic a national career has landscape tion or vation 1903 contem- Oregon nial Landmark ASLA been architec- historic landmark Olmst- porary ASLA Swan Island (1976) Listing award realized ture district listing ed plan character award TannerAlberta Springs Arts District Park TerryAmy JoslinSchrunk Eco Plaza Roof TerwilligerAnkeny Plaza Blvd TheBenson Fields Bubblers TheBrewery Grotto Blocks TheBurnside Source Skatepark Fountain TilikumCathedral Crossing Park TomChapman McCall Square Water- front Park Children’s Campus- TryonLegacy State Emanuel Park ChinatownUniversity of Portland CollinsUniversity Circle Park ColumbiaUnthank Park Wastewa- terVera Treatment Katz Eastbank Plant Esplanade Columbia Park Vera Katz Park - Crystal Springs Armory Rhododendron VietnamGarden Veterans Memorial Dawson Park Washington Park Director Plaza Watzek House Duniway Park West Delta Park EcotrustWillamette Natural Blvd Capital Center Willamette Cemetery EdithWillamette Green Park - Wendell Wyatt FederalZenger FarmBuilding Elizabeth Caruthers Park Forest Park Governor's Park Holladay Park Hoyt Arboretum Ira Keller Fountain Irving Park 112 Jamison Square Japanese-American Plaza Kelley Point Park Kenilworth Park Kennedy School Khunamokwst Park Ladd’s Addition Lan Su Chinese Gardens Laurelhurst Park Leach Botanical Garden Leif Erikson Drive Lents Park Lewis & Clark College Lone Fir Cemetery Lovejoy Plaza Lownsdale Square Macadam Blvd Macleay Park Marquam Nature Park McLaughlin Blvd Mill Ends Park Mississippi Ave Mississippi Food Carts Mt. Tabor Park North Park Blocks Oaks Bottom Wildlife Refuge Oregon Convention Center Rain Garden Oregon Holocaust Memorial Peninsula Park Pettygrove Plaza Pioneer Courthouse Square Pittock Mansion Portland Airport Portland Internation- al Rose Test Garden Portland Japanese Garden Portland Memory Garden Portland State Univ. Portland Transit Mall Powell Butte Park

Powers Marine Park

PSU Farmer’s Market Reed College River View Cemetery Rocky Butte Sellwood Park Skidmore Fountain Smith & Bybee Wetland South Park Blocks South Waterfront

Stormwater Garden - Water Pollution Control Lab