July 14, 2004

An Ethic Of Accessibility

Towards A Vision For Portland

Sitting behind a house on Willamette Heights last evening, with a view of what in 1905 was the Guild's Lake site of the Lewis and Clark Exposition, we had something of an epiphany.

On the occasion of one of the City Club of Portland's "citizen salon" dinner benefits (the second and final of those which we attended), held at the home of Chet Orloff, the conversation very early on revealed a common observation about Portland. In the process, we discovered that in fact this observation is the defining characteristic -- the vision, if you will -- of Portland.

This particular salon was entitled, "Creating a Vision for Portland" -- so at one level it's a given that the matter would arise. After all, the event was billed as "conversation with urban planner Ethan Seltzer about a vision for the city that is crafted by its citizens and built around aesthetics, the economy and Portland’s special sense of place."

But what surprised us was how clearly-shared was the concept of accessibility. During introductions, it was the one term that seemed to come up repeatedly.

As was pointed out during Seltzer's introductory comments, the question of vision is an especially relevant one, given the forthcoming general election in which we will choose a new Mayor and a new Commissioner. Seltzer's observation was that in some respects, the four remaining candidates in competition are interchangeable in that they all promise better jobs, better schools, and better neighborhoods -- but don't offer any clear and prevailing vision for the City.

Seltzer's own proposition for a vision for Portland was to make it "the most public City in the world." While there are various ways in which this can be taken, for us the underlying principle is the ethic of accessibility. The curiosity for us is that we had never before made the connection that this ethic of accessibility cuts across all of our genres and disciplines here, despite the fact that we ourselves, shortly after launching this site, repeatedly observed that it was astonishing, in our own context, just how accessible the City was.

It was pointed out during the evening's conversation (we think by former City commissioner Mike Lindberg) just how far and wide this ethic runs -- even with admitted challenges to maintaining that ethic. Physical accessibility via mass transit. Educational accessibility through a public school system to which an abnormally-high number of families send their kids. Geographic accessibility of mountains, forests, and beaches. Despite current controversy, accessibility of local government and the ongoing experiment in institutionalized neighborhood involvement. Accessibiltiy of the Willamette River, whether in "old" ways such as Waterfront Park or new ways such as the planned public boathouse.

In many ways, this ingrained ethic of accessibility explains so many of the dynamics and controversies we've covered since we launched this site. The public outcry over a proposed seasonal ice rink in Pioneer Courthouse Square, for example, was prompted by the understanding that for four months out of every year, the Square would be inaccessible to any other use. The same goes for the fight over burial of the Mt. Tabor reservoirs. It explains as well just what the tensions between City Hall and some Portland neighborhoods is all about. And for the less-than-enthusiastic response to the idea of covering a large portion of Waterfront Park with an artificial surface.

Assault -- or appear to assault -- our deep connection to this ethic of accessibility, and we tend to take it rather personally, because it cuts directly to the core of what Portlanders feel about ourselves and our City.

Connected in an important way to this ethic of accessibility is what one conversant called a "psychology of ownership." We consider the Square to be ours. We consider Waterfront Park to be ours. We consider the Willamette River to be ours. We consider the neighborhoods in which we live to be ours. We consider our public school system to be ours. It may seem as if that psychology of ownership should be the standard mindset in every city, but we're not so sure it functions elsewhere in quite the same way as it does here.

There's a curious tension in that psychology of ownership, however, and it's embodied in that crucially important ongoing experiment in institutionalize neighborhood involvement: Sometimes, our sense of ownership of our neighborhoods conflicts with our sense of ownership of our City as a whole.

To take a specific example that was raised last evening, one conversant complained about Old Town/Chinatown being saddled with the relocation of Fire Station #1. We didn't challenge it at the time, but that complaint is a perfect example of neighborhood ownership overtaking the very real need for ownership of the City as a whole.

And, in fact, when analyzed through the lens of the ethic of accessibility, relocating Fire Station #1 to Block 8 in OT/CT becomes almost a no-brainer. It creates a public facility north of Burnside, including a museum and learning center (which, if we follow at least part of the Naito counter-proposal, will be in the next block noth, further expanding the public realm of the project), and the chance to revitalize the Ankeny Plaza area, most likely with a public market (thereby also expanding the public realm).

What we came away with from the evening's conversation was the energizing sense that this ethic of accessibilty may very well be the key to unlocking many of the issues which confront the City today. And when one finds what appears to be an axis around which so many civic matters revolve, that sounds to us a whole lot like one has uncovered "vision."

Regardless of how well we are living out that ethic of responsibility in any given arena today, we believe it is the very heart of what has tended to make Portlanders proud of their City, and what draws so many other civic thinkers and planners here to research just what it is that we're doing. From physical spaces, to processes, to resources (think about drinking fresh Bull Run water), to relationships, Portland has tended to construct its frameworks for cultural, political, and social life around that ethic of accessibility.

It's a notion to which we will be returning time and again, as we continue to examine the hypothesis by filtering the issues were cover here through that lens. Vision is about finding and speaking to the core values that run through everything a City does for itself. In our City, we propose, that core value is the ethic of accessibility.

Posted at 09:34 PM | PermalinkComments (4) | TrackBacks (0)
More In Design & Development, Livability, Metro-Area Politics

« Previous Next »