U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-17-2013, 10:13 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,375,629 times
Reputation: 8769

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texamichiforniasota View Post
I was curious about how many acres of park there are in my city and stumbled across this website:

ParkScore

The only issue I have with it is that is the 40 largest cities by population, so it includes huge suburbs like Mesa and sunbelt cities with relatively small metro populations while leaving off the anchor cities of bigger metro areas with small city limits like Cleveland, St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Pittsburgh.
I've never seen that site before. This is a pretty good measure, much better than just the amount of overall parkland because it weights access which is very important imo. Cities can have a ton of parkland but if it's just giant parks that aren't near most of the people then it doesn't do a whole lot of good imo.

Cities Ranked By Parkscore:
1) SF
2) Sacramento
3) Boston
4) NYC
5) DC
6) Portland
7) VA Beach
8) San Diego
9) Seattle
10) Philly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-17-2013, 10:26 AM
 
582 posts, read 954,307 times
Reputation: 483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texamichiforniasota View Post
I was curious about how many acres of park there are in my city and stumbled across this website:

ParkScore

The only issue I have with it is that is the 40 largest cities by population, so it includes huge suburbs like Mesa and sunbelt cities with relatively small metro populations while leaving off the anchor cities of bigger metro areas with small city limits like Cleveland, St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Pittsburgh.
I have seen this site before from my google searches before I started the thread. Any site with Sacramento having better parks than NYC is a joke. And Chicago didn't make the top 10? The list is not credible IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 10:46 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
15,404 posts, read 24,375,629 times
Reputation: 8769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice Cream Man View Post
I have seen this site before from my google searches before I started the thread. Any site with Sacramento having better parks than NYC is a joke. And Chicago didn't make the top 10? The list is not credible IMO.
It doesn't measures which has "better parks". It measure acreage, service and investment, and access. How on earth would you quantify "better" anyways?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 10:55 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
8,702 posts, read 11,341,283 times
Reputation: 3538
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironcouger View Post
The way Rittenhouse Square Park was talked up I thought it would be a large park. Wow its small only one and a half blocks wide and two blocks long. Seattle Center is over 50 square blocks of park and plaza The International Fountain area alone is larger than Rittenhouse Square. But as an urban park I woulg go with Chicago and NewYork they have far much larger urban parks than anyone else.
Okay. Philadelphia has Fairmount Park
fairmount park - Google Maps

Also, Seattle Center might be more comparable to the Independence National Historic Park.
http://goo.gl/maps/ry8pJ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia
11,828 posts, read 9,827,294 times
Reputation: 7981
Small city parks/squares like Rittenhouse and Bryant are great for what they are, but give me Van Cortlandt Park in The Bronx or even better The Wissahickon in Northwest Philly anyday.

What I love about where I live now is that I can walk 5 Minutes from my city block of rowhomes into complete wilderness, often times not seeing any other people on my dog walks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,561,310 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
I've never seen that site before. This is a pretty good measure, much better than just the amount of overall parkland because it weights access which is very important imo. Cities can have a ton of parkland but if it's just giant parks that aren't near most of the people then it doesn't do a whole lot of good imo.

Cities Ranked By Parkscore:
1) SF
2) Sacramento
3) Boston
4) NYC
5) DC
6) Portland
7) VA Beach
8) San Diego
9) Seattle
10) Philly
I agree, which is why you don't see LA on this list (and it's probably near the bottom) even though it has a decent amount of parkland. It's just all bunched up in hard-to-reach corners.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 02:59 PM
 
2,548 posts, read 5,128,054 times
Reputation: 743
San Antonio has it's share of squares & parks

Downtown

Main Plaza
Milam Park/Plaza
Alamo Plaza
Market Square
La Villita
Hemisfair Park
Riverwalk Largest linear park in U.S.
Travis Park
Commanders Park
Columbus Park
Maverick Park
St.Paul's Square
King William Park
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2013, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Manhattan
1,168 posts, read 2,447,324 times
Reputation: 1349
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
New Orleans
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
San Francisco
Washington

And then...I imagine Portland, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Denver, or Seattle could take that final spot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2013, 07:24 AM
 
2,548 posts, read 5,128,054 times
Reputation: 743
new york
Boston
philadelphia
chicago
new orleans
baltimore
san Francisco
savannah
charleston
Washington dc
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2013, 04:41 PM
 
Location: rock island, illinois
67 posts, read 158,724 times
Reputation: 73
I would put phoenix on this list as number 1, because there are various large parks, and the desert look is better than green to me (also south mountain is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, municipal park in the US), next are LA, seattle, chicago, savannah, denver, dallas, boston, portland, and tampa, this is in my opinion though, not any statistics involved, just what i felt while there

Last edited by LEROYJENKINS!; 05-24-2013 at 04:42 PM.. Reason: forgot to close parantheses
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top