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.
That's a good link to post as well--I should've done both. However, I think the first link matters more because it's more related to accessibility and variety, whereas the second link might be more closely related to how "private" or empty a park might be. It's good to see San Diego rock both categories.
Additionally, neither link really gives much information on factors like how well-run the parks are, how much there is to do in the parks, and parklands that are immediately accessible but are not within city limits.
And yea, Houston looks great--again, sorry for not listing more cities in the south since I haven't visited or read all that much about them. I do appreciate it when people talk about the parks of their respective cities (like Lucas did with Chicago, or those pics posted of Houston); it's something I've really taken to recently. Personal anecdotes or experiences would be great, too. I've had some wonderful experiences rollerblading in Central Park and foraging (yes, foraging) in Inwood Hill Park. Also, the Brooklyn Botanical Gardens is amazing in the spring.
I disagree. The first link deals with most park area per city, which may or may not be accessible to residents of that city. As with golden gate park or central park if you live on the the other side of the city you don't have much access. Accessibility matters only in regard to parks per 1000 residents and not total land area of parks.
It's a really loose correlation, but I do think more acreage and higher density usually equates to more accessibility. Few city park systems put all their acreage in one basket (Central Park may be the most famous NYC park, but there are a couple of larger ones within NYC).
Of course, accessibility when you're talking about parks per 1000 residents can also be a very loose correlation as sprawled out low-density tracts might not allow for parks within easy reach (which is my experience of growing up in the suburbs of Los Angeles--and certainly no great parks within easy reach).
Again, both links aren't particularly great as there are a lot of things they don't measure. I figured the poll and what people say is more important than anything. I will say that parks in NYC are incredibly accessible whether by walking, biking, busing or train. I'm within ten minutes walking distance to two fairly large parks and another two smaller ones, and I can bike or ride the train to two of the largest parks in NYC in less than twenty. I've lived in three different areas in the city, and it's always been a fairly quick jaunt to a good park.
Buffalo by far. It was one of the first cities to have an urban park system, and Deleware park, the city's most famous park, is designed by the same guy who designed Central Park in NYC!
NYC has Central Park and thats it. Chicago, and theres nobody else even close.
NYC has only Central Park??? What nonsense!!!!! You cannot possibly be so ignorant. For starters try looking up The Gateway National Recreational Area.
As for which city has the best parks - I have no idea. It is not necessarily the biggest cities or the cities with the best known parks either.
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.
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.
