Parks In Texas Cities - Plano#1 (Houston, Dallas: home, median income, taxes)

[UnfairPark]

https://www.keranews.org/post/heres-...s-cities-again


Texas rankings
Here's how all 13 Texas cities that made the list of 100 fared:

Plano: 15
Austin: 43
Dallas: 52
Corpus Christi: 66
Arlington: 68
El Paso: 71
San Antonio: 72
Garland: 80
Houston: 85
Irving: 88
Fort Worth: 89
Lubbock: 90
Laredo: 94

[Soonhun]

Interesting that Plano did so well, considering this isn't one of those categories that suburbs basically "win" be default.

[turf3]

I am surprised Tyler is not on that list, given the big green belt right through town and the Rose Garden.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by turf3

I am surprised Tyler is not on that list, given the big green belt right through town and the Rose Garden.

Maybe not big enough city? It was only top 100, I think.

It isn't really a terribly significant ranking, though - you are either near a park or not, and how a city does as a whole doesn't generally affect an individual person. I also suspect that the quality/quantity of parks closely parallels wealth of the residents.

[UnfairPark]

Plano has a great Park & Rec department. Plano’s size is 71 sq miles and 4,000 of it are parks. For comparison, Frisco’s size is 63 sq miles but only 1300 acres of it are parks.

[UnfairPark]

Originally Posted by turf3

I am surprised Tyler is not on that list, given the big green belt right through town and the Rose Garden.

Tyler’s size is 54 sq miles and 1,000 acres of it are parks.

[Trainwreck20]

Those cities/rankings with their median income for 2017:

Plano: 15 ($79,000)
Austin: 43 ($55,216)
Dallas: 52 ($50,627)
Corpus Christi: 66 ($52,193)
Arlington: 68 ($53,055)
El Paso: 71 ($42,073)
San Antonio: 72 ($54,175, but that is Bexar County, not just San Antonio)
Garland: 80 ($51,997)
Houston: 85 ($50,896)
Irving: 88 ($58,196)
Fort Worth: 89 ($60,205)
Lubbock: 90 ($44,139)
Laredo: 94 ($39,408)

Neither Frisco or Tyler are in the top 100, so they were not considered. Since it is based on more than acreage (it rates access and amenities), it is possible that some of those other cities could outscore some of the big cities on the list.

And a personal pet peeve of mine related to ranking - the more you spend, the higher you are rated - even if that doesn't result in better/more parks. If Plano (or any other cities) spent $10 million on gold urinals, their ranking would skyrocket .

[UnfairPark]

Income does matter as unless city gets enough taxes, they can’t maintain their parks well or provide access and amenities to make them useful. Median home value in Plano is $341k and $144k in Tyler. Plano’s median income is double then Tyler so it’s easier for them to spend more on their parks.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by UnfairPark

Income does matter as unless city gets enough taxes, they can’t maintain their parks well or provide access and amenities to make them useful. Median home value in Plano is $341k and $144k in Tyler. Plano’s median income is double then Tyler so it’s easier for them to spend more on their parks.

Park income matters IF it is used productively for improving the parks. In reality, you should be able to look at the parks and see if they are well maintained, designed, and distributed. Since some of those are already in the ranking formula, counting money spent is essentially double counting. This is no knock against Plano or anywhere else and their parks, it is just a non-effective way to rank something.

As a parallel, in educational rankings, you find Texas all over the place depending on how it is done. What is interesting is that there are often states with similar (or even lower) graduation rates and/or test scores that score 'better' than Texas because they spend more money per student and that bumps them up in rankings that use that metric.