Chicago Park system compared to peers (Fairmont, Phoenix: refinance, neighborhoods, income)

[Chi-town Native]

Cityscapes: Chicago ranks 14th in survey of parks in nation's largest cities

[Thepreacherswife]

Seems like we just had this discussion. But some of these cities are apples and oranges. Comparing Sacramento and Virginia Beach with New York and Chicago makes no sense.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Thepreacherswife

Seems like we just had this discussion. But some of these cities are apples and oranges. Comparing Sacramento and Virginia Beach with New York and Chicago makes no sense.

That's what I was thinking. They should compare the 10 largest cities against each other at best. How many people live in Virginia Beach? Is it a city?

1. New York, New York (8,175,133)
2. Los Angeles, California (3,792,621)
3. Chicago, Illinois (2,695,598)
4. Houston, Texas (2,099,451)
5. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (1,526,006)
6. Phoenix, Arizona (1,445,632)
7. San Antonio, Texas (1,327,407)
8. San Diego, California (1,307,402)
9. Dallas, Texas (1,197,816)
10. San Jose, California (945,942)

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

Disagree, you would have to be blind not to notice the amount of park land in western cities like SF, Portland, SD, Seattle, Sac, etc... or eastern cities like NYC/Boston. Look at a view of Golden Gate Park (and The Presidio for that matter) from the air. These take up massive chunks of SF. Chicago is not bad, but it is not "a park in every neighborhood" type of town.

[chet everett]

I tend to side with LSSG on this -- the "golden era" of Chicago's parks was probably back before WWII and so many of the western cities have parks that really are much more conducive to both active and contemplative uses.

The weird finances, labor relations and even the political structure of the Chicago Park District all hurt the parks for an extended period. Call it "clout" or racism or whatever but even when Forrest Claypool was doing a ton to refinance bonds, tri bloated payrolls and get some parity in parks for those in run down areas to look something like the lakefront jewels that did not undo the fact that shear sq feet of park land / resident is WAY below many cities...

Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo

Disagree, you would have to be blind not to notice the amount of park land in western cities like SF, Portland, SD, Seattle, Sac, etc... or eastern cities like NYC/Boston. Look at a view of Golden Gate Park (and The Presidio for that matter) from the air. These take up massive chunks of SF. Chicago is not bad, but it is not "a park in every neighborhood" type of town.

[edsg25]

if i were to choose how chicago differs from other cities, it would be that its flagship parks come in the form of two....not one.

i think that lincoln park (the largest, most beach and harbor oriented, sublime, most sylvan, one filled with most attractions) and grant park (formal, cermonial, festival, front yard, downtown relaitonship, inclusion of millennium park, buckingham fountain, art institute and, by extension, museum campus) both serve in the role of blockbuster parks that stand for the whole city.

Other cities tend to have just one of such parks:

Central (NYC)...although i realize that certain parks in the outer boroughs can be extensive, but are localized
Gold Gate, (SF)
Belle Island (Det)
Forest (StL)
Griffith (LA)
Commons/Pub Gar (Bos)
Balboa (SD)
Fairmont (Phil)

there are also cities without a single signature park

[eevee]

Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo

Disagree, you would have to be blind not to notice the amount of park land in western cities like SF, Portland, SD, Seattle, Sac, etc... or eastern cities like NYC/Boston. Look at a view of Golden Gate Park (and The Presidio for that matter) from the air. These take up massive chunks of SF. Chicago is not bad, but it is not "a park in every neighborhood" type of town.

True, once you go west beyond the lakefront, there are so few parks. I don't think I ever truly noticed since I always managed to live near some green space, but after reading that article and comparing Chicago's green space to Chicago, I realized that a lot of neighborhoods are lacking. For example, off the top of my head, I can't picture any good sized parks in West Humboldt Park or the West Loop.

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

Originally Posted by eevee

True, once you go west beyond the lakefront, there are so few parks. I don't think I ever truly noticed since I always managed to live near some green space, but after reading that article and comparing Chicago's green space to Chicago, I realized that a lot of neighborhoods are lacking. For example, off the top of my head, I can't picture any good sized parks in West Humboldt Park or the West Loop.

The problem gets compounded by the fact that parks sometimes attract unsavory elements, in lesser income areas.

[kcimos]

Virginia Beach is an independent city located in the Hampton Roads metropolitan area of Virginia, on the Atlantic Ocean at the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay. Although Fairfax County is the most populous jurisdiction in the state of Virginia, Virginia Beach is the most populous city in the state, as well as the 39th largest city in the United States, with a population of 437,994 according to the 2010 Census.[3]

Urban1,212,000• Metro1,672,319

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

That's what I was thinking. They should compare the 10 largest cities against each other at best. How many people live in Virginia Beach? Is it a city?

Actually yes. It's not Chicago, but Virginia Beach is the largest city in Virginia. There's almost 500,000 people living there and somewhere around 1.1-1.2 million in the metro area. Not a small city by any standards. 39th largest city in the US.

It's larger than the following "known" cities: Miami, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Raleigh, Cleveland, New Orleans, Tampa, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Buffalo, etc.