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.
The annual ParkScore index ranks park systems in the 100 most populous U.S. cities. ParkScore rankings are based equally on five factors:
Park access measures the percentage of residents living within a 10-minute walk of a park.
Park equity compares per capita park space and 10-minute-walk park access in communities of color vs. white communities and in low-income neighborhoods versus high-income neighborhoods. Park systems score higher if disparities are minimal or non-existent.
Park acreage is based on a city’s median park size and the percentage of city area dedicated to parks.
Park investment measures park spending per resident.
Park amenities assesses the availability of six popular park features: basketball hoops, off-leash dog parks, playgrounds, splashpads and other water-play structures, recreation and senior centers, and restrooms.
I'm guessing it's
1) they grew up in the post war era with SFHs and garden style apartments with yards so there was less demand/support for public park space.
2) they have grown faster, so there isn't the extensive old legacy city beautiful era park systems.
3) the lower taxes, small government culture isn't as conducive to large park systems
This seems to be gradually changing as they grown and urbanize.
That Irvine is insanely and undeservedly high. It's not really urban so shouldn't be on the list in the first place. It also sprawled out and took over almost any develop-able land and developed it with the park essentially just on slopes that were difficult to develop and that are generally inaccessible while a large proportion of its greenspace is low access and low use golf courses.
I always found it strange how lacking southern cities are with their park systems considering the climate and tree coverage.
There's a lot of unofficial parks that get ignored. Birmingham's not big enough to be on the ranking, and while it definitely has some weak points, there's also some areas where I'd be "Oh, yeah, not officially designated as a park." For example, there's some river access + trail areas in purple, as well as a golf course. The city also holds land to prevent development (like near the water supply of Lake Purdy), so while there some access points to that, it's not a park. Similarly, the area near Coalburg has basically no development whatsoever, but a house might be on the fringe, so the whole area is purple.
Last edited by Nemean; 05-25-2023 at 01:43 PM..
Reason: said map instead of ranking
I always found it strange how lacking southern cities are with their park systems considering the climate and tree coverage.
Typically the more people have yards, the fewer parks there are. Like Atlanta I’d ~1/2 suburban sprawl there is no need for public parks in most of Buckhead. People have their own basketball courts or pools
SF feels way too high. A lot of our parks are things like In Chan Kaajal Park here in the Mission: sure it's better than nothing, especially considering the density of the neighborhood, but it's not somewhere you could really have your dog run around or throw the football with your kids --- let alone go on a quiet walk and feel secluded. More of just a place to take small kids or sit around and read a book on your lunch break.
Seattle's park system feels more usable: even dense working-class neighborhoods like Lake City will have legit, secluded-feeling parks like Virgil Flam Park, right across the street from a bunch of apartments. I wonder if SF's few large parks (the Presidio, Golden Gate, Lake Merced, McLaren) are skewing its ranking.
That Irvine is insanely and undeservedly high. It's not really urban so shouldn't be on the list in the first place. It also sprawled out and took over almost any develop-able land and developed it with the park essentially just on slopes that were difficult to develop and that are generally inaccessible while a large proportion of its greenspace is low access and low use golf courses.
I disagree. Irvine Regional Park and Irvine Lake are nice and the new Great Park is huge and in the middle of the city.
And it's not built in a way that most would recognize as traditionally urban, but it has a higher population of people and jobs than many cities that we might think of as more traditionally urban. It compares especially well to most sunbelt cities.
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.
