2022 ParkScore Index- top 12 cities in US (state, better, largest, comparison)

[the resident09]

The Trust for Public Land's ParkScore Index top 12 rankings for 2022 are below; with link to the page with top 100:

1. Washington D.C.
2. St. Paul, MN
3. Arlington, VA
4. Cincinnati, OH
5. Minneapolis, MN
6. Chicago, IL
7. San Francisco, CA
8. Irvine, CA
9. Seattle, WA
10. New York, NY
11. Portland, OR
12. Boston, MA

https://www.tpl.org/parkscore

A few methodologies behind the rankings include:

ACREAGE
INVESTMENT
AMENITIES
PUBLIC ACCESS
EQUITY
OTHER OUTLIERS

[mhays25]

This is a respected organization so I'd give it some credence, though they have their own biases and any analysis has limitations.

They got Seattle about right. Good for access and investment, but middling for acreage.

I used to work in park advocacy in Seattle (we tried and failed to build a big park on the edge of Downtown in the 90s) and got into comparative statistics a bit. There were some interesting variables. One was that most stats were for parks departments only, but more useful comparisons often included federal parks, greenbelts, and even privately-owned parks if they were accessible to the public. Even school grounds tend to function as parks on weekends. Also plazas, regardless of private ownership. If you can sit there, should it count?

That got into the different reasons we need parks. They're for sitting. And frisbee. And baseball games. And picnics. Depending on what you value, you might be more or less inclined to include a plaza in front of an office building in your numbers.

Downtown Seattle is still lacking a big park, btw. We have some additions though.

[Kaszilla]

I wonder how their method changed over the years. Minneapolis went from number 1 to number 5 in just a few years but St Paul is now higher and kept its number 2 spot.

[dontbelievehim]

Fresno is ranked correctly, but it does have one of the cleanest urban parks in California. It's a blessing to not have to worry about riffraff while enjoying a large park. The city is also investing hundreds of millions of dollars into more parks and trails. It won't stay near the bottom for much longer.
Lastly, there's state parks, national forests, and national parks to enjoy if you don't mind driving.

[2Easy]

LA is ranked 78 and that’s probably too high. Many of LA’s largest parks are in the same area, if not adjacent, while most of the city is very park poor.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by mhays25

This is a respected organization so I'd give it some credence, though they have their own biases and any analysis has limitations.

They got Seattle about right. Good for access and investment, but middling for acreage.

I used to work in park advocacy in Seattle (we tried and failed to build a big park on the edge of Downtown in the 90s) and got into comparative statistics a bit. There were some interesting variables. One was that most stats were for parks departments only, but more useful comparisons often included federal parks, greenbelts, and even privately-owned parks if they were accessible to the public. Even school grounds tend to function as parks on weekends. Also plazas, regardless of private ownership. If you can sit there, should it count?

That got into the different reasons we need parks. They're for sitting. And frisbee. And baseball games. And picnics. Depending on what you value, you might be more or less inclined to include a plaza in front of an office building in your numbers.

Downtown Seattle is still lacking a big park, btw. We have some additions though.

Seattle seems to be considered as pretty green throughout the city/neighborhoods otherwise. I think this is more gauging dedicated parks rather than plazas etc. New large scale parks just popping up take a lot of planning and investment, and being surrounded by water, and lush green neighborhoods for Seattle is still a huge plus for an urban city.

[thedirtypirate]

Originally Posted by Kaszilla

I wonder how their method changed over the years. Minneapolis went from number 1 to number 5 in just a few years but St Paul is now higher and kept its number 2 spot.

Philly went from 15 to 32 in one year because parks and rec funding was decreased due to budget cuts. So the numbers can vary quite a lot. Does that really mean 17 cities all of a sudden had a better parks system? I don't think so, so these rankings should be taken with a grain of salt like anything.

[mjtinmemphis]

For once an accurate ranking for parks. My town St. Louis ranks 17th right below Denver seems right. 97% of residents are within a 10 minute walk of a park is one of the biggest perks the area has in my opinion.

I am still shocked Kansas City, Seattle and Boston isn't higher.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by mjtinmemphis

I am still shocked Kansas City, Seattle and Boston isn't higher.

Looks like Boston needs some more amenities (basketball courts, dog parks, etc). It lost some points for acreage, too, but there isn’t too much the city can do about that.

[the resident09]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

LA is ranked 78 and that’s probably too high. Many of LA’s largest parks are in the same area, if not adjacent, while most of the city is very park poor.

Echo park?