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.
I might be biased as someone who was born and raised in SF, since Golden Gate Park was basically my backyard and I spent countless hours there doing everything from playing hide and seek as a little kid, hanging out on the concourse and on Strawberry Hill, fishing in Stow Lake, going with my grandparents to the Japanese Garden and so on, but I think Golden Gate Park is the best park in the country, and (in my admittedly limited experience) one of the best in the world along with Stanley Park in Vancouver and the Englischer Garten in Munich. Central Park is really nice too but it felt like it had a lot more wasted space, the nature isn’t nearly as beautiful (though this might be unfair because the climate in New York is both much colder and much hotter and nobody can do anything about that) and this might be surprising to people that think SF is a hellhole where the streets are flooded with human waste and dirty needles with crazy homeless junkies on every corner, but Central Park seemed a lot sketchier to me with lots more dark, isolated and creepy spots. Griffith Park is a great place to hang out but the best parts of the park are all the cool attractions that happen to be located there rather than the park itself.
To me Golden Gate park is by far the worst, especially considering its nice location. It is too paved over, too manicured with very little trees, a lot of sections of landscaping look like a huge house lawn. And also, the only park I visited that was unclean with actual trash on the grass.
To me Golden Gate park is by far the worst, especially considering its nice location. It is too paved over, too manicured with very little trees, a lot of sections of landscaping look like a huge house lawn. And also, the only park I visited that was unclean with actual trash on the grass.
There are also quite a bit of vehicular traffic and with fairly few separated crossings of those roads. It really cuts the park up and not all that relaxing.
Trash sort of depends on where in the park and when, though yea, it's not nice to have trash.
Griffith Park is quite removed from the urban parts of the city. It's beautiful in many parts, but I'm not sure I'd call it an urban park.
Lincoln Park in Chicago should be up there. I just don't like how Lake Shore Drive goes through it though. I'd rather that be removed entirely.
Out of this list, Central Park is in a class of its own. Griffith Park is hard to get to from an urban perspective. LA kind of missed the ball on having a nice large, linear urban park within the city's flatlands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
There are also quite a bit of vehicular traffic and with fairly few separated crossings of those roads. It really cuts the park up and not all that relaxing.
Trash sort of depends on where in the park and when, though yea, it's not nice to have trash.
Griffith Park is quite removed from the urban parts of the city. It's beautiful in many parts, but I'm not sure I'd call it an urban park.
Lincoln Park in Chicago should be up there. I just don't like how Lake Shore Drive goes through it though. I'd rather that be removed entirely.
Not just few, there are literally no grade sepratated pedestrian crossings in Golden Gate Park, so too much ped interaction with vehicular traffic. Plus it should have been situated along the coast from the Zoo to the GGB.
Griffith Park vs Central Park?
Well, Outsiders, people who don't frequent LA must think of the throngs of Southlanders utilizing the 1 big patch of green space worth mentioning within the LA's vehicular vastness.... meh.
You think anybody cruising the area of Glendale and the Hollywoodlands in their Tesla's, Lambo's, Benzes, S7s, 911s and Beemers ever bothers to visit Griffith Park--except as a shortcut when there's a bender on the GS Freeway? The natives of the City of Angels sure as hell don't, except (tennis lessons for the kid?)..... immigrants kinda use it (i guess), for birthday barbecues for the kids or 1st Communion/, or 4~5 year olds to ride the toy train. In the week, folks r in a hurry to get someplace (home) heading up the 2, the 5, the 101, 34, or 210. Nobody is going there to 'go there.' Thursday-Sunday, people r making a b-line down Sunset (or the 10) to PCH where everything is happening, or getting on the 101 to head up to Ventura/Oxnard/ & Santa Barbara.
Barely anyone visits Griffith, if they even hardly know its there.
*When the 7.1 Ridgecrest blast lit off in 2019, i had just pulled up for a ~6 mile walk in Griffith. What a shake! The temblor just kept going, and going, and going. i could just about make out waves in the park next to the ball field *(re; Jerry Maguire).
^^sure as hell re; Griffith:
Biking it (clearly) if you're a Glendale, or Hollywood resident would be desirable (You don't wanna bike in/ as it's a viable way to get killed). You'd wanna carry your bike in on a rack mounted to your vehicle.
Otherwise, if you don't live on/off Los Feliz (blvd) re; W. Hollywood/ Glendale/ Melrose Hill/ La Brea/ or Echo Park etc, why would one bother?
The op might use [Echo Park] itself for this exercise, being much more deserving of 'urban park' status.
Out of this list, Central Park is in a class of its own. Griffith Park is hard to get to from an urban perspective. LA kind of missed the ball on having a nice large, linear urban park within the city's flatlands.
Not just few, there are literally no grade sepratated pedestrian crossings in Golden Gate Park, so too much ped interaction with vehicular traffic. Plus it should have been situated along the coast from the Zoo to the GGB.
Yea, it's pretty bad. I think Golden Gate Park as a candidate is good, but it shouldn't win.
Chicago's Lincoln Park, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park, Atlanta's Piedmont Park, San Diego's Balboa Park and St. Louis's Forest Park are better contenders.
Yea, it's pretty bad. I think Golden Gate Park as a candidate is good, but it shouldn't win.
Chicago's Lincoln Park, Philadelphia's Fairmount Park, Atlanta's Piedmont Park, San Diego's Balboa Park and St. Louis's Forest Park are better contenders.
I’m glad you mentioned Balboa Park, that may be #1.
Thanks for sticking up for Fairmount Park, OyCrumbler.
While four of William Penn's five squares — especially the southwest one, Rittenhouse — may get more intensive use, Fairmount Park has more and more varied landscapes than most large city parks.
And that's because of the way it was created. Part of it consists of country estates acquired by Philadelphia County in the 1820s in order to protect the water supply, which was processed through the Fairmount Water Works, America's first. All the mansions that were acquired still stand, and some are used for functions like weddings (one is a youth hostel). The waterworks itself contains a restaurant.
Another part represents the grounds of the 1876 Centennial Exposition, America's first World's Fair; that part of the park has more formally organized space and sculpture than the rest. Two buildings from the Centennial Exposition survive: Memorial Hall, which contains the Please Touch Museum along with a diorama of the fair itself, and the Ohio House. The building that had housed a large carousel got replaced by a newer building with the same footprint. This part of the park also contains Shofuso, a 17th-century-style Japanese house and garden installed in the park in the late 1950s; the first Japanese garden in the country was installed in this general area as part of the Centennial Exposition.
And then there's the third part, the Wissahickon Valley, now often referred to as a separate park (Wissahickon Park) ever since the Fairmount Park Commission and the city Recreation Department were combined into a single entity called Parks & Recreation. This part of Philadelphia was still largely undeveloped when Fairmount Park was put together, and the steep valley is now laced with hiking and horseback riding trails that snake through woods. I would say that the Wissahickon Park may be the best urban wilds in the country.
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.
