"Green space" in LA (Los Angeles, Santa Ana: apartment, neighborhoods, public schools)

[thebordella]

I am reading the book "Secret Stairs" which maps out a huge number of walking routes throughout LA neighborhoods, linked together by public staircases. Lots of awesome adventures in there. But...

The introduction to the book repeats a theme I've read elsewhere, the LA supposedly has less "green space" per capita than any major city. In thinking about this, I don't see how this assertion can possibly be true. I wonder if this is just something people believe because it is repeated, or if there is a peculiar definition being applied to "green space" and "city".

I am assuming that "green space" really means "public natural space" and not strictly "green", as that would be a highly selective definition. With that in mind - I do not know how many conventional "city parks" there are within LA city limits, although of course several well known examples come to mind. Echo Park Lake, MacArthur Park, Grand Park. I do not know a comprehensive list of other named parks. There are other kinds of public green spaces besides formal parks -- such recreational areas, either connected to public schools, or sometimes paired with golf courses (Cheviot Hills). Sometimes portions of these areas are private or fee-restricted but other portions are not.

Moving around the greater LA area, it seems to me that I see outdoor recreational activities all over the place. It seems to me that these are mostly public green spaces, even if they are not strictly parks.

And then there are the large public natural spaces. Runyon Canyon Park seems pretty big. Likewise Franklin Canyon. Of course there is Griffith Park, which at over 4,000 acres is over 4x the size as NYC Central Park. The Sepulveda Basin Recreational Area in the Valley, with multiple parks within, is also very large.

The entirety of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is practically larger than some small states. There are even multiple parks within this gigantic natural public area.

In addition to all that, there is the whole coast! I guess beaches aren't "green space" by this definition but they are certainly public natural spaces and there is far more of it here than most places.

Technically some of these spaces (say, parks and beaches in Santa Monica) are not in the city of LA. I personally think that is splitting hairs -- we can all enjoy all parts of the LA area regardless of municipal boundaries. Even still, as we know the city of LA itself is huge and encompasses most of these natural spaces.

So it seems to me that whatever criteria have been folded into this "lack of public green space" meme gives a very misleading impression of the reality, which is that there are vast amounts of public natural spaces throughout the LA area.

[smokingGun]

They probably mean within the legal municipality of Los Angeles city proper. But if you consider LaLaLand as the entirety of the metro area & neighboring suburbs, you'd have to conclude that we're certainly blessed with more green space & wildlife than any metropolis our size. How many other international cities have regular sightings of bears, mountain lions & bobcats?

[BayAreaHillbilly]

LA has tremendous open space even within the political boundary.

The negative characterization is probably based on open space within the actual developed area. Pretty narrow and distorted definition.

[Harrier]

Harrier read somewhere that Santa Ana is the largest city in the United States with the least amount of park land.

(Edit) - Or perhaps it is just the least in California.

Santa Ana—the youngest and most-crowded big city in America, according to U.S. Census figures—also boasts another ignominious distinction: California's least-green town. Your average California city has about five acres of park for every 1,000 residents; according to the California Center for Public Health Advocacy, Santa Ana has just 1.2 acres per.

http://www.ocweekly.com/2006-07-27/n...pastoral/full/

That makes more sense than Los Angeles holding the title - many parts of Santa Ana look downright depressing.

[Tex?Il?]

I think there are simply a lot of urbanites that are less interested in visiting real wilderness a thirty-forty five minute drive where you can really study nature, and more interested in having a giant lawn, landscaped trees with park benches and jogging trails right outside their apartment.

Either that, or they just don't like looking at maps or up at the horizon and being curious about those bumps off in the distance.

[HaemophilusAphrophilus]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

LA has tremendous open space even within the political boundary.

The negative characterization is probably based on open space within the actual developed area. Pretty narrow and distorted definition.

I definitely agree. LA lacks in those "neighborhood parks" (a deficit that really should be met) overall but the open space with many hiking trails providing a getaway so close-- and some of it is accessible without a car. Just Griffith, Elysian, Debs, and Temescal Canyon parks alone (especially Griffith) are amazing but those 4 still arent even close to all of it. Dont forget we have the ocean, and hopefully stuff like the ballona wetlands, the LA river (there are some great parts but they still make up too small of a portion of the whole river) really take off. Taking the county into consideration there is A LOT more, also a lot more in LA city itself

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Harrier read somewhere that Santa Ana is the largest city in the United States with the least amount of park land.

(Edit) - Or perhaps it is just the least in California.



Santa Ana Pastoral - - News - Orange County - OC Weekly

That makes more sense than Los Angeles holding the title - many parts of Santa Ana look downright depressing.

Hmmm...again probably depends on how you define things. Mile Square park is huge and even has 20 acres of dedicated habitat(the entire park is much larger).

But I think it might be included as part of Fountain Valley, even though it borders Santa Ana.

As to the LA Green Space....I'm guessing they measure is based on parks in urban areas or some other odd metric. Griffith Park alone is huge not to mention all the canyons from there up through the westside and into Encino, Tarzana, and Woodland Hills.