Top US Cities park systems: TX scores poorly (Houston, Dallas: felony, living in)

[Gamewiz]

Originally Posted by BigDGeek

I was born and raised in Dallas and I remember parks being kind of 'meh' when I was a kid; some had playground equipment but it was scorching hot in summertime without many places to hide from the heat or to even get a sip of water. Sometimes the water fountains worked, if you were lucky, but they squirted out hot water. I burned my butt on hot metal slides many times.

There were few pools to speak of and even if a park had a pool, it was usually not in use. The summers here are absolutely brutal so even if you have a park with a great playground, tennis courts, etc. a lot of people won't use it because it's just too freaking hot so maybe the city doesn't see the point of pouring a lot of money into something people aren't going to use...chicken vs egg....that's my $0.02 anyway.

We went to private pools to swim...either a neighbor's pool or one at a private rec center or country club. Those facilities were always far nicer.

That all makes sense to me. No point in spending a bunch of money on parks if people aren't going to use them for huge chunks out of the year. I've burned my butt on metal slides as well as a kid in San Diego, although I think now they've all resorted to swapping those out for plastic ones for that very reason.

[Trainwreck20]

resorted to swapping those out for plastic ones for that very reason.

Those burn just the same, let me tell ya... .

[Metro Matt]

Originally Posted by Campeador

Interesting study, hopefully TX cities can improve:

Group rates Minneapolis as top U.S. city park system

Awkward list.

Houston has more parks/green space than Dallas & certainly more than Arlington & Fort Worth.

[Gamewiz]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Those burn just the same, let me tell ya... .

Well I personally haven't gone down a slide in years and my wife always takes the kids to the park during the day while I'm at work, some park knowledge is a little sketchy for me lol.

[Trainwreck20]

Houston and Dallas scored almost the same on acreage index (based on average size and percent of city area).

Houston had more parks per 10,000 people, but Dallas had more people within 1/2 mile of a park, which gave Dallas a slightly higher score when combining those two criteria.

Dallas mainly scored higher on $/capita spent, which made the biggest difference in the ranking. Presumably, this meant that the Dallas parks are better maintained, equipped, etc, but who knows? It also could just be waste.....

[BigDGeek]

We just got a new rec center at our local park in Richardson (which wasn't on the list, probably due to its size). It's supposed to be very nice. I haven't been in there yet. Huffhines in east Richardson is nice and the park is lovely. Richardson does usually do a good job with parks.

[rynetwo]

As I posted in the San Antonio thread the list is an eye opener but its configured strange to say the least. Here in San Antonio we lost park acreage and % of the city that was a park because the city transferred over control of one of out largest parks to the federal govt. Last time I checked a park is a park is a park. Our mission trail park system is also not counted because that is also ran by the feds. We have four state parks on the eastside that are not counted because they don't count state parks….

[balconesfault]

My take:

A lot of the cities in the top 15 are more compact (NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, San Fran, Seattle) so that citizens rely and occupy city parks more often. If you live in Boston and want to play catch or a game of touch football with a few friends or a game of backyard wiffle ball...you're going to have to go down the street to the park.

The cities in the bottom 15 are more spread out. If you live in Austin (excluding downtown/campus), chances are you have a yard that is big enough to at least play a small game of touch football.

[Campeador]

Originally Posted by balconesfault

My take:

A lot of the cities in the top 15 are more compact (NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, San Fran, Seattle) so that citizens rely and occupy city parks more often. If you live in Boston and want to play catch or a game of touch football with a few friends or a game of backyard wiffle ball...you're going to have to go down the street to the park.

The cities in the bottom 15 are more spread out. If you live in Austin (excluding downtown/campus), chances are you have a yard that is big enough to at least play a small game of touch football.

This may be true of a handful of cities (NY, Boston, SF), but Minneapolis (#1) and Seattle are nearly as spread out and car-reliant as Texas cities.

[rynetwo]

Originally Posted by Campeador

This may be true of a handful of cities (NY, Boston, SF), but Minneapolis (#1) and Seattle are nearly as spread out and car-reliant as Texas cities.

No they are not.

This list is complied based on cities and whole metros.