Best and Worst Cities for Public Parks

Reader Contribution by Soli Salgado
Published on June 27, 2013
article image

San Francisco tops the list of U.S. cities whose residents have a park within walking distance, according to the Trust for Public Land, with 98 percent of the city’s population benefiting from proximity to green space. Charlotte, N.C., is at the bottom of the list with just 26 percent. Of the 40 largest cities in the United States, those that placed the highest are as follows (the number indicates percentage of residents living near parks):

  • San Francisco: 98
  • Boston: 97
  • New York: 96
  • Washington, D.C.: 96
  • Philadelphia: 91
  • Seattle: 90
  • Chicago: 90

Below are the U.S. cities with the poorest park distribution:

  • Charlotte, N.C.: 26
  • Jacksonville, Fl.: 30
  • Louisville, Ky.: 32
  • Indianapolis: 32
  • San Antonio: 32

While acreage, atmosphere and activity are often key factors in determining the quality of a park, placement and accessibility should not be overlooked. Parks contribute to the environmental and psychological well-being of a community, so experts believe that investing in proper distribution should be a priority for urban cities.

The International Federation of Parks and Recreation Administration (IFPRA) says urban trees are capable of lowering air temperature at the local level, as well as absorbing various gaseous pollutants. In the lower 48 states, urban trees are estimated to remove 783,000 tons of pollution per year, resulting in a $5.6 billion annual societal value, according to the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA). The conclusion was that parks would provide long-term benefits for industrial cities lacking forestry.

Online Store Logo
Need Help? Call 1-800-234-3368