How Do the Parks in Your City Rank?
This article (taking from ASLA, Got the Dirt: emails) speaks about U.S park model. But it is important for designers to understand the analysis that is needed what is interesting is the call for cultural and aesthetic relevance. If anyone knows of this data exist please call. I have highlighted what I feel that was relevant for me. We can learn.........
 |
| SCULPTURAL PLAYGROUND PROJECT animation by Terry Smith |
How Do the Parks in Your City Rank?
The new tool ranks the
park systems
of the 40 most populous U.S. cities on a scale of 0-100, with an easy rating
system of 0-5 park benches. The top 10 cities:
1. San Francisco (74.0)
2. Sacramento (73.5)
3. New York (72.5)
3. Boston (72.5)
5. Washington, D.C. (71.5)
6. Portland (69.0)
7. Virginia Beach (68.5)
8. San Diego (67.5)
9. Seattle (66.5)
10. Philadelphia (66)
2. Sacramento (73.5)
3. New York (72.5)
3. Boston (72.5)
5. Washington, D.C. (71.5)
6. Portland (69.0)
7. Virginia Beach (68.5)
8. San Diego (67.5)
9. Seattle (66.5)
10. Philadelphia (66)
And the five cities at the bottom of the list:
35. San Antonio (35)
36. Indianapolis (31.0)
36. Mesa (31.0)
38. Louisville (29)
39. Charlotte (28.5)
40. Fresno (21.5)
36. Indianapolis (31.0)
36. Mesa (31.0)
38. Louisville (29)
39. Charlotte (28.5)
40. Fresno (21.5)
TPL goes into some detail about their methodology.
Ratings are determined by data on three factors: “park access, which measures
the percentage of residents living within a 10-minute walk of a park
(approximately a half-mile); park size/acreage, which is based on a city’s
median park size and the percentage of total city area dedicated to parks; and
services and investment, which combines the number of playgrounds per 10,000
city residents and per capita park spending.”
For access, a ten-minute walk to a public park is
defined as a “half-mile to a public park entrance, where that half-mile is
entirely within the public road network and uninterrupted by physical barriers
such as highways, train tracks, rivers, and fences.” Going through the data,
TPL found that 26 percent to 97 percent of the population of a given city lives
within the ten-minute range, with a median score of 57 percent.
To determine acreage, TPL weighted two measures
equally: “median park size and park acres as a percentage of city area.” They
say that including overall park acreage helped account for the “importance of
large destination parks.” City park agencies provided the data for that metric.
Median park size was determined to be nearly 5 acres. Data aggregated by TPL
shows that park acres as a percentage of the whole city area range from 2.3
percent to 22.8 percent, with a median of 9.1 percent.
For the “services and investment” component,
ParkScore awards points based on two equally weighted measures: playgrounds per
resident and total spending per resident. “Playgrounds are a basic amenity for
any city park system. They also serve as a reliable proxy for the presence of
other recreational facilities. In our national sample, playgrounds per 10,000
residents ranges from 1 to 5, with a median of 1.89.” Spending, which is
calculated on a three-year average to “minimize the effect of annual
fluctuations,” includes federal, state, and local financing. Spending per
resident, which could also in part be a proxy for maintenance, ranges from $31
to $303, with a median of $85.
While the methodology covers a lot, in future
iterations, we would love to see points offered for aesthetic quality (the
quality of park design and maintenance), cultural value, and even ecological
value. There has been some debate over how to
quantify the benefits of aesthetics and the numbers would clearly be hard to come up
with. Perhaps one proxy for design quality would be the number of local,
regional, or national design awards a park has won. Or points could be given
for positive user survey results on the overall quality of the park’s aesthetic
experience. On cultural value, points could be awarded for parks with sites of
great historical, cultural, or design value. Francesco Bandarin, head of the
UNESCO World Heritage Program, spoke with us about the value of cultural
landscapes and the global movement to protect them. The Cultural Landscape Foundation
(TCLF) does much of this
work in the U.S. on identifying and preserving cultural
landscapes, particularly ones
threatened with the wrecking ball. Still, there has been lots of discussion,
but no clear metrics on how to determine whether one park has more cultural
value than another. Lastly, ParkScore could also begin to factor in ecological
value. How well does a city’s parks handle stormwater runoff? How much oxygen
does a city’s parks produce? What’s their contribution to biodiversity? One
future proxy for this could be the number of Sustainable Sites Initiative
(SITES)-certified
parks in a city. Or park systems could actually begin to collect data on
ecosystem services.
TPL invested lots of time and resources in this
ambitious, well-produced Web project. But it’s all worth it. As Harnik writes,
“parks are important to communities. Close-to-home opportunities to exercise
and experience nature are essential for our physical and mental well-being.
Studies show that parks can encourage physical activity, reduce crime,
revitalize local economies, and help bring neighborhoods together.” It’s
clearly worthwhile to measure the incredible value of a city’s parks across
every dimension.
Image credit: Trust for Public Land
