Top 50 Cities for Park Score (best, cost, better, places)

[pgm123]

This was posted before, but the methodology seems to have been tweaked and the results are different.
ParkScore

Basically, it measures access, not quality.

Top 20:
1. Minneapolis 81.0
2. New York 73.5
3. Sacramento 72.5
3. San Francisco 72.5
3. Boston 72.5
6. Washington 71.5
7. Portland 71.0
8. Virginia Beach 70.0
9. San Diego 68.5
10. Seattle 66.5

11. San Jose 63.5
11. Albuquerque 63.5
11. Omaha 63.5
14. Philadelphia 62.5
14. Colorado Springs 62.5
16. Chicago 61.0
17. Denver 60.0
18. Oakland 59.0
19. Milwaukee 57.5
20. Raleigh 55.0


The old top 10:
1) San Francisco 74
2) Sacramento 73.5
3) Boston 72.5
3) New York 72.5
5) Washington 71.5
6) Portland 69.0
7) Virginia Beach 68.5
8) San Diego 67.5
9) Seattle 66.5
10) Philadelphia 66.0

I sent a message to them asking to know how the methodology was changed.

[nashvols]

Access is great, but things like acreage as a percentage of city land, population density, and park spending per resident really don't give you a full picture of how good or bad a park system is. This is....Forbesesque.

[Drewcifer]

For the old list Minneapolis was left off because its' city proper population was too small; so population size is one change.

[Ghengis]

as with all of these types of lists, a much better way to evaluate the rankings would be to tabulate the number of posters from those cities further on down the list beeotching about how the lists are compiled.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by nashvols

Access is great, but things like acreage as a percentage of city land, population density, and park spending per resident really don't give you a full picture of how good or bad a park system is. This is....Forbesesque.

It's probably one of the best measures I've seen as most everything else just looks at how much parkland there is. Wouldn't higher spending per capita be indicative of a well maintained park system? Can't think of any other ways that are better at determining what cities have good park systems.

[ApartmentNomad]

Originally Posted by nashvols

This is....Forbesesque.

That's a useful new coinage for such lists!

[nashvols]

Originally Posted by sav858

It's probably one of the best measures I've seen as most everything else just looks at how much parkland there is. Wouldn't higher spending per capita be indicative of a well maintained park system? Can't think of any other ways that are better at determining what cities have good park systems.

I'm not saying spending per capita is necessarily a bad way to look at it...but sort of like total park acreage, it doesn't really tell you what you are getting with it. A city could have one big expensive great park and a bunch of really average ones, but their per capita spending is higher. Another city may have great parks that do no require that much maintenance, therefore requiring less spending.

Yes, it was laid out in the OP that it is about access more than quality...but I just fear this is going to be another list blindly used on C-D to one-up each other.

Oh yeah...my city has a higher ParkScore than yours. We have better parks.

[emcee squared]

Minneapolis ranked high on the old list, but was <500,000 in population, so it was left off.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by nashvols

I'm not saying spending per capita is necessarily a bad way to look at it...but sort of like total park acreage, it doesn't really tell you what you are getting with it. A city could have one big expensive great park and a bunch of really average ones, but their per capita spending is higher. Another city may have great parks that do no require that much maintenance, therefore requiring less spending.

Yes, it was laid out in the OP that it is about access more than quality...but I just fear this is going to be another list blindly used on C-D to one-up each other.

Oh yeah...my city has a higher ParkScore than yours. We have better parks.

Well what other quantitative measures could be used that would produce a better list in your opinion? How else would you measure "quality"? No list is perfect but as far as ranking parks this methodology is the best I've seen, not that there are many lists on this subject to begin with though.

Maybe spending per capita should be adjusted for cost of living or salary differences as some places with a higher cost of living are going to spend more to maintain parks I would think.

Isn't that what EVERY list on here is used for?

[Cold As War]

I can't take this list seriously after Seeing the results