Washington, D.C., Minnesota's Twin Cities and Irvine, California, are among the country's best cities for public parks, per the latest rankings from the Trust for Public Land (TPL), a pro-parks nonprofit.
- The group rates cities on a variety of metrics, including the percentage of residents who live near a park, the share of city land reserved for parks, parks investment and more; cities are then awarded a "ParkScore."
Why it matters: Parks confer a wealth of benefits — including, as TPL points out in its latest annual report, significant health boosts.
- Parks offer spaces for physical activity and social gatherings, improve visitors' moods, and provide city dwellers a reprieve from noise and air pollution and the effects of climate change.
- Residents of the top 25 cities by ParkScore are less likely to report poor mental health or low physical activity, per TPL's latest report.
The big picture: At a national level, parks spending still hasn't recovered to pre-Great Recession levels, says TPL senior director for strategy and innovation Linda Hwang.
- But that's largely driven by the country's biggest cities — by contrast, many midsize cities are increasing their parks spending.
What they're saying: "Memphis stands out," Hwang tells Axiois. "They're a great example in that they have [made] significant public and private investment in recent years."
- One concern, Hwang added, is that many parks departments are still recovering from COVID-19's impact, as well as dealing with maintenance backlogs.
- Access also remains a troublesome issue: Nationally, residents of predominantly nonwhite neighborhoods have access to 43% less park space per person than residents of predominantly white neighborhoods.
Zoom in: Washington, D.C., took top honors in TPL's latest ranking largely thanks to its parks investment and access scores:
- The District is spending $259 per capita on parks — more than double the $108 average among the 100 most populous cities.
- Almost every D.C. resident lives within a 10-minute walk of a park, TPL says, with generally equal access across socioeconomic lines.
Yes, but: D.C.'s status and history make it a bit of an unusual case study.
- Other cities could also look to St. Paul and Minneapolis, which scored second and third, respectively — also thanks largely to their access and investment scores.
The intrigue: Cities increasingly view their parks and parks departments through a public health lens, says Howard Frumkin, TPL senior vice president and director of the Land and People Lab.
- "Simply defining parks as part of the public health infrastructure of a community, and then steering some health dollars towards the parks because they're healthy, is a really interesting innovation," Frumkin tells Axios.
- "And it's not rare — it's getting more and more common."
Reality check: Not every city park is a multiacre Olmstedian masterpiece — yet even diminutive "pocket parks" and community garden lots confer physical, mental and social benefits.
- "If there's a pocket park with no sports facilities at all, but I walked 12 minutes to get there and I walk 12 minutes home, I've got my 24 minutes of moderate activity for that day," Frumkin says.
What's next: TPL's report offers a bevy of recommendations for cities looking to boost their ParkScore, including expanding access (through better public transportation, for instance), starting drop-in sports programs, and exploring innovative partnerships with local health care organizations.
The bottom line: "Parks in the past were like, 'well, I've just got to prune the trees, mow the grass, take the trash out, keep the bathrooms clean and we're good,'" says Hwang.
- "And they have to do all that — but now there's a level of sophistication that we just haven't seen and a better understanding of what people need in their neighborhoods."