Greenest cities? Surprise

[musicman]

Houston, long regarded as a city lacking in parks and green space, actually is among the nation's leaders in providing this increasingly prized amenity to its residents, a new study says.

A report released Monday by the Trust for Public Land shows that Houston has 27.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, ranking third behind Raleigh, N.C., and San Diego among 19 cities of comparable density studied.

The same group's survey a year ago showed Houston had 16.5 acres per 1,000 residents, below what was then the national average, 20.6 acres, for major cities of low to moderate density.

The difference is mostly the result of a more thorough accounting of parks and green space owned by governmental agencies in Houston, said Peter Harnik, the trust's director.

In this year's study, he said, the trust discovered that several agencies that own public parkland in Houston hadn't been counted previously. These included the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department, which owns 2,175 acres of green space along bayous in Houston, and the Fort Bend County Parks Department, which owns 2,023 acres in the city.

But the biggest difference, Harnik said, was that Houston's parks department reported owning 38,934 acres of parkland, almost twice the 19,800 acres it reported a year previously.

The city argued successfully that the surface area of Lake Houston

[RedScare]

I remember when someone posted last year's rankings. I thought that they missed a lot of our County owned parks. I looked up the City and County park listings, and concluded that Houston was being shafted by not counting our County parks. Specifically, Bush Park and Lake Houston did not seem to be counted. I am glad to see that someone else thought so as well, and took the trouble of pointing it out. I have never felt like there were not enough parks here. I can think of several that I use. Some could definitely be upgraded, but to suggest that we were underserved just did not sound right.

[Porchman]

I remember when someone posted last year's rankings. I thought that they missed a lot of our County owned parks.

Having been to a number of the cities that ranked ahead of Houston in the last ranking, I thought something had to be missing, as well.

I looked up this year's rankings

http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_it...;folder_id=3208

I was interested to see that Houston had two of the ten largest city parks in the Country - Cullen and George Bush. We clearly don't rank very high in recreational facilities, but that is largely due to the parks being just natural green space. They appear to have rankings only by park authority in this category, not by metro area or city.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Like Red posted, the argument had been made for a while that county-owned parks were often not factored into the equation. But I find it interesting that the trust seems to have a somewhat vague definition of what counts as publically held park space (see the argument by the COH regarding park space fronting Lake Houston, for example).

[RedScare]

Having been to a number of the cities that ranked ahead of Houston in the last ranking, I thought something had to be missing, as well.

I looked up this year's rankings

http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_it...;folder_id=3208

I was interested to see that Houston had two of the ten largest city parks in the Country - Cullen and George Bush. We clearly don't rank very high in recreational facilities, but that is largely due to the parks being just natural green space. They appear to have rankings only by park authority in this category, not by metro area or city.

They also did not include the 5,000 acre Lake Houston Park mentioned in the article on that list. It would be the 14th largest park.

[suzerain]

They also did not include the 5,000 acre Lake Houston Park mentioned in the article on that list. It would be the 14th largest park.

Man, then I am surprised that cities like Chicago, Galveston, or Miami do not kick our butts. They should include the surface area of their lakes and oceans as well. I am sure their per capita numbers would more than double. It just seems like we manipulated the numbers to get better results.

[TheNiche]

Man, then I am surprised that cities like Chicago, Galveston, or Miami do not kick our butts. They should include the surface area of their lakes and oceans as well. I am sure their per capita numbers would more than double. It just seems like we manipulated the numbers to get better results.

Yeah, I think its worth questioning the use of open water as a park, but on the other hand, impounded bodies of water are actually owned and maintained by a government agencies in part for recreational purposes, whereas there is no entity charged with the maintenance of oceans, bays, etc. as recreational areas or for anything other than specific uses, such as the ship channel.

So if the Trust that conducted this study is trying to get a handle on the extent to which public agencies are actually doing something to provide recreational assets for a region, then Lake Houston is reasonably worthy of being counted. ...but it is a tough call. I could honestly see it going either way, or being prorated by some formula.

[RedScare]

The trust only counts park space within the city limits. Those bodies of water that fall within the city limits of Chicago, Miami and Galveston could, and probably should be counted as recreational areas. Just as Harris County parks that are outside Houston City Limits are not counted as part of the Houston total, parts of Lake Michigan that are outside Chicago City Limits should not be considered part of Chicago's total.

[suzerain]

Yeah, I think its worth questioning the use of open water as a park, but on the other hand, impounded bodies of water are actually owned and maintained by a government agencies in part for recreational purposes, whereas there is no entity charged with the maintenance of oceans, bays, etc. as recreational areas or for anything other than specific uses, such as the ship channel.

So if the Trust that conducted this study is trying to get a handle on the extent to which public agencies are actually doing something to provide recreational assets for a region, then Lake Houston is reasonably worthy of being counted. ...but it is a tough call. I could honestly see it going either way, or being prorated by some formula.

That makes sense, but how much of Lake Houston is maintained for recreational activities? It is also used for drinking water, and the recreation is an unintended byproduct the city makes use of (just like a bay or one of the great lakes).

The reservoir was created in 1953 when the City of Houston built the dam to impound a reservoir to replace Sheldon Lake, then the primary source of water for the city. The city sold Sheldon Lake to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for use as a waterfowl sanctuary and public fishing site.

The recreational area around the lake should be included, but the surface area of the lake should not be included. What about New Orleans, Lake Pontchartrain (630 sq. mi.), or Tahoe, Lake Tahoe (191 sq. miles), or Salt Lake City (Great Salt Lake 1,700 sq mi.)? Like you said, you are entering into a murky area where you are trying to massage the data.

[suzerain]

The trust only counts park space within the city limits. Those bodies of water that fall within the city limits of Chicago, Miami and Galveston could, and probably should be counted as recreational areas. Just as Harris County parks that are outside Houston City Limits are not counted as part of the Houston total, parts of Lake Michigan that are outside Chicago City Limits should not be considered part of Chicago's total.

I could not find that. So, under that rationale, is all of Lake Houston considered inside city limits? George Bush Park?

Plus, if you look at the numbers, Houston is fourth from last on expenditures per capita of all the cities listed. So we have a lot of land but do not do anything with it.

[RedScare]

There is nothing nefarious going on. The Great Salt Lake is not inside the Salt Lake city limits. Neither is Ponchartrain. Didn't look up Tahoe. Lake Houston, as well as Lake Houston Park, is completely within Houston City Limits. So is Bush. For what it's worth, the trust did not include Galveston Bay or Clear Lake as Houston parks, even the City borders both.

As for Lake Houston's primary use, yes it is a city water source. However, that does not preclude its dual use as a recreation area. Lake Conroe is also a water source, as is Livingston, Lake Tahoe, Mead, Powell, Michigan and virtually every other recreational lake in the US. Bush Park is a flood control resevoir, but my dog still enjoys playing in the dog park. Harris County Flood Control District gets high marks for building parks within its flood control areas. Because they are primarily for flood control, are they not considered parks, even though there are park facilities on them?

This list is just one of many on the Trust website. Obviously, you found another listing expenditures. The Trust itself stated that different cities develop their parkland in different ways, making a comprehensive comparison difficult. While you see this article as massaging numbers, I see it as Houston's park people attempting to get credit where it is due. It was the Trust that decided to include Bush Park, Lake Houston Park and Lake Houston in the totals. Houston merely informed them that these parks were within city limits.

Just a side note. Do you think the 16,000 acre desert in Phoenix that they count as a park is massaging numbers, too?

Here's a map of Houston for your perual.

http://images.nationmaster.com/images/motw...uston_tdp01.jpg

A sunset over Lake Houston

A synopsis of things to do at Lake Houston Park

Lake Houston Park

[TheNiche]

That makes sense, but how much of Lake Houston is maintained for recreational activities? It is also used for drinking water, and the recreation is an unintended byproduct the city makes use of (just like a bay or one of the great lakes).

The reservoir was created in 1953 when the City of Houston built the dam to impound a reservoir to replace Sheldon Lake, then the primary source of water for the city. The city sold Sheldon Lake to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for use as a waterfowl sanctuary and public fishing site.

The City owns and maintains the dam (without which the lake would not be possible--and without which the City would own so many thousands of acres of exposed lakebottom), a huge park at the base of the lake, and a former state park in the lake's backwaters. It really is a pretty substantial presence. With Sheldon, there are active canoeing and kayaking trails maintained by the city, and much of it is swamplike. Swamps can be parks--look at the Everglades.

And like Red said, who is to say that parkland that has dual uses is considered lesser than parkland with a singular use? Should we be numerically penalized because our topography requires us to provide expensive and land-intensive flood control of the sort that creates inexpensive park development opportunities?

[suzerain]

There is nothing nefarious going on. The Great Salt Lake is not inside the Salt Lake city limits. Neither is Ponchartrain. Didn't look up Tahoe. Lake Houston, as well as Lake Houston Park, is completely within Houston City Limits. So is Bush. For what it's worth, the trust did not include Galveston Bay or Clear Lake as Houston parks, even the City borders both.

I do not think there is anything nefarious going on. I just think it is somewhat iffy to include bodies of water in the computation. Most of all, I just wish Houston had more park space. The big plus I see in all of this (which is what I always try to find) is that Houston recognizes parkland as an important issue. Discovery Green is a good start.

As for Lake Houston's primary use, yes it is a city water source. However, that does not preclude its dual use as a recreation area. Lake Conroe is also a water source, as is Livingston, Lake Tahoe, Mead, Powell, Michigan and virtually every other recreational lake in the US. Bush Park is a flood control resevoir, but my dog still enjoys playing in the dog park. Harris County Flood Control District gets high marks for building parks within its flood control areas. Because they are primarily for flood control, are they not considered parks, even though there are park facilities on them?

That was just a response to your comment early about bays and oceans not counting. I am all for dual uses, especially when it provides a higher quality of life for the citizens of Houston.

This list is just one of many on the Trust website. Obviously, you found another listing expenditures. The Trust itself stated that different cities develop their parkland in different ways, making a comprehensive comparison difficult. While you see this article as massaging numbers, I see it as Houston's park people attempting to get credit where it is due. It was the Trust that decided to include Bush Park, Lake Houston Park and Lake Houston in the totals. Houston merely informed them that these parks were within city limits.

Agreed. I think for a lot of this, you have to go out into the city itself and get a feel for how green it is. Houston has a huge advantage because of the physical area encompasses, and I think the numbers reflecting the percentage of land devoted to park space is a better indicator of the park land. Of course, Houston is going to beat all the northeast cities because of its size and low population density. I will admit, it did do better than I thought it would.

I know I do get upset every time I drive to my father's house next to Herman Brown Park and know that for twenty-five years I have seen them do nothing to develop that park.

Just a side note. Do you think the 16,000 acre desert in Phoenix that they count as a park is massaging numbers, too?

Lol. I have not been there so I do not know. All I know is that I would not want to get lost in that park in the middle of summer!

[RedScare]

Lol. I have not been there so I do not know. All I know is that I would not want to get lost in that park in the middle of summer!

On this, we agree.

Note the park bench and trash receptacle for your recreational pleasure.

[TheNiche]

On this, we agree.

Note the park bench and trash receptacle for your recreational pleasure.

Oh, I remember that kind of a place. I once walked from a hotel I was staying in Tempe to a park a little bit away that looked a lot like that, except that it had a huge craggy mound in the middle of it on top of which two sets of ugly-ass powerlines crossed.

[Deut28Thirteen]

A sunset over Lake Houston

A synopsis of things to do at Lake Houston Park

Lake Houston Park

I love Lake Houston. In some areas you forget your in Houston. I always thought that Houston had a lot of open space for its size. Going North towards Downtown on 288 you can see cattle grazing with the Houston Skyline as the Backdrop. It is not a park but not many other major cities have that. Not sure how long we will have it cause the city keeps growing which is a good thing.

[WesternGulf]

There is nothing nefarious going on. The Great Salt Lake is not inside the Salt Lake city limits. Neither is Ponchartrain. Didn't look up Tahoe. Lake Houston, as well as Lake Houston Park, is completely within Houston City Limits. So is Bush. For what it's worth, the trust did not include Galveston Bay or Clear Lake as Houston parks, even the City borders both.

If anything, this is probably the reason why so many outsiders believe we do not have that much park space. These parks are HUGE but are located in sparsely populated areas. We can use more Hermann Parks and pocket block sized parks that can be found in areas like the Montrose. As large as Memorial Park is, everytime I go it seems like a lot of parts are not built for people. Almost feels like an unmanicured forest in the middle of the city rather than park space.

[Guest danax]

Total acreage comparisons only skim the surface of how cities' parks serve their citizens. Massive tracts of land are one thing, and are good for wildlife and mass recreation, but a city should have an abundance of neighborhood parks, parks that don't require a weekend outing in order to enjoy them, like bike trails and pocket parks, which don't add up to much size-wise but pound for pound, might mean more than the huge parks that are mostly unused by people.

I think we're doing ok, but not great, with the smaller parks and it sounds like they're working to add more.

[westguy]

I haven't been to Lake Houston in over a year, but it looks really shabby.

[MidtownCoog]

Dussen park on Lake Houston is far from Shabby. It's a Co. park.

[Vertigo58]

I haven't been to Lake Houston in over a year, but it looks really shabby.

Hard to beleive there was a time when Lake Houston was a nice place to take the family for swimming and picnics. I think the area we used to go to is still called Duessen Park? There was a brand new pier built complete with gas pumps and little store around 1970? The picnic area barbecue buildings were new. The water was actually clear enough to see the bottom. The only time the really big waves would come was when a big boat passed in the distance, other than that it was calm enough to learn to swim, play etc. Everyone was allowed to take in inner tubes and floats too. The most fun part was meeting other kids from all over Houston and near small towns. Exciting!

I clearly never recall anyone drinking alcohol in the park then. I wonder if those big buffalos are still in side of that gated area? They have probably been eaten by now. Its been about 10 yrs since I last checked the area out and I would rather remember the way it WAS. Duessen swimming area looked toxic. Most notable markers are gone. Just lots of beer cans/bottles. Nice to hear this topic, brought back fun and great memories.

[Heights2Bastrop]

Total acreage comparisons only skim the surface of how cities' parks serve their citizens. Massive tracts of land are one thing, and are good for wildlife and mass recreation, but a city should have an abundance of neighborhood parks, parks that don't require a weekend outing in order to enjoy them, like bike trails and pocket parks, which don't add up to much size-wise but pound for pound, might mean more than the huge parks that are mostly unused by people.

I was just about to post the same thought.

Who cares how many total acres of parks we have? Maybe the relatively few who actually use these areas. But I would prefer we broke up the large parks into many smaller ones.

When I was a kid, a vacant lot or easement was sufficient size for a game of baseball or football, or even someone

[RedScare]

Hard to beleive there was a time when Lake Houston was a nice place to take the family for swimming and picnics. I think the area we used to go to is still called Duessen Park? There was a brand new pier built complete with gas pumps and little store around 1970? The picnic area barbecue buildings were new. The water was actually clear enough to see the bottom. The only time the really big waves would come was when a big boat passed in the distance, other than that it was calm enough to learn to swim, play etc. Everyone was allowed to take in inner tubes and floats too. The most fun part was meeting other kids from all over Houston and near small towns. Exciting!

I clearly never recall anyone drinking alcohol in the park then. I wonder if those big buffalos are still in side of that gated area? They have probably been eaten by now. Its been about 10 yrs since I last checked the area out and I would rather remember the way it WAS. Duessen swimming area looked toxic. Most notable markers are gone. Just lots of beer cans/bottles. Nice to hear this topic, brought back fun and great memories.

I am curious how you are able to state with authority that this park is full of beer cans, and is apparently a dump, when you have not visited in at least 10 years? In fact, the two posts claiming the park is bad are both from people who admit that they have not visited recently. The one post claiming it is a good park comes from someone who lives in the area.

Go figure.

[TheNiche]

I am curious how you are able to state with authority that this park is full of beer cans, and is apparently a dump, when you have not visited in at least 10 years? In fact, the two posts claiming the park is bad are both from people who admit that they have not visited recently. The one post claiming it is a good park comes from someone who lives in the area.

Go figure.

Concur. I went through there last year, scoping it out on business, and was surprised at how nice that neck of the woods is. If I were of the mindset to buy a home in the suburbs, that area around where Summerwood is would be high on my list.

[Vertigo58]

I was only speaking of the Duessen Park swimming area. Not new neighboring nabes. This is typical example of how a topic can spiral out of control. Alcohol has since been banned, etc. Duessen Park, Duessen Park.

[TheNiche]

I was only speaking of the Duessen Park swimming area. Not new neighboring nabes. This is typical example of how a topic can spiral out of control. Alcohol has since been banned, etc. Duessen Park, Duessen Park.

When I used the word "there", I meant Duessen Park. Summerwood is the nearest subdivision I can think of to Duessen Park. That's the connection.

[RedScare]

And, you STILL haven't been there in 10 years, so you cannot state truthfully WHAT it looks like today, as opposed to the people who HAVE been there recently.

This is a typical example of people making statements as if they are true, when they have NO IDEA what the truth is.

[houstonmacbro]

Houston, long regarded as a city lacking in parks and green space, actually is among the nation's leaders in providing this increasingly prized amenity to its residents, a new study says.

A report released Monday by the Trust for Public Land shows that Houston has 27.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, ranking third behind Raleigh, N.C., and San Diego among 19 cities of comparable density studied.

The same group's survey a year ago showed Houston had 16.5 acres per 1,000 residents, below what was then the national average, 20.6 acres, for major cities of low to moderate density.

The difference is mostly the result of a more thorough accounting of parks and green space owned by governmental agencies in Houston, said Peter Harnik, the trust's director.

In this year's study, he said, the trust discovered that several agencies that own public parkland in Houston hadn't been counted previously. These included the Harris County Public Infrastructure Department, which owns 2,175 acres of green space along bayous in Houston, and the Fort Bend County Parks Department, which owns 2,023 acres in the city.

But the biggest difference, Harnik said, was that Houston's parks department reported owning 38,934 acres of parkland, almost twice the 19,800 acres it reported a year previously.

The city argued successfully that the surface area of Lake Houston