• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no echo chambers. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! You can also register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

Park Inventory Analysis

Glomer

Member
Messages
207
Points
9
Does anyone know where I can find guidelines for ....

how many playgrounds are needed per 1000 people
how many tennis courts, etc.etc. etc.

My parks commission would like me to put something together showkng how we fit compared to the national average or guidelines.
 

donk

Cyburbian
Messages
6,970
Points
30
Lookin gin my copy of land use planning made plain, by hok-lin leung there is a table of park types / sizes and populations. It is based on Chapin, FS and EJ Kaiser (1979) Urban Land Use Planning. Urbana,: University if Illinois Press.


type ______________acres/1000 pop _____ size range acres
play lots ______________________________1
vest pocket parks _______________________1
neighbourhood parks__________2.5 ________5-20
district _____________________2.5 _______20-100
large urban __________________5 ____________100+
regional ___________________ 20 ____________250+

hope this helps, there is way more info in the book that may be useful.

sorry about the bad formatting
 

Joe Iliff

Reformed City Planner
Messages
1,441
Points
29
NPRA

I think the National Parks and Recreation Association has national averages for things like that. Our parks department is just starting a strategic plan to evaluate how we compare to those averages and identify the type of facilities we need most.
I'm not sure if NPRA has that information online or not.
 

Glomer

Member
Messages
207
Points
9
I've looked on the NPRA site and haven't found a list of guidlines or national averages. Maybe I didn't look hard enough.
 

Chet

Cyburbian Emeritus
Messages
10,624
Points
34
NPRA used to have the standards. When we updated our Park Plan in 2001, we inquired with them for any updates. They advised us that tthey droopped the standards, as local preferences had come to vary so widely.

We took the "old" NPRA standards and had our citizens committee develop local modifications.

We used:

Neighborhood Park: 3 acres / 1000 people

Community Park: 6 acres / 1000 people
 

Glomer

Member
Messages
207
Points
9
Well that sucks....No wonder the lady from the NRPA library hasn't called me back with the new standards.

I guess I'll just use what we did in 1993.
 

Joe Iliff

Reformed City Planner
Messages
1,441
Points
29
State standards

I don't know how significant national averages or standards are anyways, given how the weather and cultural differences vary so much across the country.

Next thought: I wonder if there are state parks and rec associations that might have better data or guidlines that could be used. Where I used to work in Indiana, I was sent to a state parks and rec association conference where they talk about different projects in the state and some state and national funding sources.

Maybe look a little closer to home and see what you can find.

Just an idea.
 

nerudite

Cyburbian
Messages
6,544
Points
30
Depending on your State planning laws, some of the standards may also show up in various communities' capital facilities elements/programs. I know in WA State we had to show a needs analysis along with funding, so I used to take the standards from nearby communities' CFPs and provide them to the Parks Board. Just another idea :)
 

Cardinal

Cyburbian
Messages
10,080
Points
34
I'll have to echo the thought that it varies quite a bit locally. Maybe even over time. In the last few years our averages have changes quite a bit as we have added large chunks of park and conservancy land to the city's inventory. I might start with the old published standards, and then ask; do neighboring communities have standards that you can reference? From there, does your community want the same or more or less than their neighbors? It really comes down to "feeling" and local preference more than any objective number.
 
Top