Thanks, Carol, for the more detailed comparison. Seems like our first place
status in amenities aligns with our second place in costs fairly well, at least
using these numbers. And I'd much rather swim in a lake than I would in a pool!
Carol Becker wrote:
> Regarding the comparability of the numbers I posted previously on national
> urban park costs:
>
> "Every effort as made to bring each agency's financial numbers into
> conformity so that comparisons can be accurate and meaningful. Therefore
> all extraneous nonpark and recreation activities - including the operation
> of zoos, museums, aquariums, stadiums, and cemeteries - have been deleted
> from agency budgets because those big ticket items can significantly skew
> the numbers. On the other hand, because virtually every agency operates
> golf courses, these have been left in the calculations."
>
> For anyone wanting to read the full report:
> "Inside City Parks"
> August 2000
> Peter Harnik
> Urban Land Institute
>
> Regarding other comparisons. The report breaks down cities into three
> types: high density (New York), medium density (Minneapolis) and low density
> (Phoenix). In these breakdowns, we are
>
> - Second in parks and open space per capita (behind Portland)
> - First in parks and open space as a percentage of city area
> - Last in swimming pools per capita (this does not include lakes)
> - First (by a large margin) in tennis courts per capita
>
> Overall we are highest in the number of recreation facilities per capita (by
> a large margin)
> Overall we are second in spending per capita overall, behind Seattle
>
> Carol Becker
> Longfellow
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ginny Craig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Carol Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 7:19 AM
> Subject: Re: [Mpls] Park costs
>
> > I wonder if you could offer any list that compared the amenities among
> these
> > park systems? Otherwise it's apples to oranges. You do generally get
> what you
> > pay for. Our park system balances physical amenities and programs and
> services
> > for youth and families. I think it's a bargain.
> >
> > Ginny Craig
> > North Loop
> >
> > Carol Becker wrote:
> >
> > > Minneapolis does have an award winning park system. This system,
> however, is
> > > also very expensive.
> > >
> > > Cost per capita for Parks
> > >
> > > Seattle $164
> > > Minneapolis $153
> > > Portland $136
> > > Cincinnati $130
> > > Chicago $118
> > > Denver $103
> > > Tampa $99
> > > San Francisco $95
> > > Kansas City $92
> > > San Diego $83
> > > St Louis $73
> > > Boston $73
> > > Cleveland $72
> > > Phoenix $69
> > > Atlanta $63
> > > Detroit $63
> > > Pittsburgh $51
> > > Baltimore $48
> > > Dallas $47
> > > Philadelphia $47
> > > New York $43
> > > Houston $42
> > > Miami $36
> > > Los Angeles $35
> > > Indianapolis $32
> > >
> > > (Data from Urban Land Institute - 1998 Data)
> > >
> > > Carol Becker
> > > Longfellow
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> > > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> > > http://e-democracy.org/mpls
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
