Their methodology includes acreage, so Forest Park kind of skews the result.

Sacramento just has a lot of playgrounds, apparently.

As I recollect, CoP used to have a lot of playgrounds until it decided that converting a lot of them into dog parks would would attract a preferred demographic.

Of course they use acreage- it's an important measure. And, they use the median (not the average) of park sizes, so Forest Park wouldn't actually skew the results much.

A big part is the American river in Sacto. Not big enough for industry. Amazing to see the ski boats in the summer. Wall to wall crazies.

"Behind cities like New York and Sacramento."

Se what high-tax places like NYC and SAC can do. We need to raise our taxes even more!!!

60 years ago Portland was a vibrant city with a growing commercial base and Sacramento was a back water.

What's funny about the photo this ranking uses is that almost in the middle is the Fulton Park Community Center Park that Fish wants to close down and turn into condos for the Barbur/99 Lightrail line.

And the photo is mostly of the trees of the RiverView cemetery and the Lewis & Clark University grounds, and area south of the city boundaries. Ross Island in the upper middle is mostly still owned by Pamplin, and only a few acres transferred to the city. I love these insightful rankings.

Of course they use acreage- it's an important measure. And, they use the median (not the average) of park sizes, so Forest Park wouldn't actually skew the results much.

Their formula uses BOTH park acreage as a percent of total city area AND the median park acreage, so PDX "score" gets a larger boost from the acreage percentage. Click on the Portland link to see their scoring breakdown.

The bulk of Sacramento's parkland is scrubby flood plain between the American River and its flood control dikes. It floods there about every 10 years. In other years, it is not so much park as wasteland with bike trails.

How is San Francisco number 1? Maybe for pavement...

Curtain Open: Portland, City of Parks!
Curtain Closed: Park Problems! No money for Parks except for the "show pieces." Considering the amount of infill and density pushed, where are the accommodating needed parks and open space?

If the open space is not owned by the public, can easily be erased and in our city, even public parkland can be erased. I have written about this before about Johnswood Park in St. Johns that was sold for housing. With the shaky financial situation our city is in, will other parks be sold or used for example as land for "workforce housing?" They might do this based on that it is done for a public need. We might even be given the reason that to fulfill the UGB, we must now begin more infill on not only open spaces, but public parks. Isn't that why some UGB advocates accepted the Johnswood Park sale? Much has been done to the character of our city based on the "UGB" mantra and millions more coming. Can we trust Fish who comes from the housing arena to be the best steward of our parks? Now Fulton is on the table to be taken and possibly replaced with housing?

We are losing more greenery and the character of our city. I shudder to think of the cookie cutter look if the plans run through Barbur. I don't care how many urban street trees they plant there, the wonderful scenery through Barbur will have been erased. As we know by now, anything can be declared by those in charge to get what they want. In my opinion, just getting worse as once they took an inch and got away with it, the door opened and now they seem non stop with plans.

When our area was losing more open space, a planner said if we wanted a park
to hop on a bus and go to Forest Park!