More Public Parks!

by New York Park Association

Layout 2

MORE PUBLIC PARKS!

How New York compares with other Cities.

Lungs For The Metropolis

The financial and sanitary aspects of the question.

PUBLISHED BY THE NEW YORK PARK ASSOCIATION - 1882

TO THE CITIZENS OF NEW YORK.

---

The undersigned Executive Committee of the New York Park Association, which has been organized to secure such an extension of the park area of the metropolis as may be adequate to the present and future needs of our rapidly increasing population, respectfully invite the earnest attention of their fellow-citizens to the facts and arguments presented in the following pages.

The Committee feel confident that when the project is thoroughly understood it will receive the hearty approval and support of the great majority of the people.

It is hoped that the application to the State Legislature, asking for the necessary power and authority to accomplish the object in view, will be attended with the desired success.

WALDO HUTCHINS, President.
L. R. MARSH, Vice-President.
W. W. NILES, Treasurer.
JOHN MULLALY, Secretary.

CHAS. L. TIFFANY, JOHN E. DEVELIN, H. B. CLAFLIN, MAJOR-GENERAL SHALER, W. E. CONNER, HENRY L. HOGUET, DAVID DOWS, S. R. FILLEY, WM. CAULDWELL, CHAS. CRARY, GUSTAV SCHWAB, LEWIS G. MORRIS, FRANKLIN EDSON,

GEO. W. MCLEAN, ISAAC BELL, LEONARD JEROME, AUGUSTUS SCHELL, JORDAN L. MOTT, EGBERT L. VIELE, JOSEPH F. WOODS, J. M. CARNOCHAN, M.D., JOHN FITCH, H. P. DE GRAAF, LEWIS MAY, CHAS. J. STEPHENS.

New York, January, 1882.

REASONS WHY NEW YORK SHOULD HAVE MORE AND LARGER PARKS.

---

FACTS WORTH CONSIDERING.

Park Area of New York Compared with Other Cities.

The time has arrived when the public mind should be thoroughly aroused to the imperative necessity of providing for the present and future wants of our rapidly increasing population, in the important matter of park area. In view of the limited and wholly inadequate area laid out in the form of public grounds, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the urgent need for more and larger breathing places. Central Park, though deservedly regarded as one of its most attractive features, no longer meets the requirements of our metropolis, and to-day we are, in this essential particular, far behind not only the great capitals of Europe, but several American cities. A comparison of their park acreage with that of New York, is most conclusive on this point, and should dispel all doubt as to the necessity for prompt and effective action. Not only London and Paris, the only two cities in the civilized world which exceed ours in population, but Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, and San Francisco have a larger park territory than New York. The figures are obtained from official sources:

	Population	Acres in Parks
New York	1,500,00	1,094
Philadelphia	846,984	3,000
Chicago	503,304	3,000
St. Louis	350,522	2,107
San Francisco	233,936	1,181

Compared with these cities New York should have—

2,319 acres more than Philadelphia;

3,952 acres more than Chicago;

6,929 acres more than St. Louis; and

6,394 acres more than San Francisco.

Or, to present the comparison in another form, it appears that while New York has one acre of park area to every 1,371 inhabitants,

Chicago has one acre to every 252;

Philadelphia one acre to every 282;

St. Louis one acre to every 166; and

San Francisco one acre to every 198.