3 ms·

Haven’t spent a lot of time on the US east coast but on the US west coast we have low density sprawl with also not that many parks.

asdff 3y ago
Western US generally has a huge edge on the east in terms of parkland. Both in terms of urban parks that can be quite substantial in size and amenities offered (e.g. golden gate park in SF or griffith park in LA, about 2x and 5x larger than central park in nyc, respectively), but also the vast amount of acreage that is either nature preserves or publicly owned state or federal land. 80% of nevada is federal land. In Las Vegas, you can go from gambling at caesars palace to hiking in red rock canyon in about a half hour maybe even less. Also in California at least, the coast is public land, you can sunbath on the sand in front of multimilliondollar malibu estates just fine. In the east many beaches are actually private property, and depending on the state this could even be most of them.
- Jensson 3y ago
  What you want are local parks you can walk to, so you can go out for a walk in the park. I don't see much of that in San Francisco, there are some parks but they haven't put local parks in every neighborhood as you would need. The cities I am used to have parks at most 100 meters away from any home and a pretty large park 200 meters away, then anyone can go out and enjoy the park. San Francisco on the other hand seems to require driving to the park, but there isn't enough parking for everyone to enjoy the park anyway so most people don't have reasonable access, not comparable at all, the parks are giant though but they don't do anything for local neighborhoods. New York is kinda bad at local parks as well, but much better than San Francisco.
  - asdff 3y ago
    SF is one of the best ones in fact. In SF in particular, every resident lives a 10 minute walk to a park. They have 220 of them.
- NegativeLatency 3y ago
  I was thinking more about how it's not very easy to walk to many parks. Most of the park area I'm aware of is more of a "you have to drive X miles" instead of being able to walk by or through a park on my way somewhere.

asdff 3y ago

Western US generally has a huge edge on the east in terms of parkland. Both in terms of urban parks that can be quite substantial in size and amenities offered (e.g. golden gate park in SF or griffith park in LA, about 2x and 5x larger than central park in nyc, respectively), but also the vast amount of acreage that is either nature preserves or publicly owned state or federal land. 80% of nevada is federal land. In Las Vegas, you can go from gambling at caesars palace to hiking in red rock canyon in about a half hour maybe even less. Also in California at least, the coast is public land, you can sunbath on the sand in front of multimilliondollar malibu estates just fine. In the east many beaches are actually private property, and depending on the state this could even be most of them.

Jensson 3y ago
What you want are local parks you can walk to, so you can go out for a walk in the park. I don't see much of that in San Francisco, there are some parks but they haven't put local parks in every neighborhood as you would need. The cities I am used to have parks at most 100 meters away from any home and a pretty large park 200 meters away, then anyone can go out and enjoy the park. San Francisco on the other hand seems to require driving to the park, but there isn't enough parking for everyone to enjoy the park anyway so most people don't have reasonable access, not comparable at all, the parks are giant though but they don't do anything for local neighborhoods. New York is kinda bad at local parks as well, but much better than San Francisco.
- asdff 3y ago
  SF is one of the best ones in fact. In SF in particular, every resident lives a 10 minute walk to a park. They have 220 of them.
NegativeLatency 3y ago
I was thinking more about how it's not very easy to walk to many parks. Most of the park area I'm aware of is more of a "you have to drive X miles" instead of being able to walk by or through a park on my way somewhere.