a restless, ambitious, crowding people are interwoven in the problem and 

 must be met and ameliorated. 



So, at the start, let us take a broad view of our task. Let us realize how Work for future 



generations. 



grave a problem we face. Then let us soberly set about to solve it, remem- 

 bering that we are working not merely for the present population — for 

 ourselves and our children — but for future generations. 



Chicago's Phenomenal Growth. 



Chicago's phenomenal growth, I believe, warrants this commission in Decennial com- 



01 ° _ , parisons. 



providing an extensive outer park area. To illustrate the relative magnitude 

 of this growth I have gone back to 1830 and made decennial comparisons of 

 the populations of four large American cities up to 1900, and carried the 

 comparison on to 1903. 



In 1830 New York had a population of 202,589, Chicago about forty Population figures. 

 persons, Philadelphia 161,410 and Boston 61,392. In 1903 New York had 

 3,716,139, Chicago 1,873,880, Philadelphia 1,367,716 and Boston 594,618. 

 The figures for 1903 are the estimates of the Federal Census office and may 

 be accepted as conservative. 



The city directory estimates, which usually are made along generous 

 lines, indicate the 1903 population in these four cities, as follows : New 

 York, 3,583,930 (less than the Federal estimate) ; Chicago, 2,231,000; Phil- 

 adelphia, 1,500,000 and Boston, 603,183. 



From 1840, when Chicago was well established with a population of Percentages of 



^ ' o 1 ir increase. 



4,470 (having been incorporated in 1837), to 1903 this city's percentage of 

 increase in population, based on directory figures for 1903, was 4981 1. For 

 the same period New York's percentage, similarly based as to 1903, was 

 1046, Philadelphia 581, and Boston 546. On the Federal estimate for 1903 

 Chicago's percentage of growth was 41754; New York's 1088; Philadel- 

 phia's 521 and Boston's 537. 



This is indeed a tremendous growth for Chicago even on the conserva- 

 tive Federal population estimate. 



Lags Behind in Park Growth. 



But, while Chicago from 1840 to 1903 has shown an enormous per- ^.^e " 10113 ' 6 

 centage of increase in population, has it made a proportionate increase in 

 applied park facilities for its great population ? Emphatically no. 



In 1869 the act creating the present park system was passed by the City comparisons 

 General Assembly. By 1880 the ragged city system had been improved and 

 increased till there were 2,000 acres. In 1880 Philadelphia led American 

 cities in park area, having 2,819 acres. Chicago was second. New York 

 was third with 1,007.25 and Boston had 233 acres. In 1903 Chicago, includ- 

 ing authorized additions, had 3,174 acres; Philadelphia, 3,503 acres; New 

 York, 8,074 acres and Boston 12,878 acres. 



Chicago during the period 1880-190? usinsr the Federal estimate for Comparative P er- 



o o i so' o centage of 



1903, increased in population 272.40 per cent, but in park area increased increase, 

 only 58.70 per cent. For the same period Philadelphia increased 61.46 per 

 cent in population and 24.26 per cent in park area ; New York increased 



