Behind Boston 

 and New York. 



208.07 per cent in population and 701.25 per cent in park area; and Boston 

 increased 63.88 per cent in population and 5,427.0 per cent in park area. 



So, while Chicago has exceeded greatly the other three cities in popu- 

 lation growth, it has fallen far behind Boston and New York in the 

 percentage of park growth. 



Broader 

 parison. 



Position in ij 



Seventh place 

 to-day. 



Authorized addi- 

 tions included. 



Park acreage of 

 eight American 

 cities. 



Chicago Parks and Those of Other Cities. 



But to take up the comparison on a broader scale, I have made a careful 

 investigation of recreation areas in the leading cities of the United States 

 and have put the results into comparative tables, so that we may see at a 

 glance how Chicago stands in regard to parks when placed side by side with 

 other American cities. 



The showing is not flattering to Chicago. 



In 1880, eleven years after the present system of parks and boulevards 

 was projected, this city, in the acre area of the system, stood, as stated, next 

 to Philadelphia, which then had the largest acreage of parks of any city in 

 the Union. At that time Chicago in population was fourth among the cities 

 of the United States, being exceeded by New York, Philadelphia and Brook- 

 lyn. So in 1880 Chicago stood well in regard to parks. 



But how does it stand to-day? While our city for some time has been 

 second in population, in the acre area of its parks it has slipped back to 

 seventh place among the cities of the United States. 



That we may put our best foot forward, I have included, in the Chicago 

 total, additions now being made or authorized, to the system on the three 

 sides of the city. 



Here are the cities and the figures, collected from data furnished in 

 1903 by Park Boards in the various localities: 



City. Acre Area of Parks. 



i Boston 12,878 



2 New York 8,074 



3 Los Angeles 3-737 



4 Newark, New Jersey, and environs 3-54§ 



5 Philadelphia 3.5°3 



6 San Francisco 3-41 1 



7 Chicago 3-1/4 



8 Washington 2.91 1 



Chicago next to 

 New York. 



Second in Miles of Boulevards. 

 These figures do not include boulevards. Chicago is the second city in 

 this respect, having forty-eight miles of such drives, while New York is first 

 with sixty-one miles. New Orleans has forty-one miles, Boston thirty- four 

 miles and Minneapolis twenty-seven miles. Other cities have shorter 

 systems. 



Parks are for the 

 people. 



Chicago in Test as to Usefulness. 



But, acreage of parks and miles of boulevards do not set a fair standard 

 for measuring the effectiveness of open air recreation facilities. Parks are 

 not made for cities. They are made for the people who live in cities. Parks 

 are useful in their application to human needs. 



