PARK AND CEMETERY 
236 
The park area per iulrabitaut in each case is indicated by the height 
of the tree. The park area even for the city of Boston is largely in 
excess of Philadelphia, while that of the Boston Metropolitan District 
is enormously greater. In Paris the city shows less park area per in- 
habitant than Philadelphia, but the Department of the Seine has even 
more park area per inhabitant than the Metropolitan District of Boston. 
each the population within the same boundaries ; and, 
second, I have compared the area of all the park area 
available for each community, as shown on the maps 
just presented, with the total population. 
The lesson of the diagram is the same as that of the 
maps. Even if Philadelphia is thought to have a rea- 
sonable area of parks in proportion to the region al- 
ready occupied by houses, it has absolutely no reserve 
to provide for the constant spread of streets, buildings 
and people into new territory. Philadelphia’s position 
is that of a city which would say, “My growth and 
greatness lie in the past. I have reached my limit and 
will grow no more.” 
The second diagram shows by the height of the trees 
the amount of park area per capita at two periods in 
Philadelphia and in New York, confining New York, 
for the sake of comparison, to the old city limits, in- 
cluding Manhattan and the Bronx. It is apparent that 
New York has now a somewhat greater park area per 
capita than in 1854, after the acquisition of Central 
Park. For thirty-four years, with some fluctuations, 
the allowance of parks in proportion to the people got 
steadily smaller, till the large park purchases in 1888 
suddenly brought it up to such a point that the growth 
of population has only just begun to balance this in- 
crease and has nearly restored the original ratio. In 
Philadelphia the balance of spasmodic park growth 
and steady increase in population shows an actual 
shrinkage in the park area per capita for the twenty- 
year census period. It is true that the shrinkage is not 
great, and in spite of the mortifying comparison with 
Boston and Paris, it might seem upon the face of it 
reasonably satisfactory for the city to have main- 
tained substantially the per capita allowance of park 
area which was thought sufficient in 1870. 
I believe, on the contrary, that a per capita allow- 
ance of park area which is adequate for a small city 
is by no means sufficient for a large city. 
In a small city a given amount of park area for a 
given unit of the population may supply every need of 
town decoration, provide for playgrounds, band con- 
certs and the like, and amply fulfill the needs of the 
people, who can get out into the fields for an after- 
noon’s tramp or a Sunday picnic in the course of half 
an hour’s walk or ten minutes in the trolley cars. 
But surround that community, with the same popu- 
lation and the same park area, by an agglomeration of 
other similar urban communities extending miles in 
every direction ; push the country so far away that the 
great mass of people can never find the time or the 
price of reaching it ; and then consider whether the 
park area per capita which is reasonable for a small 
city will adequately fill the needs of a great metropolis. 
As long as a city continues to grow, so long must it 
keep increasing its park area, and not only must the 
park area be increased, but it must grow at a faster 
rate than the population, for the people inevitably be- 
come more and more dependent upon it for recreation. 
PARK AREA PER CAPITA. 
New York is given for 1854, just after the acquisition of Central Park, 
and for 1900. An increase of park area per inhabitant is shown. Phila- 
delphia is given for 1870, after the acquisitio-n of most of Fairmount 
Park, and for 1900. A decrease in park area per inhabitant is shown. 
