PARK AND CEMETERY. 
33 
STATISTICS OF AMERICAN CITY PARKS 
An address before the American Association of Park Superintend- 
ents by Dr. Ernst C. Meyer of the United States Census Bureau. 
I wonder if the parkmen here present 
have ever stopped to consider the im- 
mensity of the administrative problems 
which are involved in the administra- 
tion of the park systems of the country, 
as expressed in cold hard figures. As 
just stated, I will not burden you with 
many figures, but I want to direct your 
attention for just a few moments to 
the magnitude of that problem from the 
purely statistical side, the money-in- 
vested-point-of-view. The statistics 
which I shall quote refer to cities of 
30.000 population and over, for the 
United States Census Bureau collects 
information as to cities of that size 
only, with the exception, I might add, 
that in every ten years all cities above 
8.000 population are included. 
It appears that in 1907, the latest sta- 
tistics available in the Census bulletins 
on the subject of area, the entire area 
in acres of public parks in cities of 
over 30,000 was 76,567, of which 61,450 
acres were located within city limits 
and 10,591 outside city limits. The 
main areas were located in the follow- 
ing cities : 
New York, 7,191 acres; Philadelphia, 
4,175 acres; Los Angeles, 3,768 acres; 
Newark, 3,636 acres; Chicago, 3,412 
acres; Boston, 2,756 acres; Washington, 
2,245 acres; St. Louis, 2,198 acres; Bal- 
timore, 2,072 acres; Kansas City, 2,055 
acres. 
The relation of the total park area to 
the total area of the city varies con- 
siderably, some cities having incor- 
porated large thinly populated areas 
where park needs are not urgent. Oth- 
ers, however, while occupying very com- 
pact territory, have largely neglected 
provision for parks. Arranged on the 
basis of the percentage of the total 
area represented by parks the first five 
cities are : Lynn, Mass., with 15.3 per 
cent of its total area in parks; Roches- 
ter, N. Y., 11.9 per cent; Boston, Mass., 
10.4; Cambridge, Mass., 8.9; Salem, 
Mass., 7.4. The average per cent of 
total area contained in parks for all 
cities of over 30,000 population was 2.9 
per cent in 1907. 
Immense outlays for parks and park 
extensions, new park buildings and 
equipment are annually made as shown 
by the fact that in 1909 no less than 
$14,792,904 were thus expended by cit- 
ies of over 30,000 population. The 
leading five cities each spent over 
$1,000,000 for this purpose, New York 
expending $2,962,482; Chicago, $1,475,- 
155; Philadelphia, $1,242,930; and Min- 
neapolis, $1,072,284. Various other cit- 
ies spent more than half a million for 
this purpose. 
It is not surp ising that in view of 
the statistics just presented the amounts 
expended for maintenance and opera- 
tion of park properties are likewise 
large. The total expenses for these 
same cities for 1909, including parks, 
playgrounds, gardens, bathing beaches, 
and other public recreation, was $14,- 
173,239. The following ten cities paid 
out the largest amounts for expenses : 
New York, $3,357,581; Chicago, $2,- 
268,359; Boston, $1,052,559; Philadel- 
phia, $762,863; Pittsburgh, $394,983; 
San Francisco, $381,081; Baltimore, 
$308,252; St. Louis, $294,689; Detroit, 
$277,935; Washington, $277,655. 
Those interested can find further de- 
tails on this subject in the bulletin of 
statistics of cities for 1907. 
Park properties are on the whole very 
expensive investments for cities. Space 
is at a premium. Few people probably 
are aware of the large sums of public 
moneys to-day invested for the pur- 
pose of rendering the inhabitants that 
service which such breathing places can 
alone render, and the relation of these 
investments to the total value of all 
properties owned by cities. In 1909 
the total valuation of all properties 
owned by the 158 cities of over 
30,000 population was no less than 
$1,781,309,529. Of this grand total of 
properties owned by these cities, $79,- 
037,708 represents the valuation of prop- 
erties of the fire departments of those 
cities. There is no doubt but what we 
get fair returns on the investment of 
about $80,000,000 in properties of fire 
departments. We had invested in 1909, 
in municipal buildings, $158,446,435 
worth of public property. We had in- 
vested in schools $469,633,470 of public 
money, and we had invested in parks 
no less than $822,855,847. I won’t bur- 
den you with details as to other prop- 
erties. The valuation of park proper- 
ties represented one-half of the total 
valuation of all properties held by Ibe 
cities of over 30,000 in 1909. The ques- 
tion might be raised, whether the pub- 
lic is getting a fair return on this enor- 
mous investment of $822,000,000 in 
1909— an outlay which today, since some 
25 or 30 cities must be added to the list 
of those which have a population of 
over 30,000, would represent an invest- 
ment of over $1,000,000,000 in parks in 
cities of over 30,000 — whether these in- 
vestments of public moneys are yielding 
a fair return; that is, what a park ad- 
ministrator should ask, and what the 
public has a right to know. When pub- 
lic money is invested, whether in a pub- 
lic utility or in a municipal building, 
it is assumed that the public gets a fair 
return on its investment. The problem 
before the park men of the country is 
whether the public is getting a fair re- 
turn on those moneys which are invest- 
ed in public parks. In attempting an 
answer to that question you are con- 
fronted by a peculiar situation, one that 
is quite unique. The superintendent of 
street cleaning in a city, when con- 
fronted by that question, can reply: 
“Yes, I am giving you a fair return 
upon the moneys invested in the street 
cleaning department of this city, be- 
cause I am cleaning so many thousands 
of square yards of streets by machine, 
so much by hand sweeping, so much by 
flushing, and the cost to you, the public, 
is so and so.” He can give definite 
figures as to the benefits conferred, the 
service which is rendered. He can, by 
rule of thumb almost, prove to you that 
you are getting a fair return — if his ad- 
ministration is good — for the money ex- 
pended in the street cleaning depart- 
ment. 
Now the park man, as I see it, 
when confronted by this question is 
in a dilemma. How shall he prove 
that the public gets a fair return 
from its investments in parks? The 
services which city parks render, the 
benefits which they confer, can not 
be measured by rule of thumb. The 
great benefits which come to in- 
dividuals from the existence of parks 
as breathing spaces and recreation 
places belong largely to those subtle 
influences which leave their beneficial 
impress upon the human body and 
soul in a manner that evades all en- 
deavor at definite measurement. The 
sunshine, pure air, exhilaration of 
aesthetic surrounding, and general 
recreation all contribute to the health 
of body and mind and provide in- 
spirations which elevate ideals and 
improve the quality of man. But we 
can only reason about these advan- 
tages in a general sort of way. 
However, reply along these lines 
might not entirely satisfy one who 
would question the wisdom of in- 
vestments in parks, particularly when 
the consideration is whether the city 
is adequately provided or inadequate- 
ly provided. Can a city ever have too 
