The obvious benefits of parks, nature preserves, waterfronts, hiking trails and bike paths are recreation and aesthetics. People need exercise and fresh air. And we all need beauty around us.

Urban green space benefits to residents

Other human-centered urban green space benefits are:

• Promotes psychological well-being
• Brings people together to socialize
• Visually softens the hard lines and surfaces of a city
• Reconnects people with nature

Green spaces bring the philosophy and lifestyle of rural living to the ‘concrete jungle,’ and why not? Cities should have biological diversity and the relaxation associated with the country. I think a city would be an ideal place to live with the culture, job variety and stimulation coupled with nature and ecology.

Urban green space benefits to the environment

Aside from the human factor, urban greenbelts also benefit the environment:

• Prevent soil erosion. Plants hold soil in place.
• Absorb rainwater runoff. Instead of rushing down a concrete or asphalt road into a sewer system, rainwater is absorbed into the soil to benefit the growth of trees, shrubs, flowers and grasses. This means less watering maintenance and less expense to deal with runoff.
• Cool the city. Greenbelts absorb summer heat.
• Trees absorb pollutants and take CO2 from the atmosphere, turning it into oxygen.
• Create wildlife habitat. If you build it, they will come – birds, mammals and reptiles, that is.
• Maintain and enhance the existing ecosystem, encouraging diversity of native plants and wildlife.
• Teach children and adults alike about the environment, so they can learn to appreciate and care for it.

Select urban centers with green spaces in the U.S

New York City, New York

Probably the oldest and certainly the most famous urban green space is Central Park in New York City, designed in the 1800s by Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux.

New York City's Central Park. Photo: Nicola since 1972

Today, the Central Park Conservancy is responsible for upkeep of:

• ‘250 acres of lawns
• 24,000 trees, 150 acres of lakes and streams
• 130 acres of woodlands
• hundreds of thousands of plantings annually, including bulbs, shrubs, flowers and trees
• maintain 9,000 benches, 26 ballfields and 21 playgrounds; 55 sculptures and monuments, as well as 36 bridges
• graffiti removal within 24 hours; collection of 5 million pounds of trash a year; and providing horticultural support to City parks.
• There is also a 22-acre lake in Central Park, the ultimate green space!

Chicago, Illinois

According to Popular Science, Chicago made the list of the 50 greenest US cities for its 12,000 acres of public parks and waterfront space.

Huntsville, Alabama
The Huffington Post says Huntsville, Alabama has 46,000 acres of greenspace, 33% of its city limits.

Austin, Texas

Austin, Texas has 50 miles of bike trails, and 15% of its space is dedicated to parks and greenbelts.

St.Paul, Minnesota
According to National Geographic St Paul, Minnesota has 25% of its urban area in greenbelts.

Portland, Oregon
Realtor.com says Portland, Oregon has 74 miles of hiking/biking trails and a revitalized waterfront park. It is also protecting 25 million acres of forest and farmland.

San Francisco, California

The Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. Photo: meganpru

San Francisco boasts Golden Gate Park and the Presidio, along with miles of bike paths and beaches.

US cities are not the only ones to appreciate green space. Malmö, Sweden has extensive parks and greenbelts, according to Grist.

Urban green spaces are a rising trend all around

It’s not just large cities that are creating green spaces. I have lived in two small towns that have rebuilt their waterfronts with extensive parks, gardens and nature preserves. Ironic that we bulldozed nature to build cities, and now we are trying to build nature back into them. No matter. I’m glad to see urban green spaces gaining in popularity.

Yet, according to recent research it seems that, when it comes to the greenest place in America, we should change our vision from a bucolic rural scene of a solitary man with Greig floating all around him, and change it to the bustling metropolis of New York City, with its teeming masses, apartment buildings, and maybe put on a little Talking Heads, Ramones, Blondie, or the New York Dolls.

David Owen, staff writer for the New Yorker, writes this article about New York City as a green capital of America .  The argument is pretty compelling, and some of the many reasons Owen cites are extremely interesting, yet not really all that surprising.  In New York City, it is the size of the place measured against the number of people in that space which really drives a tendency toward greener living, and more green building too.  For instance:

• car ownership is lower than in other places – emissions and gas consumption is also lower
• public transit use is the norm, not the exception
• walking to local amenities is easy practically everywhere in the city
• apartment living is more energy efficient- New Yorkers consume less electricity than any other place in the country

One of the most interesting things about this is the cultural expectation question. As Owen points out, most people think of cities as the’ great dispoilers’ of the environment.  The image of the densely populated city is often just the image used to portray the antithesis of green. Yet, Owen is suggesting that in terms of consumption, use of building resources, and use of energy as well, the exact opposite is true.

Once again, I really think that perceptions play a huge role when it comes to the shifting paradigms needed to make green living, and green building.  Yet, when communities are made with a public transit system close by, and with plenty of locations to walk to instead of having to drive, and when populations are forced to make more with less in terms of space, changing of habits fall into place without much of a change of mind.

It makes me wonder how this information will have an impact on city planning, and in the curtailing of suburban sprawl, which practically makes a multi-car household a necessity.  It kind of amuses me that with an anti-urban sentiment in the rhetoric of a lot of people when it comes to environmental degradation has been shown to be extremely questionable at best.

Perhaps cities serve the environment best by keeping more people self-contained and provided for while also keeping them out of the natural world, too.  It’s an interesting idea.

Cheers,

Rob.