The Report Card on Parks 2007 An Independent Assessment of City’s Neighborhood Parks Table of Contents

3 The Report Card on Parks

5 Why another Report Card on Parks?

8 Summary of Methodology

11 Findings

16 Conclusions and Recommendations

19 Detailed Methodology

24 Find Your Park

30 New Yorkers for Parks The Report Card on Parks

New Yorkers for Parks’ award-winning The Report Card has three goals: need, but, more importantly, The Report Card indicates how we might begin to To provide communities with address that need. By highlighting both Report Card on Parks provides quantitative an assessment of how their high- and low-performing parks, as well neighborhood park is perform- performance data on neighborhood parks 1 as systemic issues, best practices can be ing in comparison to other parks identified and implemented in select in the city. This easily accessible throughout the five boroughs. In short, it tells parks and incorporated citywide. The online information helps communi- Report Card is used by non-profit parks ties advocate for improved services New Yorkers how their parks are doing in key groups, foundations, and public agen- in their neighborhood parks. service areas, like bathrooms, playgrounds, and cies, including the Parks Department. To provide an independent Further, this analysis encourages a assessment of neighborhood pathways. Unlike the larger, high-profile parks more efficient distribution of limited park performance from year 2 resources toward our parks and play- of , neighborhood parks are to year against a defined minimum grounds that are most “in need” and level of service. This creates account- assists in developing strategies for often solely dependent on public funding and, ability for providing both this defined additional funding sources. level of service as well as needed improve- as The Report Card has documented, receive ments for every park throughout the five boroughs – and the results show. The Report Card on Parks was inadequate maintenance attention. honored in 2005 by the Brookings To spark debate among Institution as an outstanding communities, public agen- community indicators project. 3 cies, and advocates about how best to improve and maintain neighborhood parks in need. The Report Card provides a valuable service by identifying those parks in greatest

2007 Report Card on Parks  The Report Card on P arks

The Report Card vs. the New Yorkers for Parks’ outreach efforts Parks Inspection Program Reporting on Park Performance: have shown that many communi- The Department of Parks and Recreation The Parks Inspection Program (PIP) ties throughout the five boroughs are (DPR) evaluates its properties using a frustrated with the conditions of their nationally recognized comprehensive In 2005, DPR began providing individual of Operations website. Citywide results neighborhood parks. New Yorkers rely on program, the Parks Inspection Program park inspection data on its website due are available in the annual Mayor’s Manage- parks and playgrounds for recreation and (PIP). While PIP rates sites from a park to legislation passed by the New York City ment Report (a publication evaluating the relaxation, and the lack of maintenance management perspective, the survey used Council. While the provision of this data performance of each city agency). These and staffing can result in bare lawns, in The Report Cardwas designed from the is an essential first step, the following various presentations of the data should clogged and broken drinking fountains, park user’s perspective. By listing grades improvements would make PIP results be centrally located and easy to access on and littered pathways. These neighbor- park-by-park in alphabetical order, New much more useful to communities: the Parks Department’s website to allow hood parks are the front and back yards Yorkers for Parks’ Report Card is intended for meaningful comparisons at the park, of New Yorkers – and they deserve better. n PIP results should be easy to find to provide a comparative analysis of park Community Board, and borough levels. online. A link to PIP results should be conditions as an easy-to-use tool for made available on the front page of the n PIP evaluations should be explicitly communities. DPR website. Today, a park user must tied to resource deployment. Currently,

search for information about a specific information on park spending is not In addition, the two inspection pro- park in order to see a link to inspection linked to PIP results. In order to make grams evaluate parks in different ways. results. Even those New Yorkers who are effective budget decisions, council mem- For example, The Report Card rates and aware that PIP results exist online still bers and constituents must be able to scores bathrooms and drinking foun- find it difficult to locate information on determine how financial resources impact tains. Although the Parks Department their neighborhood park because the park performance. For example, DPR tracks these features through PIP, they data is obscured within the DPR website. could provide the amount of capital and do not influence a park’s rating, nor are maintenance dollars spent on playground the results of these inspections made n PIP results should be centrally located. safety surfacing over time alongside the public, other than at the citywide level. Currently, PIP data is presented in various percentage of safety surfacing rated Recently, the department began posting ways on multiple websites. A user search- “acceptable,” so that the public can deter- PIP ratings on its website, but improve- ing for inspection results for a specific mine whether or not sufficient funding is ments are needed to make the data more park can find them on the DPR website. being provided. The Mayor’s Management user-friendly (see sidebar). PIP results aggregated by Community Report would be a good forum for this Board can be found on the Mayor’s Office type of information.

 New Yorkers for Parks Why another Report Card on Parks?

In 2003, New Yorkers for Parks released its firstReport Card on Parks. Along with refreshing our survey universe to correspond with the DPR’s PIP roster, The Report Card is designed to track trends in park conditions, highlight we have made several needed changes to the methodology of The Report Card. successes, identify consistent challenges, and enhance the park policy Most significantly, evaluations of athletic fields and bathrooms have been revised discussion. Since 2003, The Report Card has been a catalyst for change and refined this year. An evaluation form was created to specifically measure the in New York City’s park system. New Yorkers for Parks will continue conditions of synthetic turf fields, and to use The Report Card to measure conditions and strive for effective the “Bathroom” form was refined to include measures that the NYC De- solutions to the challenges it documents. partment of Health uses in evaluating bathrooms at public beaches, which are operated by DPR. These changes limit In 2006, New Yorkers for Parks updated the ability to draw year-to-year com- the universe of sites inspected through The Report Card: Accomplishments parisons of park performance; however, The Report Card to correspond more Since its inception, The Report Card has been that leveraged public and private funding to this report provides general contextual exactly to the Parks Department’s Park a vehicle for new management strategies bring full-time gardeners and extra financial comparisons of conditions over time. For Inspection Program (PIP) and so that our resulting in measurable park improvements. support to needy parks across the city. more specific historical information on inspection sites would mirror the DPR’s The creation of the Neighborhood Parks Participating parks were chosen based on performance, please download the 2005 own inspection categorizations. This new Initiative (NPI) was one of the most notable needs documented by The Report Card and Report Card on Parks from www.ny4p.org. neighborhood park list is based on the accomplishments of The Report Card. PIP. Gardeners were trained by the Central PIP roster. New Yorkers for Parks used Founded by New Yorkers for Parks and Park Conservancy based on their suc- the same process as in previous years to the Parks Department, the program was cessful “zone management” model of park determine the study universe, focusing designed to address the lack of fixed staff maintenance. The program has significantly on all “park” properties between 1–20 in city parks, which results in inadequate improved conditions of participating parks, acres. Due to the use of this new, more maintenance, as detailed in the 2003 Report and its success is evidenced by the Mayor’s accurate, park roster the 2007 Report Card on Parks. NPI was a partnership among FY 2008 Preliminary Budget, which base- Card universe is made up of 111 parks, New Yorkers for Parks, DPR, lined $1.5 million to make these gardener fewer than previous reports.1 Conservancy, and City Parks Foundation positions permanent.

1 Of the neighborhood parks surveyed for the 2007 Report Card, 23% (26 parks) had never been surveyed before, while 77% (85 parks) had been surveyed at least once before in 2003, 2004, or 2005. 2007 Report Card on Parks  Why another Report Card on Parks?

The findings ofThe Report Card have historically reflected the concerns that “Constant use of our parks necessitates New Research Tools many of New York City’s communities daily clean-up and maintenance of the Due to the success of The Report Card, n 2006 Progress Report on Neighborhood have regarding their parks. Some of these parks sites in Community Board 2. New Yorkers for Parks has expanded this Parks: This report provided new data on concerns are expressed below, in excerpts Overflowing trash baskets combined with model in recent years to measure the con- the ten highest and ten lowest perform- from the FY 2007 Community District piles of litter throughout the parks attract ditions of our neighborhood parks in new ing parks of the 2005 Report Card. Needs Statements, issued by the Depart- vermin and rats, which are detrimental to ways and to measure the performance of ment of City Planning and the Office of our residents and discourage use of our n 2007 Report Card on Beaches: This sum- different types of park properties: Management and Budget: precious open spaces.” mer, New Yorkers for Parks will release – Community District 2 n 2005 Mini Report Card on Parks: Monthly this new report measuring the conditions Bronx inspections of athletic fields, drinking of all seven municipal beaches, which are “The re-seeding of grass, the pruning of fountains, and bathrooms in June, July, managed by the Parks Department. trees and bushes, as well as the repair of “Tree planting and pruning, landscap- and August documented how conditions park benches, in all of our parks, remains ing, and erosion control are needed, as These publications, available at www.ny4p. change over the summer, a high-use a major concern of this district. We are rehabilitation of pavements, playing org, are tools for communities to assist season. continue to be distressed at progressive courts, and amenities, such as comfort them in effectively advocating for change. financial cuts suffered by this agency lim- stations and water fountains. Redesign iting both its capital and expense efforts.” of sufficient numbers of park pathways – Community District 4 and facilities to make parks accessible to the disabled are crucial capital terms.” – Community District 2 “Additional workers are needed to provide gardening/horticulture, pruning, erosion control, and graffiti removal. Without “Every year the number of workers for the adequate staff, major capital investments Parks Department is reduced – enough is and horticulture will be in jeopardy.” enough – we need more workers, not less. – Community District 7 What good is all the money for capital projects if you can’t use the parks because they are not maintained?” – Community District 2

These statements show the importance that neighborhood parks play in every New Yorker’s life.

 New Yorkers for Parks

Summary of Methodology

This report is intended as a follow-up to Grading the Parks Survey Mechanism Raw Numerical Grade Letter Grade the New Yorkers for Parks 2003, 2004, New Yorkers for Parks convened a focus New Yorkers for Parks uses a compre- 97-100 A+ and 2005 Report Card on Parks. Below group of park experts and community hensive survey mechanism developed 93-96 A is a summary of the methodology con- leaders to help define the eight MSAs, specifically forThe Report Card on Parks 90-92 A- structed for this report; a full discussion along with a scale of weights to reflect to determine a park’s rating. There are 87-89 B+ of the methodology can be found in the the relative importance of different indi- eight MSAs tracked through the survey 83-86 B “Detailed Methodology” section. cators. MSAs were weighted on a scale mechanism that break down into 12 80-82 B- of 1 to 5 (5 being the most important to feature forms. Surveyors complete a Survey Population 77-79 C+ a park user’s experience). These service survey feature form for each of the fea- As in years past, in constructing 73-76 C areas were evaluated on maintenance, tures found in a park. For example, The Report Card, New Yorkers for 70-72 C- cleanliness, safety, and structural integrity. if there are three drinking fountains in Parks focused on DPR “park” proper- 60-69 D Thus, for each of the 111 parks included a park, a surveyor completes three ties between one and 20 acres, as these 59 and below F in the survey, every applicable MSA ‘Drinking Fountain’ forms. Surveyors properties represent New York City’s was assigned a numerical score. A park’s Score / Grade associations developed by a focus answer a series of questions on the neighborhood parks. In 2007, New York- overall numerical score was calculated as group of park managers and open space experts. maintenance, cleanliness, safety, and ers for Parks referred to the DPR’s Parks a weighted average of these service area structural integrity of a feature. The total Inspection Program roster, which defined The survey is designed to fairly rate all scores. The numerical scores were then park score is based on the percentage a survey population of 123 small to mid- features that are or should be available to converted to a final letter grade. of features evaluated that are found in size parks, fewer properties than in previ- a user visiting a park. By way of example, acceptable condition. ous years. Several of these parks were Each park was assigned a numerical score if a park has a bathroom facility that is not included in the study. For example, from 0 to 100 in each applicable MSA, locked or closed without explanation, it Survey Work 2 we did not survey those parks that were based on the proportion of features in receives a “0” for the bathroom rating. Finally, New Yorkers for Parks staff closed for capital improvement. Further, those service areas found to be in accept- However, if the park does not have a conducted the survey Tuesday through certain park properties, like skating rinks, able condition. This was done using an bathroom, it does not receive a score for Friday between June and August 2006, , or forests with no user trails, have independently developed survey mecha- bathrooms, so that a park is never penal- a high-use season for public parks. none of The Report Card’s Major Service nism that is based on the DPR’s Parks ized for not having a particular Major Teams of trained surveyors used hand- Areas (MSAs) and were dropped from Inspection Program (PIP). Next, MSA Service Area. held computers and digital cameras to consideration in this report (the full scores were averaged by weight to give an complete the evaluations. For each list of MSAs can be found on the next overall numerical park score. (Those parks MSA evaluated, digital photographs page). The final survey universe in 2007 lacking one or more of the MSAs were were taken; both survey forms and consisted of 111 park properties, 85 of not penalized.) Letter grades correspond- photos are stored as documentation which have been surveyed at least once ing to these numerical scores comprise the of survey efforts and results. in 2003, 2004, or 2005. final park ratings in accordance with the following conversion table:

2 All surveying for the 2007 Report Card on Parks took place during the summer of 2006. Any capital projects or other park improvements that were completed between the date of a given park’s evaluation and the publication of this report have no effect on the park’s grade. For example, River Drive Park’s grade is based solely on inspection data collected in June 2006 and is  New Yorkers for Parks not impacted by the ballfield renovation that began in September 2006. Why another Report Card on Parks?

Major Service Area Description Weight Major Service Area Description Weight

Active This MSA evaluates all athletic fields and Bathrooms This MSA evaluates each discrete Recreation courts in a park. Athletic fields include 3 bathroom or comfort station in a park. 4 natural grass, asphalt and synthetic soccer, football, and baseball fields, and courts include basketball, handball, bocce, and volleyball facilities.

Passive This MSA evaluates all green and passive Drinking This MSA evaluates each discrete Greenspace features in a park. Features included in this 5 Fountains drinking fountain in a park. 3 service area are lawns, landscaped areas, and gardens; park trees; waterbodies; and natural areas. The trees included in the form are only those contained within tree pits in the park.

Playgrounds This MSA evaluates all playground areas Sitting Areas This MSA evaluates each discrete and playground equipment in a park. 5 sitting area in a park. 5

Immediate This MSA measures how well a park Pathways This MSA evaluates each type of walkway Environment is insulated from potential negative 3 in a park, including asphalt, dirt, turf, or 3 impacts of its surroundings. Intrusive concrete. odors, emissions, exhaust and excessive noise are monitored.

2007 Report Card on Parks 

Findings

The Report Card shows that although targeted management strategies The Report Card documented a large percentage of parks receiving are effective, inadequate care remains a challenge. The varying quality of C’s, D’s and F’s. Unfortunately, the “A”s and “B”s were maintenance results in too many parks receiving average and failing scores. few and far between in this year’s surveys. Less than one quarter of the parks sur- The quality of neighborhood park and is cared for through dedicated been directed to Bronx parks as mitiga- veyed received an “A” or “B”. “A” parks parks varies widely throughout funding by Park City Parks tion for the construction of the Croton comprised 9% of the universe, while New York City. Conservancy. The two groups are able to Water Filtration plant in Van Cortlandt “B” parks comprised 14%. The majority Even among parks that rely solely on devote significant resources to manage Park and the new Yankee Stadium in of parks – representing 39% of those public funds, there is a disparity in park and maintain these sites. Unfortunately, . In addition, across surveyed – received “C” grades. 16% of conditions. Hellgate Field in Queens the lowest scoring park citywide, Spuyten the city, new parks like the and parks received “D”s and 22% received (90%), one of the highest performing Duyvil Shorefront Park in , Fresh Kills Park are being constructed. “F”s. This breakdown of grades differs sig- parks, and Crawford Fields in Brooklyn received only a 32% (F). (This park was While capital funding can bring about nificantly from pastReport Cards, where (33%), one of the low performers, offer new to the survey universe this year.) impressive improvements in the short the percentage of parks earning each similar features – baseball fields and term, long-term success is dependent grade was more evenly split. drinking fountains – but vary widely in As five years of survey results have upon consistent maintenance. The Report maintenance conditions. shown, individual park conditions often Card shows that maintenance of existing fluctuate from year to year depending on parks continues to be a challenge. Disparities also exist between parks that maintenance. Frequently, parks that rely have access to private funding and those solely on public funding do not receive that do not. The two highest perform- consistent care and are subject to irregular Breakdown of Grades Citywide Number of Parks by Grade ing parks this year were and maintenance levels. These disparities exist 3 Public Place (Battery Park City.) Bryant throughout neighborhood parks in New 43 Park, privately funded and managed by York City, and they must be addressed. the Bryant Park Restoration Corpora- A: 9% tion, has been the highest scoring park in The Parks Department is currently F: 22% B: 14% every year of Report Card surveys. Public managing the largest capital budget in its 24 Place has been a consistently high scoring history,4 due in part to funding for Lower Manhattan after 9/11 and money that has 18 D: 16% 16

C: 39% 10

A Parks B Parks C Parks D Parks F Parks

3 Public Place is one of several city parks in Battery Park City (BPC). At this time, it is the only BPC site listed in the Parks Department’s roster and therefore the only site in BPC that is evaluated by The Report Card. BPC’s 32 acres of parkland include all of The Report Card’s Major Service Areas, though only 1.25 are found at Public Place. 4 Department of Parks & Recreation, “Biennial Report 2004-2005.” Available from www.nycgovparks.org. 2007 Report Card on Parks 11 Why another Report Card on Parks?

This year’s citywide average park score was Best and Worst Citywide In past Report Cards, at least one park Bathroom conditions have a 70% (C-), evidence of the need for im- Of the ten highest performing parks in in the list of the ten highest performers consistently improved, reflecting proved maintenance. This is a significant the 2007 Report Card, six are in Manhat- has been located in Staten Island. This successful management strategies. decline from previous citywide averages of tan, two are in Brooklyn, and two are year, none of the top performers are in This year’s bathroom survey form was 80%, 78%, and 74% in 2005, 2004, and in Queens. None are in the Bronx or that borough, which is evidence of the modified to reflect the way that the NYC 2003, respectively. Although the universe Staten Island. Seven of the ten have been fluctuating maintenance of neighbor- Department of Health rates DPR-op- of parks surveyed changed considerably in surveyed in previous Report Cards, while hood parks. A park that scores an “A” erated public bathrooms at beaches. 2007, the primary reasons for this drop in the remaining three parks are new to The one year can slip the next year, due to Despite this more rigorous evaluation of the citywide score are poorer conditions Report Card this year. conditions such as overgrown lawns or park bathrooms, the “Bathrooms” feature of specific Major Service Areas (MSAs), leaking drinking fountains. In addition, earned a 72% (C-), similar to 2005 per- such as passive greenspace and active Of the ten lowest performers in this year’s changes in this year’s survey universe formance levels. This stable rating shows recreation, as well as inadequate mainte- survey, all five boroughs are represented: resulted in a higher percentage of Staten that the Parks Department has been able nance attention across the board. three parks are in the Bronx, three are in Island parks composed primarily of natu- to effectively manage this feature. Only Staten Island, two are in Queens, one is ral areas, a feature that has historically 6% of surveyed bathrooms were locked in Brooklyn, and one is in Manhattan. performed poorly. without explanation this year, which also Six of these have been surveyed in previ- represents a remarkable success. In the ous Report Cards, and the remaining four 2004 Report Card, 20% of bathrooms parks are new to the universe of Report were locked. Targeted management strat- Card sites this year. egies such as DPR’s “Operation Relief,” which focused on improving bathroom conditions, should be implemented for other service areas where possible.

Highest Performing Parks Lowest Performing Parks Rank Park Name Borough 2007 Score Grade Rank Park Name Borough 2007 Score Grade

1 BRYANT PARK Manhattan 99 A+ 111 SPUYTEN DUYVIL SHOREFRONT PARK Bronx 32 F 1 PUBLIC PLACE (BATTERY PARK CITY) Manhattan 99 A+ 109 TOTTENVILLE SHORE PARK Staten Island 33 F 3 Manhattan 94 A 109 MSGR CRAWFORD FIELD Brooklyn 33 F 4 BEACH CHANNEL PARK Queens 93 A 108 HARLEM RIVER PARK Manhattan 34 F 5 THEODORE ROOSEVELT PARK Manhattan 92 A- 107 EIBS POND PARK Staten Island 38 F 5 LOUIS J VALENTINO JR PARK AND PIER Brooklyn 92 A- 104 POWELL’S COVE PARK Queens 40 F 5 FIDLER/WYCKOFF HOUSE PARK Brooklyn 92 A- 104 CO-OP CITY FIELDS Bronx 40 F 8 Manhattan 91 A- 104 SOUTHERN FIELDS Queens 40 F 9 HELLGATE FIELD Queens 90 A- 103 VETERANS PARK Staten Island 41 F 9 UNION SQUARE Manhattan 90 A- 102 ewen PARK Bronx 44 F

12 New Yorkers for Parks Why another Report Card on Parks?

Immediate Environment, “Sitting Areas” received a 78% (C+) this The “Natural Areas” feature has erosion, and other signs of deterioration. Pathways, and Sitting Areas year, similar to past results. Primary chal- historically performed poorly on Enhancements to the Forestry and Hor- perform satisfactorily. lenges included litter, graffiti, and dam- The Report Card, and this year is no ticultural staff are needed to sufficiently Historically, “Pathways,” “Sitting Areas,” aged benches. “Pathways” earned a rating different. Four of the ten lowest perform- address these issues. and “Immediate Environment” have of 77% (C+), with cracks and missing, ing parks this year are made up primarily Recreation features require been among the higher scoring service raised, or sunken pavement providing of natural areas, such as woodlands. The increased maintenance. areas, and although their scores slipped the majority of unacceptable conditions. average score for “Natural Areas” was a “Playgrounds,” historically a high per- slightly this year, the 2007 results con- Pathways were also affected by excessive 46% (F) this year, due primarily to exces- forming feature, are beginning to slip. tinue that trend. litter and debris. sive litter, damaged fencing, and broken glass. Erosion and excessive natural debris Although this feature earned a 79% (C+) “Immediate Environment” has been “Green” service areas were also frequently cited. Although basic this year, performing higher than most the highest rated service area in every need attention. maintenance attention is required to other service areas, this represents a de- Report Card on Parks. The average score The “Passive Greenspace” MSA per- clean trash and broken glass, additional cline from previous years’ scores, typically this year was 89% (B+). Immediate formed poorly this year, receiving only Forestry staff and services would address in the “B” to “B+” range. “Playgrounds” environment conditions are measured a 66% (D). Passive greenspace features erosion and other similar issues. in the 2007 survey were particularly af- by assessing the accessibility of the park were affected by horticultural issues, such fected by damaged or missing equipment, and the impact of its surroundings. as bare, discolored, or overgrown grass on Poor tree performance in this year’s including missing swings and excessive survey presents a similar concern. Trees The high score reflects the fact that New lawns, and dead branches on trees and in rust, found at 27% of sites. Maintenance in tree pits scored an average of 75% (C), York City parks are typically safely acces- lawns. Litter and broken glass were less also presented a challenge in this service representing a significant decline since sible and are not markedly impacted by frequently noted. area, with sloppy paint jobs and needed smog, noise, or traffic. the 2005 Report Card. Although litter or shoddy repairs frequently found. and broken glass were found, poor tree Safety surfacing was rated “unacceptable” health and damaged tree pits were the at 12% of sites, resulting in unsafe condi- Average Score of Each Major Service Area (MSA) most common problems. The health of tions for children. 89% trees in lawns had a 36% “unacceptable” rating, resulting from dead branches, 77% 78% 79% 72% 66% 60%

40%

Active Bathrooms Drinking Immediate Passive Pathways Sitting Playgrounds Recreation Fountains Environment Greenspace Areas

2007 Report Card on Parks 13 Why another Report Card on Parks?

“Active Recreation” features continue Drinking Fountains continue to to perform poorly. This feature received perform poorly. Synthetic Turf a 60% (D) this year. Courts received a As in years past, Drinking Fountains In recent years, the NYC Parks Department Generally, synthetic turf fields that were disappointing score of 68% (D), while received a failing grade (40%). This has increasingly turned to synthetic turf installed in the past two years performed grass, asphalt, and synthetic athletic fields feature is plagued by maintenance, safety, for field renovations due to the mainte- in the “A” and “B” range. Fields installed received a 52% (F) average. Nearly one- and structural challenges. Even when nance challenges of natural grass as well as before 2004 did not fare as well, suffering quarter (23%) of grass athletic fields that drinking fountains provide water with the increased demand for field play time. more frequently from loose seams and litter, were evaluated were locked or had exces- sufficient pressure, users frequently find For time in 2007, The Report Card which raises concerns regarding how well sive broken glass, severely impacting the trash, mold, and severe leaks. These unac- specifically tracked the performance of synthetic fields are being maintained and score for that feature. Considering the ceptable conditions must be addressed synthetic turf to baseline conditions. The how they will hold up into the future. through the development of a program average score for the nine fields surveyed intense demand for play time in NYC, For more information on synthetic turf, similar to “Operation Relief,” which was 74% (C). Although synthetic fields athletic fields should never be locked please visit ny4p.org and download the park improved bathrooms. earned a higher average score than grass during high-use times. policy paper, “A New Turf War: Synthetic fields, which received an average of 59% (F), Turf in NYC Parks.” most synthetic fields have been installed in the past two to three years and have not been subject to the same amount of wear and tear as natural grass fields.

14 New Yorkers for Parks Why another Report Card on Parks?

Citywide, increased maintenance Unfortunately, more than half of Why do “in need” parks fail? is needed. playgrounds, courts, athletic fields, and Of the 42 parks that received a “D” or For every feature evaluated, surveyors are sitting areas scored “unacceptable” for “F” this year, the chart below details what asked to rate whether or not the feature is this measure, due to sloppy paint jobs, percentage of these parks received a fail- free of maintenance repair needs. Survey- poor graffiti coverage, and needed paint ing score (below 60%) for each MSA. ors are provided with a series of thresh- or other repairs. These conditions are olds to answer this question, including prevalent throughout the neighborhood While about one-third of “D” and “F” whether or not there are “sloppy painting parks surveyed for The Report Card. parks received failing scores for Path- jobs on 25% or more of equipment The chart below details the percentage of ways, Sitting Areas, and Playgrounds, (paint outside area to be painted; on the each feature receiving an “unacceptable” an alarming 94% received failing grades wall/ground near area to be painted; or rating for maintenance work. for Drinking Fountains. Active Rec- new paint that does not cover the entire reation and Passive Greenspace also surface of a feature), poorly constructed had high failure rates for these parks. repairs on 10% or more of equipment Focusing attention on horticulture, (loose or moving parts, protruding parts, maintenance of courts and ballfields, and mismatched paint or parts), chipping or staff to address the problems of drink- peeling paint on 25% or more of equip- ing fountains could greatly enhance the ment, other evidence of carelessness?” performance of these parks.

Percentage of “Maintenance Work” Observations Scored “Unacceptable” Percentage of “D” and “F” Parks Failing (scoring less than 60) for Each MSA 94%

66% 69% 60% 58% 56% 60%

45% 47% 46% 42% 38% 38% 35% 33% 32%

14%

Athletic Bathrooms Courts Drinking Lawns Playgrounds Sitting Trees Pathways Active Bathrooms Drinking Immediate Passive Pathways Sitting Playgrounds Fields Fountains Areas Recreation Fountains Environment Greenspace Areas

2007 Report Card on Parks 15 Conclusions and Recommendations

The 2007 Report Card on Parks shows that targeted management strat- 1. Greening: n Augment the Forestry Team to egies are effective, but too many of our neighborhood parks still suffer improve maintenance of natural areas and trees. from insufficient maintenance. The Mayor and City Council have taken 2. Recreation: an important step to ensure green, safe, and clean parks by adding $25 n Enhance dedicated staffing and funding for playgrounds. million in new funding to the DPR’s FY 2008 budget. The City should n Ensure that athletic fields are unlocked during high-use times. continue its efforts towards sufficiently funding the Parks Department 3. Maintenance: – an important step in improving park services. n Expand training for maintenance workers and ensure efficient and consistent repairs. The City is also investing in parks through the PlaNYC 2030 initiative 1. GREENING to ensure New York’s sustainable growth. This project will outline how Augment the Forestry Team to improve maintenance of trees and the city’s infrastructure – including its “green infrastructure” – will grow natural areas. The Report Card on Parksclearly shows to accommodate one million new residents in the next 25 years. This the need for additional care for trees and natural areas throughout the city. important initiative sets broad, ambitious and needed targets for our Natural areas are one of the lowest performing features on The Report Card park system, and to ensure their implementation, the City must support and too frequently are affected by severe erosion and debris. PlaNYC 2030 calls its agencies with sufficient financial and management resources. for the preservation of natural areas as a way to mitigate pollution and open NYC’s waterways to recreation. However, The following recommendations address the needs documented by the important environmental benefits of natural areas will not be fully realized The Report Card while working to meet the goals of PlaNYC 2030: unless staffing levels are augmented to provide for consistent care.

16 New Yorkers for Parks Why another Report Card on Parks?

Trees are another integral aspect of 2. RECREATION Ensure that athletic fields are 3. MAINTENANCE PlaNYC 2030. The Parks Department Enhance dedicated staffing and unlocked during high-use times. Expand training for maintenance has a commendable goal to increase funding for playgrounds. The Parks Department must address workers and ensure efficient and consistent repairs. the tree canopy from 24% to 30% to PlaNYC 2030 aims to ensure that every the low performance of athletic fields. Report improve environmental conditions and New Yorker lives within a ten minute Ballfields must be adequately maintained Finally, the results of this year’s Card on Parks overall quality of life. While street trees walk of a park – an admirable goal. But and unlocked during high-use times. show a need not only for are regularly pruned every ten years, even more importantly, it is the City’s According to the agency, applications for more frequent maintenance care but also NYC’s two million park trees are pruned responsibility to make sure that those permits for baseball and softball fields for improved maintenance strategies. Pol- on an “emergency only” basis, resulting parks are safe and sufficiently main- have doubled over the past six years.7 icies and practices including the response in trees with dead and hanging branches tained. The decline in the conditions of In a city that is struggling to meet the time for needed repairs, training of work- in desperate need of maintenance, as playgrounds in this year’s Report Card is demands of sports field users, baseball ers, and availability of supplies should be evidenced by The Report Cardresults. disconcerting. Urban children depend on and soccer fields in public parks should evaluated and enhanced. Maintenance This troubling standard of care must be these play spaces as safe areas to recreate never be locked during high-use times. must be completed in a timely and pro- improved, especially when tree issues and exercise but too often are met with The City owes it to New Yorkers to open fessional manner in every neighborhood represent the majority of park-related unsafe conditions. these fields so that all may enjoy them. park, so that clean, safe, and green parks calls to 311.5 are the standard throughout every New In the late 1990s, the City successfully In addition, when natural grass fields York City community. Today, DPR employs only 14 Foresters focused capital funding on refurbishing are open for play, they are frequently and only 54 Climber/Pruners – less than and rebuilding playgrounds across the found in poor condition. This ongoing one per Community District – to care city. Unfortunately, ten years later, a lack issue must also be addressed. The instal- for the two million trees in city parks.6 of sufficient maintenance has resulted lation of synthetic turf is not the only By increasing forestry resources, the City in rusted or missing equipment and way to tackle the maintenance challenges would ensure the health of natural areas safety surfacing in disrepair in too many of grass. The Parks Department must and trees and improve their capacity to neighborhood parks. A new infusion of develop a targeted management strategy mitigate the effects of the urban environ- capital is needed to conduct minor im- to maintain natural grass facilities, which ment. Enhancing forestry staffing is a provements at a variety of sites across the offer significant environmental benefits great first step towards implementing city. The Mayor’s FY 2008 Preliminary that should not be overlooked. the goals of PlaNYC 2030. Budget includes funding for 40 new full- time workers responsible for maintaining playground equipment. These positions, as well as a concerted effort towards plac- ing dedicated staff in playgrounds, will help to ensure that unsafe conditions are addressed in a timely manner.

5 Mayor’s Office of Operations,Preliminary Mayor’s Management Report, Fiscal Year 2007. 6 Independent Budget Office analysis of Department of Parks and Recreation Active Positions, July 31, 2006. 7 Williams, Timothy. “Fine Diamonds, Locked Away.” The New York Times, 26 Oct. 2005. 2007 Report Card on Parks 17

Detailed Methodology

This section describes in detail the methodology developed Figure 1: Major Service Areas and Relative Weights in 2002 and used by New Yorkers for Parks in creating the Active Recreation 2007 Report Card on Parks. (courts, athletic fields) 3 Passive Greenspace (lawns, landscaped areas, gardens, Selection of the Survey Population Identification and Weighting water bodies, natural areas and trees) 5 n Selection of the survey population In constructing The Report Card, New of Major Service Areas Playgrounds 5 Yorkers for Parks (NY4P) focused on NY4P chose eight MSAs based on a n Identi fication and weighting of Sitting areas 5 DPR “park” properties of between one user-focused approach, similar to the Major Service Areas Bathrooms 4 and 20 acres in area, as these properties “zone management” system utilized by Drinking Fountains 3 n Feature forms: structure of the represent the “neighborhood park” that the Central Park Conservancy. NY4P Pathways 3 survey instrument communities are most closely tied to. In convened a group of ten community leaders and elected officials to weight Immediate Environment n Assignment of numerical scores 2007, New Yorkers for Parks referred to (impact on the park by its surroundings) 3 DPR’s Parks Inspection Program roster, the relative importance of each of these n Notes on ‘Athletic Fields’ which defined a survey population of 123 MSAs. Participants were asked to rate the n MSAs on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the Conversion of numerical scores small to mid-size parks, fewer properties Participants in the first focus group least important to their park experience, to letter grades than in previous years. However, several included Council Member Joseph of these parks could not be included in and 5 being the most important. Par- n Sample calculation: Russell Addabbo, Jr., former Chair, Parks & ticipants also provided feedback on the Pederson Playground, Brooklyn the study. For example, NY4P did not Recreation Committee, New York City structure and composition of the MSAs. survey those parks that were closed for Council; Matt Arnn, n Conduction of the survey In addition, 30 park users at Brooklyn’s capital improvement. Further, certain Forest Service, Regional Landscape n were asked to rate the rela- Comparison of 2005 to 2007 park properties, like skating rinks, amuse- Architect, New York City; John Ameroso, tive importance of the eight MSAs to be Report Cards on Parks ment parks or forests with no user trails Cornell Cooperative Extension, New have none of the major service areas and used in the survey. The rankings provided n Modi fications included in the York City; Skip Blumberg, Friends of were not included in this report. Thus, by the 30 respondents were then aver- 2007 Report Card on Parks City Hall Park; Frank Chaney, Com- aged and rounded to the nearest whole the final survey population in 2007 con- munity Board member; Jim Dowell, number to provide a final MSA relative sisted of 111 park properties, 85 of which Riverside Park Fund, Manhattan Parks weight figure: have been surveyed at least once in 2003, and Green Space Coalition; Susan 2004 or 2005. Marraccini, Turnaround Friends, Inc.; Martin Olesh, Friends of ; Robert Pasqual, Queens Coalition for Parks and Green Spaces; and Gene Russianoff, Senior Attorney, New York Public Interest Research Group.

2007 Report Card on Parks 19 Why another Report Card on Parks?

Feature Forms: from 1 to 5. Participants in the assigned a park that lacked any given sponding weights F1, F2,. . .,Fm. Final Structure of Survey Instrument second focus group included four park feature; in this way no park was penal- raw scores were then calculated as the NY4P staff, in cooperation with statisti- and advocacy experts: Mark Caserta, ized for not having any of the survey’s following quotient: cal consultants from the firm of Ernst & former Director, Waterfront Park Coali- 12 feature types. Young, then developed question forms tion, New York League of Conservation (E1 * F1 + E2 * F2 + . . .+ Em * Fm) / with which to evaluate the MSAs found Voters; Susan Craine, former Consumer Once each form is scored, MSA ratings (F1 + F2 + . . .Fm) were calculated. First, scored forms were in each park. Individual questions were Advocate, New York Public Interest Notes on Athletic Fields grouped by MSA. Those MSAs with designed to measure the performance Research Group; Neysa Pranger, Director, NY4P hosted a third focus group on exactly one corresponding completed of the MSAs in each of the following Straphangers Campaign; and Paul Saw- ‘Active Recreation Space.’ Participants in form were allotted the numerical score of categories: yer, Executive Director, Friends of Van this focus group included Tom Brasuell, n that single form. Those MSAs with more Maintenance; Cortlandt Park. A flowchart of relative Vice President, Community Relations, n than one completed form were scored Cleanliness; weights of all MSAs and feature forms ; Carlos Feliciano, n according to a weighted average of the Safety; and can be found on page 9. President, Quebradilla Baseball Organi- corresponding form scores, as follows: n Structural Integrity. Assignment of Numerical Scores zation; Rich Berlin, Executive Director, Whenever possible, the form questions Each completed form was assigned a Suppose C1, C2,. . .,Cn are the Harlem RBI; and John Oswald, Direc- were adapted from DPR’s own internal numerical grade between 0 and 100. Any n-many form scores corresponding to tor, Beacon Program Pathways for Youth. evaluation mechanism, the Parks Inspec- park feature receiving an ‘unacceptable’ a given MSA. Let D1, D2,. . .,Dn be This group provided commentary on tion Program (PIP). A second focus rating on any priority question was as- those forms’ corresponding relative ideal conditions for active recreational group was then convened to provide rela- signed a form grade of 0. However, in the weights (see page 5). MSA numerical activities and provided general feedback tive weights to individual feature forms large majority of completed forms, park scores were then calculated as the fol- on active play areas, including courts, on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being the least features received only ‘acceptable’ ratings lowing quotient: turf ballfields and asphalt ballfields, important to their park experience, and to all priority questions. In these cases, which was then integrated into the (C1 * D1 + C2 * D2 + . . .+ Cn * Dn) / 5 being the most important. Next, the fo- the calculation appears as follows: survey questions and grading system. (D1 + D2 + . . .Dn) cus group was asked to designate each of Let ‘A’ denote the sum of the relative Additional research was performed on the individual form questions as ‘priority’ No MSA rating was assigned to a weights of routine survey questions the incidence of injury incurred on vari- or ‘routine.’ Priority ratings refer to those park that lacked any given major service receiving ‘acceptable’ ratings. Let ‘B’ ous active play surfaces. Based on focus conditions of a park feature necessary for area; in this way no park was penalized denote the sum of the relative weights group results and relevant research from its safe use. Finally, the focus group rated for not having any of the survey’s eight of routine survey questions receiving the field, the athletic field form scores questions tagged as routine on a scale MSA types. either ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’ corresponding to any asphalt ballfield surveyed were reduced by 25%. ratings. Each form’s final numerical Each park’s raw score was calculated in a score is then 100 times the quotient or similar fashion. Suppose E1, E2,. . .,Em ‘A’ divided by ‘B.’ No form score was were a park’s MSA scores with corre-

1One exception to this formula is explained in section E of this methodology, Notes on Asphalt Athletic Fields.

20 New Yorkers for Parks Why another Report Card on P arks?

Conversion of Numerical Scores Fourth focus group participants Figure 3: Summary of Russell Pederson Playground Form Data to Letter Grades included Jerome Barth, Director of Form Form Scores Form Score Average A fourth focus group was convened to Operations, Bryant Park Restoration Playgrounds 82, 68, 68 73 determine the assignment of letter grades Corporation; Charles McKinney, con- Immediate Environment 100 100 to raw scores, consisting of park manag- sultant, former administrator, Riverside Lawns and Landscaped Areas 89 89 ers and open space experts. Participants Park; and Andy Stone, Director, NYC Trees 89 89 were brought to three parks in Manhat- Programs, Trust for Public Land. Sitting Areas 68 68 Bathrooms 74, 49 62 tan and asked to provide a letter grade for Sample Calculation – Russell Drinking Fountains 86, 0 43 the park based on a brief description of Pederson Playground, Brooklyn Courts 89, 88, 83 86 the MSAs and a tour of the park. These Figure 3 shows actual surveyor responses letter grades were consistent with the raw for Russell Pederson Playground in Bay Figure 4: Summary of Russell Pederson Playground MSA Data number scores for the parks and resulted Ridge, Brooklyn. Figures 3, 4 and 5 to the in the raw score/grade assignment chart. MSA Calculation MSA Score right include a summary of form data and Playgrounds Average from figure 3 73 Figure 2: Conversion from the subsequent form, MSA and park score. Immediate Environment Single form score 100 Raw Scores to Letter Grades Passive Greenspace (Lawns, Landscaped Areas*2 + Park Trees*1) / 3 89 Conduction of the Survey Sitting Areas Single form score 68 Raw Numerical Grade Letter Grade Survey work for The Report Card took Bathrooms Average from figure 3 62 97-100 A+ place from June to August 2006 from Drinking Fountains Average from figure 3 43 Active Recreation Average courts score from figure 3 93-96 A the hours of 10 AM to dusk, Tues- (no athletic fields on site) 86 90-92 A- day through Friday. NY4P trained 6 87-89 B+ surveyors (all NY4P staff members) to Russell Pederson Playground’s raw score was calculated by the weighted average of the seven MSA scores listed in figure 4. 83-86 B complete the survey work. NY4P senior Figure 5: Calculation of Raw Score and Letter Grade – Russell Pederson Playground 80-82 B- staff held a training session during spring 77-79 C+ 2006 to train surveyors in the following MSA MSA Score times Weight 73-76 C techniques: use of the handheld comput- Playgrounds 73 * 5 = 363 (with rounding) Immediate Environment 100 * 3 = 300 70-72 C- ers and digital cameras, delineation of Passive Greenspace 89 * 5 = 444 (with rounding) park features, and use of survey forms 60-69 D Sitting Areas 68 * 5 = 342 (with rounding) 59 and below F and standards manual and procedures for Bathrooms 62 * 4 = 247 (with rounding) documenting features with digital camer- Drinking Fountains 43 * 3 = 129 as. Each training session included the full Active Recreation 86 * 3 = 259 (with rounding) review of a park, collection of data ac- Total 2084 cording to defined standards, proper pho- This total, 2084, was then divided by the sum of the weights of the 7 MSAs. to documentation, safety procedures and This sum is 28, so that Russell Pederson Playground’s raw park score is 2084/28 = 74.4 methods for storing data in The Report Applying this numerical score to the letter grades listed in Figure 2, it can be seen that a Card database upon completion of survey. score of 74 corresponds to a grade of “C”.

2007 Report Card on Parks 21 Why another Report Card on Parks?

In the field, surveyors completed a form Comparison of 2005 to 2007 Modifications included in the for each feature that was delineated for Report Cards on Parks 2007 Report Card on Parks a given park. For example, for every NY4P designed The Report Card on Bathrooms drinking fountain in a park, a ‘Drinking Parks methodology in 2003 to serve two The NYC Department of Health Fountain’ form was completed so that functions. First, the report provided an and Mental Hygiene (DOHMH) is in a park with three drinking fountains, instantaneous snapshot of the conditions responsible for inspecting and measuring a surveyor completed three ‘Drinking of New York parks. This allows for (real- the conditions of bathrooms for Parks Fountain’ feature forms. Additionally, time) comparison among parks to iden- Department beach properties. In order surveyors completed a form for every tify those that showcase best practices, to hold park bathrooms accountable to playground space within natural and/or as well as those in-need parks requiring similar standards, the design team modi- constructed boundaries, for every pair of attention. Second, the methodology was fiedThe Report Card’s bathroom survey bathrooms, for every naturally bounded designed to be replicated annually, so form to reflect the measures used by lawn or landscaped area, etc. that trends at the individual park level, as DOHMH. This included the modifica- well as borough- and citywide, could be tion and addition of several questions In addition to completing feature forms, documented and addressed. on the survey. surveyors took extensive digital photo- graphs to support and complement the In constructing the methodology of the Athletic Fields survey results. All survey findings and 2007 Report Card on Parks, the goal of In recent years the NYC Parks feature forms receive an identification the design team was three-fold: one, to Department has increasingly turned number and are correlated to a series of fine tune the survey mechanism; two, to to synthetic turf for field renovations. photographs documenting conditions for remain relevant by reflecting changes Due to the growing prevalence of such each park in the survey. Survey results that have occurred in the park system in fields, the design team added a new form and photo documentation are stored in the past several years; and three, to build to the Active Recreation MSA, allow- a central database. When photo docu- off of the current evaluation procedures ing surveyors to specifically evaluate the mentation did not correlate with results used by the City. Due to these changes as performance of synthetic turf. In previ- or did not adequately illustrate park well as significant changes in the survey ous Report Card inspections, surveyors conditions, the park was revisited and universe, the comparability between 2007 evaluated synthetic turf fields using the reevaluated by surveyors. results and those of the previous years “Natural Grass Athletic Field” form. is limited. The vast majority of survey The design of the new form results instrument questions designed for the in more complete assessments of the 2007 survey were left unchanged from performance of these fields. previous years, but two significant modifications are noted at right.

22 New Yorkers for Parks

Find Your Park

How did your neighborhood park fare on this year’s Report Card? The following section lists the results by borough and in alphabetical order by park. The Report Card provides communities with comparative park grades in order to offer the fullest picture of results so that they may advocate for improved care of their open spaces. Neighborhood, Community Board, and City Council District information as well as park acreage are available for each park.

For a more in-depth look at your park’s results, please visit our website – www.ny4p.org – and download the “Park Profile” for your park. These profiles provide detailed scores for each MSA along with contextual Community District information on neighborhood health, land use, crime, edu- cation, and income. For historical results, download the 2005 Report Card on Parks.

24 New Yorkers for Parks Bronx

Park Name Score Grade Neighborhood CD CB Acres 19 6 1 AQUEDUCT WALK 68 D University Heights 14 105 9 10 4 24 20 9 5 2 BICENTENNIAL VETERANS 15 8 MEMORIAL PARK 45 F Edgewater Park 13 110 9 3 CASTLE HILL PARK 82 B- Castle Hill 13 109 2 21 4 COONEY GRAUER FIELD 52 F Kingsbridge 14 108 1 1 5 CO-OP CITY FIELDS 40 F Co-Op City 12 110 3 6 EWEN PARK 44 F Kingsbridge 11 108 8 7 FRANZ SIGEL PARK 89 B+ Concourse Village 17 104 16 22 16 17 8 hAFFEN PARK 75 C Baychester 12 112 9 14 9 hARRIS PARK 75 C Norwood 11 107 15 13 3 12 10 74 C Spuyten Duyvil 11 108 9 11 23 11 JOYCE KILMER PARK 81 B- Concourse Village 17 104 7 7 18 2 12 MACOMBS DAM PARK 61 D Concourse 17 104 12 13 MULLALY PARK1 71 C- Concourse 16 104 19 14 NOBLE PLAYGROUND 78 C+ Parkchester/West Farms 18 109 4 15 OLD FORT #4 PARK 68 D Kingsbridge Heights 11 108 5 16 OWEN DOLEN GOLDEN AGE CENTER 77 C+ Westchester Square 13 109 1 17 PELHAM BAY LITTLE LEAGUE PARK 54 F Westchester Square 13 111 1 18 RAINEY PARK 77 C+ Longwood 17 102 8 19 SETON PARK 76 C South Riverdale 11 108 12 20 SPUYTEN DUYVIL SHOREFRONT PARK 32 F Spuyten Duyvil 11 108 7 21 ST JAMES PARK 70 C- Fordham 14 107 11 22 TREMONT PARK 48 F East Tremont 15 103 15 23 WATSON GLEASON PLAYGROUND 89 B+ Parkchester/Soundview 18 109 3 24 66 D Norwood 11 107 20

Franz Sigel Park Watson Gleason Playground Spuyten Duyvil Shorefront Park Score: 89% (B+) Score: 89% (B+) Score: 32% (F)

*CD = City Council District; CB = Community Board 1 Macombs Dam Park and a portion of Mullaly Park were officially alienated and destroyed shortly after these inspections for the construction of the new Yankee Stadium. 2007 Report Card on Parks 25 Brooklyn 26 14 9

29 Park Name Score Grade Neighborhood CD CB Acres 16 24 6 1 AMERSFORT PARK 69 D Flatlands 45 218 4 8 2 56 F Bath Beach 47 211 18 18

3 BETSY HEAD MEMORIAL PLGD 59 F Brownsville 42 216 11 13 7 4 BREUKELEN PARK 70 C- Broad Channel 42 218 16 23 5 28 17 5 71 C- Crown Heights 36 208 7 3 6 PARK 73 C Downtown Brooklyn 33 202 10 11 21

7 COFFEY PARK 72 C- Red Hook 38 206 8 4

8 70 C- Downtown Brooklyn 33 202 1 10 9 COOPER PARK 53 F East Williamsburg 34 201 6 20 10 FIDLER/WYCKOFF HOUSE PARK 92 A- East Flatbush 45 217 1 1 30 25 11 FLOYD PATTERSON PARK 71 C- Brownsville 42 216 2 15 12 FRIENDS FIELD PARK 83 B 44 212 7 12 27 13 75 C Stuyvesant Heights 36 203 2 19 22 14 GRAND FERRY PARK 72 C- Williamsburg / Southside 33 201 2 15 GRAVESEND PARK 68 D Borough Park 44 212 6 2 16 GREEN CENTRAL KNOLL 46 F Bushwick 37 204 3 17 hARMONY PARK 58 F Weeksville 41 203 2 18 hERBERT VON KING PARK 85 B Bedford Stuyvesant 36 203 8 19 JOHN PAUL JONES PARK 72 C- Bay Ridge 50 210 5 20 LEIF ERICSON PARK & SQUARE 51 F Bay Ridge 43 210 17 21 LINDEN PLAYGROUND 62 D New Lots 42 205 9 22 LINDOWER PARK 67 D Mill Basin 46 218 7 23 LOUIS J VALENTINO JR PK & PIER 92 A- Red Hook 38 206 2 24 70 C- Bushwick 34 204 7 25 MCKINLEY PARK 68 D Bay Ridge 43 210 8 26 MSGR MCGOLRICK PARK 79 C+ Greenpoint 33 201 9 27 MSGR CRAWFORD FIELD 33 F Mill Basin 46 218 2 28 MT. PROSPECT PARK PLGD 63 D Prospect Heights 35 208 8 29 ROBERTO CLEMENTE BALLFIELD 59 F Williamsburg 33 201 1 Fidler Wyckoff House Park Louis J. Valentino Jr. Park and Pier Msgr. Crawford Field 30 RUSSELL PEDERSON PLGD 74 C Bay Ridge 43 210 1 Score: 92% (A-) Score: 92% (A-) Score: 33% (F)

26 New Yorkers for Parks Manhattan

5 Park Name Score Grade Neighborhood CD CB Acres

1 BRYANT PARK 99 A+ Times Square 3 305 10 7 2 79 C+ Yorkville 5 308 15 3 CITY HALL PARK 94 A City Hall 1 301 9 4 DAMROSCH PARK 91 A- Lincoln Square 6 307 2 8 5 GORMAN MEMORIAL PARK 70 C- Washington Hgts/Ft George 10 312 2 6 hARLEM RIVER PARK 34 F / Yorkville 9 311 6 7 J. HOOD WRIGHT PARK 67 D Washington Heights 10 312 7

8 PARK 71 C- Hamilton Heights 7 310 13 6 9 JOAN OF ARC PARK 85 B Upper West Side 9 314 2 10 MADISON SQUARE PARK 87 B+ Flatiron 3 305 6 9 16 11 PUBLIC PLACE (BATTERY PK CITY) 99 A+ Battery Park City 1 301 1 12 QUEENSBORO OVAL 71 C- Turtle Bay 5 308 2 15 13 SARA D. ROOSEVELT PARK 59 F 1 303 8 2 14 65 D 2 306 4 4 15 THEODORE ROOSEVELT PARK 92 A- Upper West Side 6 307 18 16 61 D East Harlem 8 311 16 12 17 UNION SQUARE 90 A- Gramercy Park 2 305 4 1 18 71 C- Greenwich Village 1 302 10

10

17 14

18

13

11 3

Bryant Park Public Place Harlem River Drive Park Score: 99% (A+) Score: 99% (A+) Score: 34% (F)

*CD = City Council District; CB = Community Board 2007 Report Card on Parks 27 8 19 Queens 13 9 12 11 7 1 15 20 23 14 Park Name Score Grade Neighborhood CD CB Acres 16 1 BAYSIDE FIELDS 80 B- Auburndale 19 411 3 18 2 BEACH CHANNEL PARK 93 A Rockaway 32 414 12 10 26 3 BROAD CHANNEL PARK 61 D Broad Channel 32 414 17 4 CAPT TILLY MEMORIAL PARK 74 C Jamaica Hills 24 408 9 4 5 5 DETECTIVE KEITH L. WILLIAMS PK 77 C+ Hollis / Jamaica 27 412 8 22 6 DR CHARLES R DREW MEM PARK 70 C- South Jamaica 28 412 6 25

7 71 C- Linden Hill / Whitestone 20 407 10 6 21 8 FRANCIS LEWIS PARK 66 D Whitestone 19 407 17 17 24 9 FRANK GOLDEN MEM PARK 72 C- College Point 19 407 11 10 FRANK PRINCIPE PARK (form. MAURICE) 75 C West Maspeth 26 405 9 11 hALLETS COVE PLAYGROUND 70 C- Astoria 22 401 6 12 hARVEY PARK 72 C- Whitestone 19 407 9 13 hELLGATE FIELD 90 A- Astoria 22 401 4 14 hINTON PARK 79 C+ East Elmhurst 21 403 4 15 JOHN GOLDEN PARK 70 C- Bayside 19 411 17 3 16 LINNAEUS PLAYGROUND 66 D Oakland Gardens 23 411 2 2 17 LORING PARK 82 B- Lindonwood 32 410 3 18 LOUIS SIMEONE PARK 76 C Corona 21 404 1 19 POWELL’S COVE PARK 40 F College Point 19 407 7 20 RAINEY PARK 58 F Astoria / Ravenswood 22 401 8 21 ROCHDALE PARK 50 F Springfield Gardens 28 412 8 22 RUFUS KING PARK 86 B Jamaica 28 412 12 23 86 B Astoria / Ravenswood 26 401 2 24 SOUTHERN FIELDS 40 F South Ozone 31 410 11 25 ST ALBANS MEMORIAL PARK 72 C- Saint Albans 27 412 11 26 YELLOWSTONE MUNICIPAL PARK 89 B+ Forest Hills 29 406 2

Powell’s Cove Southern Fields Beach Channel Park Score: 40% (F) Score: 40% (F) Score: 93% (A)

28 New Yorkers for Parks Staten Island 4 2 12 7

Park Name Score Grade Neighborhood CD CB Acres 8 10 6 1 & PARK 88 B+ Rosebank 49 501 15 13 5 2 ALLISON PARK 61 D Randall Manor 49 501 9 1 3 ARTHUR VON BRIESEN PARK 83 B Shore Acres 50 501 13 3 4 CPL. THOMPSON PARK 71 C- Livingston 49 501 11 5 EIBS POND PARK 38 F Park Hill 49 501 17 9 6 FATHER MACRIS PARK 78 C+ Graniteville 49 502 12 7 hERO PARK 69 D Ward Hill 49 501 3 8 NORTHERLEIGH PARK 76 C Elm Park 49 501 4 9 SCHMUL PARK 75 C Travis 50 502 8 10 70 C- Stapleton 49 501 2 11 TOTTENVILLE SHORE PARK 33 F Tottenville 51 503 9 12 VETERANS PARK 41 F Port Richmond 49 501 1 13 WESTERLEIGH PARK 89 B+ Westerleigh 49 501 3

11

Westerleigh Park Tottenville Shore Park Score: 89% (B+) Score: 33% (F)

*CD = City Council District; CB = Community Board 2007 Report Card on Parks 29 New Yorkers for Parks

New Yorkers for Parks (NY4P) is the only independent watchdog Daffodil Project The Daffodil Project, a living 9/11 -me for all the city’s parks, beaches and playgrounds. The city’s oldest and morial, is the largest volunteer planting effort in the city. To commemorate the leading independent expert on park conditions, efficiency and funding, five-year anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, every fall New Yorkers NY4P has worked for nearly 100 years to ensure greener, safer, for Parks – along with the Parks Depart- ment and thousands more volunteers cleaner parks for all New Yorkers. – plant nearly 500,000 daffodil bulbs as part of The Daffodil Project. The Through our website and publications Track Your Park Community Design Program project not only raises the spirits of like the annual, award-winning Report In 2006, New Yorkers for Parks launched The Community Design Program offers New Yorkers but also draws attention Card on Parks, NY4P provides accurate, Track Your Park (TYP), a citizen-based pro bono design assistance to groups to the needs of neglected parks and up-to-date information on conditions park inspection program for small parks, working to create new parkland or open spaces citywide. in New York City’s neighborhood parks. playgrounds, gardens, and other open improve existing open space in their And through our policies, partnerships spaces. Based on The Report Card on communities. New Yorkers for Parks also City Council District Profiles and planning, we work to effect change Parks, TYP trains New Yorkers to survey provides strategic planning guidance and The City Council District Profiles docu- on a citywide level, to promote a higher their own parks and create inspection advocacy training to participating groups. ment parks and open space in all 51 City level of park service in every community. reports. Advocacy training equips groups Council districts, enabling New Yorkers Position Papers with the tools needed to bring about park to find out how their district rates on These policy reports provide in-depth Our work is motivated by the belief that improvements. For more information, measures of open space, health, income, analyses of park issues. The first in the all New Yorkers should have access to visit www.trackyourpark.org. education, and safety. They are an es- quality parks and adequate recreational series, “A New Turf War,” is a compre- sential tool for advocating for increased opportunities, because New York City’s Parks Advocacy Day hensive study that identifies the issues green space and improved care for exist- neighborhood parks are the front and The largest event of its kind at City Hall, surrounding the use of synthetic turf ing parks and playgrounds. backyards for millions of New Yorkers. New Yorkers for Parks’ annual Parks and offers a series of recommendations Advocacy Day offers park users a chance on how to determine when and where Information on our research projects, to discuss citywide and neighborhood synthetic turf is appropriate in New York publications and programs is available park concerns face-to-face with their City’s parks and athletic fields. at www.ny4p.org. City Council Members.

30 New Yorkers for Parks The Report Card on Parks is made possible through the generous support of the following foundations: Altman Foundation John N. Blackman, Sr. Foundation The Constans Culver Foundation The Greenacre Foundation The J.M. Kaplan Fund Henry and Lucy Moses Fund, Inc The Scherman Foundation The Norman and Rosita Winston Foundation

Report Staff: Christian DiPalermo, Executive Director Maura Lout, Director of Operations Cheryl Huber, Project Director

Matt Glomski, Project Statistician

Rachel Berkson, Field Supervisor and Surveyor Joanna Reynolds, Surveyor Jordan Smith, Surveyor Kaity Tsui, Surveyor

Photos: Cover - Copyright © 2004. Maria Schriber for New Yorkers for Parks. All Rights Reserved. Page 2, 7, 9, 10, 18, 23, 25-29 - Copyright © 2006. New Yorkers for Parks. All Rights Reserved.

Design: Michael Bierman Graphic Design

Maps made possible by the ESRI Conservation Program.

Copyright © 2007. New Yorkers for Parks. All Rights Reserved.