We reviewed DPR’s internal and public documents, which can be found here via a Freedom of Information Act request, regarding the process, recreational usage and capacity assessments performed and of DPR’s management of recreational facilities.

Over the next few months we will release these findings to the public so that we can all continue to have a more complete and inclusive discussion about how our public spaces and park system are used now and how Arlington residents believe that they should evolve to best meet our needs in the decades to come.

If you have any questions about these findings, please email us atinfo@friendsofahparks.org 

Arlington County has often ranked “high” on the Trust for Public Land’s (TPL) list of localities for our park system. The organization ranks a number of variables such as resident’s access to parks, recreational amenities and how much a locality spends on their parks per capita among other things.

Members of FoAHP have had great discussions with this wonderful organization and many others about Arlington’s park system. The main question which has been raised to them all; Is there any ranking of a park system’s balance between resident’s access to recreational amenities and access to natural areas?

The response has generally been, “no,” because it simply isn’t a concern for most park systems. The reason is that most park systems have plenty of natural areas for their residents and adding in and maintaining facilities is costly. So facilities are sparingly placed and often among larger park systems. So ranking park systems by comparing resident’s access to recreational facilities typically make a lot of sense rather than their access to natural areas.
Important Disparities are Hidden

Arlington ties for first place as one of the top spenders in the country per capita on our parks and Arlington ranks second place for amenities per capita according to TPL’s score. So when we rank highest on spending and very high on facilities per capita combined with a growing population, but our total parkland is considerably less than others high-ranking park systems, an imbalance starts to happen.

There are awards and recognition for resident’s access to recreational facilities, however there are no awards or recognition for resident’s access to natural areas including just basic open green space.

For the Plan Our Public Spaces (POPS) process, Arlington put together a Level of Service (LOS) chart for park facility recommendations, which can be found on pages 241-243 of the Public Spaces Master Plan (draft). This chart shows how peer city and national averages compare to Arlington’s park system including how much recreational facilities each locality has per capita. This chart, in part, will help determine how much more recreational facilities we should be getting as our population grows. But what was not included in this Level of Service chart was our total parkland or access to open green space.

So residents took it upon themselves to use the same standards and methods for the POPS process, but also add in parkland totals and calculate the percentage of our parkland which is dedicated to recreational fields. 

The findings with total parkland added into the Level of Service Chart show:

• Access to overall parkland is much lower in Arlington (78 acres per 10,000 residents) than in peer cities (average of 133 acres per 10,000), and even less than the national average (79 acres per 10,000).
• Further, the percentage of parkland devoted to fields is much higher (10.7%) in Arlington than in peer cities (5.1%). Arlington residents have, in most cases, significantly higher access to fields (4.2 fields per 10,000 residents) than residents of peer cities (average 3.4)

Increasing the number of fields or intensifying their usage with synthetic turf in order to keep up with a level of service of other park systems ignores Arlington’s unique land constraints and the existing imbalance that we have in Arlington with much greater percentage of parkland dedicated to fields than other uses. This method ignores other park systems’ sizes in acreage and the ability for these other localities to increase their parkland acreage as needed or because of their overall county or city land sizes. Options such as synthetic turf in these systems have a negligible impact on natural spaces. Arlington has limited land and growing population with diverse needs.

FoAHP believes that it is incumbent upon the County to ensure that a comprehensive comparison is provided to the public to understand what our trade-offs and benefits are for these types of decisions. Should Arlington continue to have one of highest levels of access to recreational facilities per capita in the country at the expense of other park purposes; for people and natural wildlife habitats? FoAHP hopes that this additional information about parkland compared with peer cities and national averages helps to provide a better discussion for Arlington residents, the Department of Parks and Recreation and our elected officials.

Arlington County Board members are meeting with the Department of Parks & Rec on Tuesday Feb. 20, 2018 at 3pm. One of the things that will be discussed is the Level of Service recommendations for more recreational facilities.  Feel free to write to the County Board in advance of this meeting or any time.

*The total number of fields (16 rectangular and 6 diamond fields) recommended by POPS for Arlington’s population in 2045 equaled 44 acres (page 214 of POPS draft). In February 2018, DPR did not recalculate the estimate of recreational facilities needed per capita, but has announced that it will ignore the 2045 estimates for the moment and focus on their 2035 facility numbers of increasing our recreational facilities by adding in 11 rectangular and 2 diamond fields. This change has no bearing on the level of service calculation performed by FoAHP, which simply added parkland total comparisons to existing recreational facility access — not future recreational estimates.