Galen Cranz in The Politics of Park Design delineates four eras of American park design, and the social concerns of each era. Attempts at social engineering have been part of the American parks movement since the beginning, with the planning of Central Park. One of the main premises behind the design of Central Park was that rich and poor would enjoy the park together, providing the lower classes with an "appropriate" model for behavior. But from the beginning, the rich believed the park was targeting the poor and ignoring their needs, while the poor believed the park was just another city venture for the benefit of the rich. Whatever the intentions of the park's designers, it has been recorded that the coming of the park, on derelict land at the outskirts of the city, quadrupled land prices around the perimeter, and affected prices for up to a mile away (see F.L. Olmsted, Forty Years of Landscape Architecture).

These concerns about equity and gentrification are not new. The same questions are still raised when planning urban parks. In the 1977 National Federal Recreation Study: Seattle/Everett/Tacoma report, these same concerns about equity in park distribution and park quality were raised by citizens. Some neighborhoods believed that they had special needs which were being overlooked by parks planners, who were mainly concerned with sprinkling an even number of parks throughout the city.

The purpose of this thesis is twofold: to propose considering recreational use when assessing open space needs and in determining what types of parks will be best suited for the long-term plans of a city, and to provide a model for using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to organize data and therefore better use it in planning. In Seattle, as in most urban areas in the United States, we have the documentation and the data available which can be used to inform decisions about where new parks should be located and their nature. Studying the past can help to make decisions about how the future should be, and to determine where best to direct increasingly diminished funds.