# Best Parks In The World: TripAdvisor List Puts B.C.'s Stanley Park At Number 1



## Yellow Fever (Jan 3, 2008)

I know, poll like this from TripAdvisor usually doesn't mean anything but its still fun to hear when your city's park is number one on the list. 



Best Parks In The World: TripAdvisor List Puts B.C.'s Stanley Park At Number 1


AFP/Relaxnews 

Posted: 06/17/2014 2:02 pm EDT | Updated: 06/17/2014 4:59 pm EDT



A rainforest oasis in the middle of urban Vancouver has trumped U.S., Parisian and Spanish parks to be named the top park in the world by TripAdvisor users.

Stanley Park, the biggest in Vancouver and the third-biggest in North America at 400 hectares, took the top spot for its 500,000 ancient monolithic cedar, fir and hemlock trees, kilometers of hiking trails, historic landmarks and waterfront views in TripAdvisor’s second annual Top 25 Parks of the World list.

Activities include hiking, running, wildlife watching, inline skating, and biking, while the area is also home to Canada’s largest aquarium, water parks, miniature railways and tennis courts.

Stanley Park attracts about 8 million visitors every year.

“A mini-forest, beautiful gardens, totem poles and scenic walkways make this such a peaceful location,” wrote one fan.

Overall, the U.S. is the most represented taking eight of the top 25 spots, with the Garden of the Gods in Colorado Springs and New York’s Central Park rounding out the top three places. Garden of the Gods was also named the top park in the U.S..

Here are the top 10 parks in the world:
1. Stanley Park, Vancouver, Canada
2. Garden of the Gods, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
3. Central Park, New York City, USA
4. Millennium Park, Chicago, Illinois, USA
5. High Line, New York City, USA
6. Kings Park and Botanic Garden, Perth, Australia
7. Guell Park, Barcelona, Spain
8. Ibirapuera Park, Sao Paulo, Brazil
9. Retiro Park, Madrid, Spain
10. Luxembourg Gardens, Paris, France

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/06/17/best-parks-in-the-world-tripadvisor_n_5503939.html


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

Stanley Park is definitely underrated and is one of the best in the world by far. I don't think Garden of the Gods should even be on the list. It looks more like a small national park than an urban park. I think Millennium Park in Chicago is great, especially when grouped with Grant Park. The High Line is overrated imo. Guell and Montjuic Parks were also disappointing and I preferred both Maria Luisa in Seville and Retiro in Madrid. 

Golden Gate Park is way, way underrated. #14? That should be Top 3 imo. Balboa Park is also way lower than it should be. And Bryant Park is super small. I'm not sure why it's ranked so high. Another Northwest park that should have made the list: International Rose Test Garden in Portland.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

In the case of NYC and Chicago, you immediately see the problem with this list.

The list ranks Manhattan's Central Park and the High Line as top tier, and yet Brooklyn's Prospect Park is not mentioned. This is ironic, considering that Prospect Park is recognized as the most carefully planned and most integrated of all the civic parks of Olmstead and Vaux in NYC. 

Then, there is the case of Millennium Park in Chicago -- cited as among the top in this list, when any native Chicagoan will tell you that the JEWEL of the Chicago Park System in the much bigger and much better integrated Lincoln Park.

The fault of this list is clear for these 2 cities: it is obviously based on TOURIST rankings, as opposed to efficient/effective planning and integration with the surrounding neighborhoods.

Clearly, more tourists visit Central Park, the High Line, and Millenium Park -- and relatively few of them ever venture out to Prospect Park in Brooklyn, or Lincoln Park in Chicago's North Side.


----------



## xrtn2 (Jan 12, 2011)

*8TH Ibirapuera Park, Sao Paulo, Brazil*


----------



## ikops (Jun 12, 2008)

YF is such a chaufinist!


----------



## Yellow Fever (Jan 3, 2008)

thanks! you taught me a new word.


----------



## Yellow Fever (Jan 3, 2008)

Alright guys, here's the best park in the world. 









https://www.flickr.com/photos/52907...LpGd-cTQa8j-ic1DcC-P4EPW-8m5TSt-dfFMPp-efoY41


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

tpe said:


> In the case of NYC and Chicago, you immediately see the problem with this list.
> 
> The list ranks Manhattan's Central Park and the High Line as top tier, and yet Brooklyn's Prospect Park is not mentioned. This is ironic, considering that Prospect Park is recognized as the most carefully planned and most integrated of all the civic parks of Olmstead and Vaux in NYC.
> 
> ...


I agree that Millennium Park alone isn't world-class but when paired with Grant Park is both large, unique and iconic (Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain, Buckingham Fountain). I went to Lincoln Park and walked from the Lincoln Statue, up to the zoo and then to the Arboretum. I found Millennium Park/Grant Park to be much more exciting and lively, and certainly had a much better view (though Lincoln had decent views of the Hancock Center). I can't comment on Prospect Park cause I've never been to Brooklyn (unless crossing most of the Brooklyn Bridge counts).


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

Stanley Park does need better marketing imo. Those totem poles could be iconic if given to a great marketing department. Some are even V-shaped for Vancouver. Why are these not on T-shirts?!


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

*San Francisco's Golden Gate Park*








































































































































https://www.flickr.com/photos/mrfraley/3193886102/sizes/l
https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Golden Gate Park&sort=relevance&license=1,2,3,4,5,6
https://www.flickr.com/photos/toasty/4924357092/sizes/l
https://www.flickr.com/photos/kycheng/4822139067/sizes/l








https://www.flickr.com/photos/ameotoko/5173282861/sizes/l
https://www.flickr.com/photos/butlercorey/5051144945/sizes/l
https://www.flickr.com/photos/seal20/14081301247/sizes/l
https://www.flickr.com/photos/littlekoshka/5661844309/sizes/l
https://www.flickr.com/photos/patrickjmckeever/4874995476/sizes/l
https://www.flickr.com/photos/reactionphotography/3900056385/sizes/l


----------



## PD (Jun 11, 2007)

Kings Park and Botanical Gardens, Perth, Australia
#6 on the list

Let me show you why it made the list:

*Eastern View from Kings Park*




*Southern View from Kings Park*


*Overhead view of western tip of Kings Park*


*Treetop Walkway*

















*DNA Tower*

















*War Memorial*









*Kings Park Lights*


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

*No. 6 Kings Park, Perth*


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

As tpe mentioned, it's more a list of parks most visited by tripadvisor users than a list of best parks, but they all look very nice in any case.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

Manitopiaaa said:


> I agree that Millennium Park alone isn't world-class but when paired with Grant Park is both large, unique and iconic (Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain, Buckingham Fountain). I went to Lincoln Park and walked from the Lincoln Statue, up to the zoo and then to the Arboretum. I found Millennium Park/Grant Park to be much more exciting and lively, and certainly had a much better view (though Lincoln had decent views of the Hancock Center). I can't comment on Prospect Park cause I've never been to Brooklyn (unless crossing most of the Brooklyn Bridge counts).


But that's the problem: parks are not supposed to be "exciting". After all, they are NOT theme parks. They are supposed to be places of rest and relaxation -- places where one can find nature and quiet in the middle of the city.

That being said, Lincoln Park is definitely more beautiful and "exciting". And it is also far larger than Millennium Park and Grant Park combined (larger than Central Park, to be exact -- you just scratched the southern tip.) This coupled with access to miles of lakefront beaches and walkways easily makes it THE Park of choice for the vast majority of Chicagoans.


----------



## ikops (Jun 12, 2008)

I was excited to go to Central Park, but I didn't jump around with a funny smile on my face when I was there.


----------



## Jodhey (Jun 30, 2014)

thanks! you taught me a new word.


----------



## Yellow Fever (Jan 3, 2008)

Jonesy55 said:


> As tpe mentioned, it's more a list of parks most visited by tripadvisor users than a list of best parks, but they all look very nice in any case.


Indeed, all parks are nice as far as I'm concern. The title should be renamed to "The most visited parks in the world".


----------



## Scba (Nov 20, 2004)

High Line Park that high up is kind of goofy.


----------



## meow (Mar 1, 2005)

Well I think Vondelpark in Amsterdam and Englischer Garten in Munich are better than Central Park.


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

tpe said:


> But that's the problem: parks are not supposed to be "exciting". After all, they are NOT theme parks. They are supposed to be places of rest and relaxation -- places where one can find nature and quiet in the middle of the city.
> 
> That being said, Lincoln Park is definitely more beautiful and "exciting". And it is also far larger than Millennium Park and Grant Park combined (larger than Central Park, to be exact -- you just scratched the southern tip.) This coupled with access to miles of lakefront beaches and walkways easily makes it THE Park of choice for the vast majority of Chicagoans.


Are they though? Relaxation can be found through many forms. Kids find relaxation in playing, not in meditating. Excitement is a form of relaxation for many. That's why people go to theme parks. 

Southern tip is a bit much. I saw the entire Southern half unless you are adding a lot of parkland on Lake Shore Drive which are actually different parks. My little sister spent hours playing in Crown Fountain with other kids and likewise got very wet playing in Buckingham Fountain. She was bored in Lincoln Park and even the Zoo was just meh. My mother on the other hand enjoyed the Arboretum the most. So I think it's a bit over the top to say one's form of relaxation is worse just because it involves being excited.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

Manitopiaaa said:


> Are they though? Relaxation can be found through many forms. Kids find relaxation in playing, not in meditating. Excitement is a form of relaxation for many. That's why people go to theme parks.


As a matter of fact, yes. And again, a civic park (what we are talking about here) is definitely not s theme park. 

And there are certainly LOTS more kids relaxing in Lincoln Park than in Millennium Park and Grant Park. The 2 latter parks are not designed for kids the way Lincoln Park is.



> Southern tip is a bit much. I saw the entire Southern half unless you are adding a lot of parkland on Lake Shore Drive which are actually different parks. My little sister spent hours playing in Crown Fountain with other kids and likewise got very wet playing in Buckingham Fountain. She was bored in Lincoln Park and even the Zoo was just meh. My mother on the other hand enjoyed the Arboretum the most. So I think it's a bit over the top to say one's form of relaxation is worse just because it involves being excited.


The Northern tip of Lincoln Park is Hollywood Beach, which is almost Evanston. Lincoln Park includes a full golf course, which is on the level of West Sheridan Road.

Half? It seems like you didn't even step north of Fullerton. So yes, you touched just the Southern *TIP*.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

I've never been on the High Line before. It seems like an interesting concept. Sort of like a public highrise greenhouse that you can walk across.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

For those here not so familiar with Chicago, THIS is the southern portion of Lincoln Park. 

The area that Manitopiaaa refers to is NOT even a THIRD of the southern portion (area south of Fullerton):


----------



## PD (Jun 11, 2007)

tpe said:


> But that's the problem: parks are not supposed to be "exciting". After all, they are NOT theme parks. They are supposed to be places of rest and relaxation -- places where one can find nature and quiet in the middle of the city.


That said, if a park is big enough there is room for both.
Nothing toooo 'exciting', but it is good to have some stuff a little out of the norm, especially for an inner city park.


----------



## keepthepast (Oct 23, 2009)

Millennium Park in Chicago is actually part of Grant Park; it's just a section of the overall Grant Park.

Opinions that are culled and 'evaluated' by entities such as TripAdvisor and then ranked are just fun, not scientific. Hence the misunderstanding the Millennium is a stand alone park, even though it was designed and created to be a special section of Grant.


----------

