Nonprofit, independent journalism. Supported by readers.


Which Minneapolis parks are the highest priority for repairs?

As part of its deal for new maintenance and improvement funds from the city, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is considering equity as a factor in choosing which parks to fix first.

The map below shows the 106 Minneapolis parks that were recently given priority rankings (out of 157 total neighborhood parks in the city) for maintenance and improvement under the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board’s new capital and rehabilitation plan. The parks in the darker shade of green are slated for improvements to be made in the next five years; parks in lighter green will be included in future plans. Click on a park to see its overall ranking and the projects that are planned for the park, if known. To search for an address, use the box in the upper-right corner. For more information on how the rankings were determined, see the table below.

Under the Park Board’s new capital and rehabilitation plan, Minneapolis’ neighborhood parks were ranked for maintenance priority in a manner that was meant to account for equity. The parks were assigned weighted scores based on the following criteria:

Article continues after advertisement
  • RCAP: Parks located in Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty, a determination made by the Met Council, were given a score of five — a significant boost to their overall score (the highest scoring park, Bassett’s Creek, was near 20 — a quarter of that due to its RCAP score.
  • Population density: The population density (people per square mile) of the neighborhoods surrounding the park. Greater scores were given to higher population densities.
  • Youth population: The percentage of the population living near the park under the age of 18. Higher percentages of youth were given higher scores.
  • Neighborhood safety: A percentage score derived from the crime rate in the area surrounding the park. Areas with higher crime rates received higher scores.
  • Asset conditions: A rating of the condition of park assets — things like buildings, playground equipment, wading pools, etc. Assets in worse conditions resulted in higher priority scores.
  • Lifespan: The projected lifespan — given as a year — of major park assets from either the time they were built or last had a major renovation. Parks with assets five years or more beyond their lifespan were given the highest priority.
  • Proportionality: The estimated percent of total maintenance that has already been done at the park since the year 2000. Parks that have already received maintenance investments got lower priority scores than parks that had no such spending.

These factors were considered for 106 Minneapolis neighborhood parks, resulting in the ranking below. The top 20 highest priority parks are all slated for maintenance in the next five years; other parks on the list that already had maintenance plans ongoing are also included in that five year plan. More information on the ranking can be found at the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board’s website.

The table below is sorted by rank, but you can click the table headings to sort it by any of the individual scoring areas. You can also use the box at the top right to search for a specific park.