I've said before how ParkScore is BS, right? SF is #5 and Chicago is #9, but the only difference is that SF is geographically tiny so their large City Beautiful-era parks constitute a large percentage of the overall city.
Also ParkScore dinged Chicago for not having more dog parks and restrooms...
#9 in the country is actually a pretty good ranking when we are being compared to little cities like Arlington and Irvine, CA. Somehow folks like Friends of the Parking Lot still think a #9 ranking is a crisis, and that we have an acute parkland shortage.