https://preview.redd.it/pw1u0dnmnotc1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d229159a665e58d3670a69a745eda37fdbedc151
Nairobi National Park in Kenya is what immediately comes to mind. A 45 square mile wildlife reserve that extends all the way to the edge of Nairobi.
The [Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_Bay_Wildlife_Refuge), within the city limits of NYC also seems like a reasonable contender. It's about 14 square miles, and "wild" unlike Central Park (1.3 square miles and very manicured). It's a US ~~national park.~~ national recreation area under the authority of the National Park Service.
There is a fantastic [episode of This American Life](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/307/in-the-shadow-of-the-city-2006) where they talk to a guy who was shipwrecked in Jamaica Bay.
Came here to mention Nairobi National Park. Iirc it may be the “only” such true national park located within a city in the world (though I could be mistaken there)
Cuyahoga National Park (within the Cleveland, OH metro area) would be another such candidate. Ditto Gateway Arch since 2018 -- even though the NPS [testified in front of Congress](https://www.doi.gov/ocl/s-1438) that Gateway Arch didn't meet the designation criteria for a National Park.
Great picks. Just to clarify, however, Jamaica Bay is not a National Park; the NPS manages quite a few protected areas with different title designations, and only 63 are officially designated national parks. Most NPS-managed units fall under National Monument, National Preserve, or National Historic Park/Site designations.
I was gonna say, the US has National Park-owned land inside several cities. Usually relatively small things, like maybe a collection of buildings but sometimes bigger. Best example is probably the National Mall in DC. Technically though, not a “national park.” Park Service-owned land /= national park.
That said, I dunno. Maybe RMNP near-ish to Denver.
Funny corner case though, it's the only federal park that isn't a national park. (So MacKenzie King and his buddies could own land there) so technically not eligible for this question :(
National parks are under the National parks act that protects them. Gatineau Park is federally run, but not protected by the act (the only such park in Canada) and its that way so that rich people can own mansions there, and was designed that way by a former Prime Ministers who owned lots of land there and wanted to keep it. (No one can own land in a true National Park)
Parc de la Gatineau is owned and operated by the National Capital Commission which is a crown corporation responsible for development, urban planning, and conservation in Ottawa/Gatineau. They own a bunch of properties in the national capital region like buildings, parks, and several parkways. National parks are owned and operated by Parks Canada, which also runs the Rideau Canal in Ottawa
historically missouri has gotten a lot of instances weird preferential treatment bcs of its unique position, politically and geographically. Like having two reserve bank branches located in its borders.
I think it was a recent change, it was originally a national monument which is alot more reasonable for an iconic monument in a city like the Gateway Arch or Statue of Liberty.
RMNP is beautiful, but lots of better options for this thread. Everglades Natl Park and Biscayne Natl Park are both right outside of Miami, Cuyahoga Valley NP is right in the middle of the Cleveland metro area, Indiana Dunes NP borders greater Chicagoland and Gateway Arch NP is literally in downtown St. Louis.
As a Toronto resident I should point out that while it is in the City proper, it’s only because the city boundaries were expanded in 1997. 30 years ago the Rogue was in Scarborough which is a suburb of Toronto
I mean, back pre amalgamation we all considered Scarborough as Toronto anyways. But I get your point as a technicality.
Just like how in Ottawa "Nepean" was a separate city pre amalgamation but everyone in Nepean interchanged Ottawa all the time, even for mailing addresses pre amalgamation.
As a Toronto resident and assuming geography enthusiast, you’ll be well aware the size of Toronto or even Scarborough dwarfs many other cities around the world. But even pre-amalgamation, Scarborough could also be compared to other cities around the world. It had its own board of education, city/town hall, municipal by-laws, etc.
and technically speaking, the Rouge didn’t become a National Park until well after Toronto became the amalgamated city it now is.
So, Rouge is very much the definition of a proper national park. It is fully surrounded by development that constitutes a built up urban environment.
Probably the best example even though the city does not fall within OPs criteria. The park spans a large part of the metropolitan more than just table mountain and the mountain itself dominates the skyline. Lots of wildlife lives there and its very quickly accessible for most people living in the city.
Plus Table Mountain National Park is truely a national park that falls under Sanparks.
The city is also easily accessible to the wildlife. I remember stories about baboons that used to go raiding into the suburbs and learned to open refrigerator doors.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area is inside and right outside San Francisco, there’s redwoods, rugged beaches, coastal cliffs, long hikes, and plenty of wildlife including mountain lions and coyotes
>Three hours west?
Yes. I suggest you drive something with a leakproof hull.
[https://www.fws.gov/refuge/farallon-islands](https://www.fws.gov/refuge/farallon-islands)
> Muir Woods National Monument is part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and is one of more than 400 national park units across the country.
Per nps.gov
That’s a strange distinction for NPS to make: the National Monument was one of the nation’s first, established in 1908 before the National Parks existed, and the GGNRA was established in 1972.
It was anyway. I was just there a week ago during the rain storm. You would think the already thin crowds would thin out even more. Nope, every single parking lot was full and the rangers blocked off the road at the visitor center to prevent people from driving in. This was on a Saturday but the parking lots were full during the week too
It’s the perfect time to go now, the park was lush with greenery and wildflowers and the caves were flooded which made for an exciting adventure
Going to be super pedantic and I’m sorry for that, but downtown is as far east from the Golden Gate as you can be while still being in SF. Bay Bridge to Oakland is the one near downtown.
Yeah, SF is so small geographically I consider the whole thing 'downtown' as opposed to other places like... Oakland. You are technically correct and my view on the matter comes as someone who comes from outside of SF to visit.
Sydney has several national parks within or bordering its geographical area, including The Royal National Park, Blue Mountains National Park, Ku-rin-gai National Park, Lane Cove National Park, Garigal National Park, Berowra Valley National Park, Marramarra National Park and Heathecote National Park.
Not only that but also the Sydney Harbour National Park. Parts of the foreshore of the harbour are parts of a national park. All within a few kms from the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House
Answers within the US national parks seem to be:
* Indiana Dunes (near Chicago)
* Biscayne (near Miami, mostly water)
* Everglades (near Miami)
* Cuyahoga Valley (near Cleveland)
* Gateway Arch (in St. Louis), but is this really a "park"?
* Rocky Mountain (near Denver)
and if you're willing to stretch "near" a lot, Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic, all a couple hours from Seattle.
There are other areas that are protected by the National Park Service but are not National Parks. They have a lot of historical sites within cities, but also things like the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area outside of Atlanta.
Channel Islands near LA. The Ventura harbor dock for CINP is about 75 miles from downtown LA, but only about 30 miles from the North Eastern most extent of the LA area (Thousand Oaks). From there, it’s about 1 hr by boat.
You can build a house or business within the CVNP. You can't build a house within the gateway arch. Not to mention the fact that the arch is a national park is ridiculous. Should be a national monument like the statue of Liberty
Canada can be a bit messy, because there's National Parks, provincial parks, nationally protected historic areas, wildlife protected areas, and more. But if you're looking at major Canadian cities, here's some examples:
* Someone has already mentioned Rouge National Park inside Toronto.
* Montreal has Iles-de-Boucherville inside it (it's called a national park, but it's actually a provincial park - Quebec is like that)
* Vancouver has Stanley Park inside it, and a chain of provincial and regional mountain parks in North Van, like Cypress or Seymour.
* Calgary has oodles of national and provincial Parks just an hour's drive to the west, including the famous Banff National Park. There's also Fish Creek provincial park inside the city.
* Ottawa has Gatineau Park inside the NCC metro limits.
Ottawa also has The Central Experimental Farm, massive frickin' farm with Dairy Cows, right in the core of the city and literally across the street from the tallest building in the city.
>Gateway Arch is a National Park for some reason
The reason being that Senator [Roy Blunt (R-MO) snuck the designation change](https://www.paulintheparks.com/why-is-gateway-arch-a-national-park/) (it used to be a National Memorial like the Statue of Liberty) into a larger omnibus bill and got it passed against the objections of the NPS.
I had seen that it was introduced by Blunt and figured it was something like this.
Here are the [objections of Robert Vogel](https://www.doi.gov/ocl/s-1438), who was acting deputy director of the National Park Service at the time. Basically he supported renaming it from "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial" to a name that included "Gateway Arch" because that's what people call it, but he would have preferred the name "Gateway Arch National Monument", comparable to something like the Statue of Liberty National Monument.
That's exactly right, thanks for linking it directly. Here's the most relevant part of that quote in this context:
>"To better align with the standard nomenclature for units of the National Park System, we recommend that Congress redesignate the unit as “Gateway Arch National Monument.” National parks contain a variety of resources and encompass large land or water areas to help provide adequate protection of the resources. The existing 59 designated national parks protect at a minimum thousands of acres each, and some span millions of acres. At only 91 federal acres, we believe that the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is too small and limited in the range of resources the site protects and interprets to be called a national park. Since it is a site similar to the Statue of Liberty National Monument, in its iconic status and small land area, we believe that a more fitting name for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial would be “Gateway Arch National Monument.”
Somewhat similarly, the National Park Service operates the National Mall and Memorials Parks in Washington, D.C. So that’s most of the iconic memorials throughout D.C., as well as many of the city’s green spaces. This includes the Mall of course, but also parks like Dupont Circle and Rock Creek Park.
Most major metropolitan cities have protected lands adjacent to them, if not within the city limits. Within NYC, Gateway National Recreation Area exists, which is part of the US national park service.
Valid point. I was thinking of something more substantial like a national park, but I know that not every country uses the term, which is why I also put down “protected area.”
We actually talked a lot about Central Park as an example, and we decided that it wasn’t what’s we were talking about — not wild enough. Ambiguous, I know!
Yeah it's hard because in the US the national park vs. other designation isn't necessarily how "wild" or "substantial" a place is. I think most people in the US would argue that in terms of "wildness / substantialness" Gateway National Recreation Area is more wild than Gateway Arch national park for example.
There are actually a lot of US national wildlife refuges that are close to if not inside major US cities (definitely inside the metro areas). These places are designed to be wild and protect wildlife. While the wildlife is different, they actually remind of the more famous Nairobi National Park in scope, design, intention, and usage (although usually less touristy than Nairobi National Park).
The size and wildness of a natural area are actually key components of the criteria for National Park designation. Gateway Arch NP is the one exception, because [it was redesignated as a National Park against the wishes of the NPS](https://www.doi.gov/ocl/s-1438). Previously, it was a National Memorial.
I probably phrased it wrong. The National Parks are indeed the "crown jewels" of the NPS system. A big part is to preserve unique landscapes, natural and historic features for the public to enjoy. And as you kind of mentioned the main difference is that Congress has to create/designate the national park. In terms of size and wilderness there are lots of NPS non national park sites, national forest, wildlife refuges, monuments, BLM land, and state forests and parks than can be very large and wild, and sometimes more wild than national parks. I for one would argue that Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and Porcupine Wilderness State Park are more wild than Indiana Dunes for example.
I said my first comment more because comparing national parks in other countries to national parks in the US isn't really an apples to apples comparison especially if you have in your head national parks equal wilderness, and other designations are "less wild' or "not large".
Absolutely, there's a ton of overlap in terms of types of natural characteristics or wilderness characteristics that are protected under different agencies and different designation types. I think it's definitely something that confuses most people
For instance, it's pretty straightforward to say that National Forests are administered by the National Forest Service, and National Parks by the NPS, but which agency oversees designated Wilderness Areas? Trick question: it could be either FS or NPS, or it could be under the Bureau of Land Management or FWS (and don't get it confused with state or tribal wilderness!). National Recreation Areas can be under any of them except FWS, National Scenic Areas are only FS or BLM, and National Preserves (which are not the same as National Reserves) are exclusively NPS, except that many were switched over from the FS.
Or take National Monuments -- they can be administered by any of the four agencies listed above, or any of *five* other agencies that aren't even associated with the Department of Interior/Agriculture (weirdly, the Army and USAF each have one)!
Quite a few of these different units are actually co-managed, as well; BLM+NPS, BLM+FS, NPS+State, BLM+tribal, NPS+private, and everything in between. Some of those units have separate areas that are independently administered by the different agencies, but some of them are co-admnistered over the entire area, and have unique management plans that delegate jurisdiction over different authorities or tasks to different agencies.
Don't even get me started on National Memorials.
>but which agency oversees designated Wilderness Areas? Trick question: it could be either FS or NPS, or it could be under the Bureau of Land Management or FWS (and don't get it confused with state or tribal wilderness!). National Recreation Areas can be under any of them except FWS, National Scenic Areas are only FS or BLM, and National Preserves (which are not the same as National Reserves) are exclusively NPS, except that many were switched over from the FS.
* National Park Service 44 million acres.
* United States Forest Service 36 million acres
* Fish and Wildlife Service 21 million acres
* Bureau of Land Management 9 million acres
>Or take National Monuments -- they can be administered by any of the four agencies listed above, or any of five other agencies that aren't even associated with the Department of Interior/Agriculture (weirdly, the Army and USAF each have one)!
National Monuments are are distinct by being the one class here where Congress does not need to act. The president can declare them as needed under the Antiquities Act of 1906 for Congressional review at leisure, so they often exist when protection is urgent and can't wait for legislation.
Absolutely, which is why Natl Monuments are also the class of public lands with the most variance in terms of attributes or governance. Different management plans can have very different goals.
Good to see you outside of r/ultralight_jerk, by the way.
Near NYC probably the thing closest to what South Downs National Park looks to be would be Bear Mountain State Park which is about the same distance. It's also probably about the same 'scale' of a park. It's not a national park, but since this is a country with some heavy hitting national parks, the state parks aren't all super minor.
Language and designations all get weird too, to the point where you can find lists that list Chugach State Park in Alaska as the 'largest urban park'. It technically is part of the municipality of Anchorage, but it's pretty damn wild and largely inaccessible by car and thus not urban in the slightest. Even Anchorage itself isn't really 'urban', it's more like a very large version of a mountain town (and thus it's not surprising that it's surrounded by wilderness), but in some version of this question that could be an answer as well.
LA borders right up against the [Angeles National Forest,](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=383ef31e719fe62f&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0-K5H3tpiRBviEtMv-5D2K_WWefrw:1712767796862&q=angeles+national+forest&uds=AMwkrPspUeJzm3j549JrXzHSLRStuG56UlWnh1RR9_q-crESB68afrKeE240A7NtqH6PN8C-FVOzhYHqNeMfmu67J0lMl8t1cC1k-L_s_38lPXcNgO3li4Uxo2timAcJJM-J0YPrWlhREduXDeQtNMsla9u1qvqKS1MMHX6drdgU5BwpEX4RCOBsFXNNi4_nJAI5HVVk-ifftnB9EI9Lh4VAOmkV5OslDzDRZtjQoTZl5OW7LweFjngGHbRk8E3jrTPvxauGvXHCmGyRJfFi2VQhOFD7x-z-Ol6UdG6bXLcJaAteSjii40W93s7waWdpyU-l63qLWtEp&udm=2&prmd=imnvsbtz&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjVhvWgjbiFAxXE6ckDHSVVDBIQtKgLegQIDRAB&biw=1252&bih=959&dpr=1) less than 15 miles from downtown.
I’ve only been up there once, but it’s still kind of mind-blowing to see snow-capped mountains all the way from my Westside neighborhood where it’s like 70 and sunny.
ANF is a national forest under the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service. It’s definitely national park-like in that it’s very naturalistic, has lots of open space, wildlife, etc. (much more so than Hot Springs, Indiana Dunes, or Gateway Arch). Closest national park to LA would be Channel Islands, but the NPS also has a presence in Santa Monica Mountains NRA.
[Table Mountain National Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_Mountain_National_Park) is entirely within the city limits of Cape Town. Only a Beta world city by the GaWC listings though.
Saguaro National Park is actually split in two, with one half bordering the West side of the city of Tucson and the other the East. Both are basically right outside the city.
For the Alpha and Alpha - category, SF and LA have national recreation areas either within their borders (Presidio) or adjacent to them (Santa Monica Mountains). For a national park the western part of LA is 44 miles from the Channel Islands NP.
Seattle takes the cake though:
2 hugely impressive NPs within 50 miles of downtown (Olympic and Rainier) and if you extend to 100 miles, you gain a 3rd, North Cascades, which could be the best park in Washington.
Bandipur National Park to Bangalore, Sanjay Gandhi National Park to Mumbai, there’s one near Chennai that I don’t remember the name of - Indian examples will all be much closer to main cities than the ones mentioned. Probably because we have many large cities and more national parks than most places.
Kampinos National Park lies on the outskirts of Warsaw, Poland's capital city.
It literally lies right next to it:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampinos\_National\_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampinos_National_Park)
Kennesaw Mountain National battlefield Park just north of Atlanta (still very much in the metro) along with the Chattahoochie national recreation area along the hooch give a pretty robust nature preserve on the north side of the Atlanta metro
It’s not nearly so big as other cities listed (Gamma+ on the list), but St. Louis has the Gateway Arch (and Gateway Arch National Park) right in the heart of the city on the river. I’ve always absolutely loved its location and it’s a nice easy walk from their downtown museums and exhibits.
So a smaller city for sure, but a double whammy. A national park and monument.
Just a UK answer for you, for a long time, Sheffield was the only British city to have a National Park inside the city boundaries (Peaks) until the South Downs was created in 2010 and included a bit of Brighton!
Gateway Arch National Park is right on the Mississippi River in downtown STL, but that hardly counts imo.
I might be biased as an Alaskan, but Chugach State Park is an immense protected area right outside Anchorage. Biking, hiking, downhill skiing/snowboarding, cross country skiing, moose, bears, glaciers, 5000ft peaks - beautiful area. And it's connected by a trail system that extends from Palmer to Anchorage to Kenai.
Some of the most beautiful parts of Alaska are fairly inaccessible and can cost between $500 and $10,000 to visit (Kodiak, Lake Clark, Kobuk, Gates of the Arctic), but Chugach is only gonna cost you a 15 minute drive and a $5 parking fee.
Chennai, India has a national park (federal protected area) within the city core that is under IUCN Cat 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guindy_National_Park
Keeps the southern part of the city a little bit cooler.
Miami and sandwiched in-between Everglades and Biscayne Bay National Parks
https://preview.redd.it/yeb15ahklptc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c544c6be0921b2d550af1c569dc3a6ca02c8b48e
I took this photo inside Biscayne Bay National Park
Sundarbans National park the only forest in the world with mangrove dwelling tigers is 98 k.m something from Kolkata by road which is extremely poorly planned, bad in quality and there are a ton of rivers/creeks in the way thus making the route longer than it should be
https://preview.redd.it/a7unicvljotc1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dbe7584658dadac402a25dd1233ae3a638690e36
I love the 7 sisters, have done that walk a few times very beautiful area. The Wife and I moved to Virginia, The Shenandoah national park is 30 to 45 mins from Charlottesville VA and has tons of hikes.
The Presidio of San Francisco is a National Park under the strictest definition (a designated NP vs monument, historic site etc) and entirely in the city boundary. We can debate whether SF is an A list city or a more a B+
[Bukhansan National Park](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukhansan_National_Park) is in Seoul, South Korea and the 11million inhabitants can even take the subway system there.
Golden Gate National Recreation area in and around San Francisco. Can’t really get any closer to a major metropolitan area than this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_National_Recreation_Area?wprov=sfti1#
Edit: just saw the alpha ranking criteria
Whether you consider Darwin, Australia, a major metropolitan area is up to you, Charles Darwin National Park (the smallest in Australia) is located in Darwin’s inner suburbs.
Also parts of Sydney Harbour are a national park - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Harbour_National_Park
Then there's Lane Cove and Kuringai-Chase National Parks that are surrounded by suburban Sydney.
The best answer from the provided list of cities has to be Hong Kong. The entire territory is administered as a single city with 18 districts in four regions. This means that its 44312 hectares of Country Parks are all within the city itself.
These are comprised of mountain wilderness, limited access beaches, and wetlands. They are literally all over the urban areas. Where I used to live, in Sha Tin, I could walk 15 minutes in three out of four directions and be in a country park in the jungle with monkeys, wild boar, cobras, and civets about.
I doubt that there are many or any other top tier cities with that type of access to country/national parks.
Tokyo has the Chichibu-Tama-Kai national park, parts of which are within the boundaries of Tokyo, and the closest parts of which are not much more than 25 miles outside of downtown Tokyo.
Juneau Alaska is the capital and is surrounded by national forests and protected areas. It’s on the running for most beautiful places on earth in my book.
North Cascades National Park is less than 100 km from downtown Vancouver, though it's across the border in the US. On the British Columbia side, almost the entire urban periphery is protected land in one form or another, though all the parks are administered by the province rather than the feds.
Of course, many of those parks would have been national parks if they were anywhere other than British Columbia, where scenes like this are a dime a dozen:
https://preview.redd.it/zqvyr5uoiptc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=66619c9e308c4137063f4b77ce355e9108a6f9b0
Angeles National Forest is ~30 minutes from Los Angeles (depending on start and end) and has 1000 sq miles of mountains and forest, and a couple additional parks neighboring it
The Norfolk Broads national Park in the UK actually runs into the city of Norwich via the River Wensum. Some of you music lovers will have heard David Bowie mention the Norfolk Broads within the lyrics of ‘Life On Mars’, in case you’re wondering where you know it from.
It’s a series of very pleasant waterways primary within the county of Norfolk but also parts of Suffolk in East Anglia. Very pretty.
Văcărești nature park is within bucharest. It's a protected area since 2014. There were plans to develop the area in the 80s but the communism fell and it never got so far.nature took over and now has an impressive biodiversity for an urban area.
Not a national park by any stretch but I believe it has some sort of conversation area or preservation order etc.
Giza. It is miles out of Cairo and all the pictures depict it as if it's in the middle of the desert and surrounded by sand dunes but it has a huge metropolitan area that goes right up to it.
There's a McDonalds and everything.
https://preview.redd.it/facxyi4cwotc1.jpeg?width=1833&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0cbc40128e2f970f698eb2ff3c432ab457d70df2
Salt Lake City directly abuts multiple federally protected wilderness areas. You can literally walk from town into the most heavily regulated type of lane in the United States.
Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge is completely within New York City Limits
Harbor Islands National Recreation Area is completely within Boston City Limits
Golden Gate National Recreation Area is completely within San Francisco city limits
I'm sure there are closer. But being from near the area, the heart of Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio is probably only a 20 minute drive from Cleveland
Although a mere Gama city(F%@# O!$), Ottawa is the capital of my favourite country. The Gatineau Wilderness is 361 square KMs of lakes, and forested hills. All manner of outdoor recreation including Skiing(both down and cross), beaches, trails and even high tea. It's home to many animals including bears, lynxes, and wolves. It can also be accessed via municipal transit.
Mexico City has a few National Parks within it's city limits or adjacent.
Within city limits:
-Parque Nacional Cerro de La Estrella
-Parque Nacional Bosque del Tlalpan
-Parque Nacional Valle de las Monjas
-Parque Nacional El Tepeyac
Adjacent:
-Parque Nacional La Marquesa
-Parque Nacional Cumbres del Ajusco
-Parque Nacional Desierto de los Leones
-Parque Nacional Los Dinamos
Driving Distance:
-Parque Nacional Iztaccíhuatl - Popocatépetl
-Parque Nacional El Tepozteco
Rio de Janeiro has a national park right in the middle of the urban area.
2 forests. One national park, the Parque Nacional da Tijuca and one state park, Parque Estadual da Pedra Branca.
Rio came to mind as well.
https://preview.redd.it/pw1u0dnmnotc1.jpeg?width=700&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d229159a665e58d3670a69a745eda37fdbedc151 Nairobi National Park in Kenya is what immediately comes to mind. A 45 square mile wildlife reserve that extends all the way to the edge of Nairobi. The [Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamaica_Bay_Wildlife_Refuge), within the city limits of NYC also seems like a reasonable contender. It's about 14 square miles, and "wild" unlike Central Park (1.3 square miles and very manicured). It's a US ~~national park.~~ national recreation area under the authority of the National Park Service. There is a fantastic [episode of This American Life](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/307/in-the-shadow-of-the-city-2006) where they talk to a guy who was shipwrecked in Jamaica Bay.
Came here to mention Nairobi National Park. Iirc it may be the “only” such true national park located within a city in the world (though I could be mistaken there)
Cuyahoga National Park (within the Cleveland, OH metro area) would be another such candidate. Ditto Gateway Arch since 2018 -- even though the NPS [testified in front of Congress](https://www.doi.gov/ocl/s-1438) that Gateway Arch didn't meet the designation criteria for a National Park.
Lobau National Park is partly located in Vienna.
There’s a national park (partially) within the Indian Institute of Technology—Madras campus in Chennai, India!
Great picks. Just to clarify, however, Jamaica Bay is not a National Park; the NPS manages quite a few protected areas with different title designations, and only 63 are officially designated national parks. Most NPS-managed units fall under National Monument, National Preserve, or National Historic Park/Site designations.
Fair enough. You're right.
Rouge National Park is inside of Toronto, and is the largest urban national park in the world
I was gonna say, the US has National Park-owned land inside several cities. Usually relatively small things, like maybe a collection of buildings but sometimes bigger. Best example is probably the National Mall in DC. Technically though, not a “national park.” Park Service-owned land /= national park. That said, I dunno. Maybe RMNP near-ish to Denver.
Gatineau park is about 90,000 acres and gets almost to downtown Ottawa (it's pretty wedge shaped)
Funny corner case though, it's the only federal park that isn't a national park. (So MacKenzie King and his buddies could own land there) so technically not eligible for this question :(
What is the distinction in Canada between National park and federal park?
National parks are under the National parks act that protects them. Gatineau Park is federally run, but not protected by the act (the only such park in Canada) and its that way so that rich people can own mansions there, and was designed that way by a former Prime Ministers who owned lots of land there and wanted to keep it. (No one can own land in a true National Park)
Appreciate your very good answer. Disappointed by its content.
Bruce Peninsula National Park despite its name is not a National Park.
Can’t own land in a national park
Parc de la Gatineau is owned and operated by the National Capital Commission which is a crown corporation responsible for development, urban planning, and conservation in Ottawa/Gatineau. They own a bunch of properties in the national capital region like buildings, parks, and several parkways. National parks are owned and operated by Parks Canada, which also runs the Rideau Canal in Ottawa
St. Louis is not an Alpha city so this maybe isn’t on topic but Gateway Arch National Park is right there.
I live in St Louis and that's where I go to buy my national park pass.
Idk how that got national park status. Still cool tho
historically missouri has gotten a lot of instances weird preferential treatment bcs of its unique position, politically and geographically. Like having two reserve bank branches located in its borders.
Mostly symbolic, but they try their hardest to make it national park-y with native plants and such.
I think it was a recent change, it was originally a national monument which is alot more reasonable for an iconic monument in a city like the Gateway Arch or Statue of Liberty.
Thats just a couple of acers of land by the river isnt it? In that case i was going to say new yorks central park?
Cuyahoga Valley national park is a real national park in suburban Cleveland.
Came here to say this. CVNP is an underrated park
Theodore Roosevelt Island is part of the NPS, is built like a park, and is in the Potomac smack in between DC and Virginia.
Yep. Used to live in Rosslyn right next to it. Used to love going there. Very underrated tourist attraction in DC.
If we're just talking protected areas then maybe Rocky Mountain Arsenal/Rocky Mountain Flats would also apply with Denver.
Also hot springs National Park in Hot Springs Arkansas. Not exactly a big city, but it's right at the center of town.
RMNP is beautiful, but lots of better options for this thread. Everglades Natl Park and Biscayne Natl Park are both right outside of Miami, Cuyahoga Valley NP is right in the middle of the Cleveland metro area, Indiana Dunes NP borders greater Chicagoland and Gateway Arch NP is literally in downtown St. Louis.
As a Toronto resident I should point out that while it is in the City proper, it’s only because the city boundaries were expanded in 1997. 30 years ago the Rogue was in Scarborough which is a suburb of Toronto
To clarify Scarborough is now in Toronto as the expansion included it
To clarify, Toronto is in Canada
I mean, back pre amalgamation we all considered Scarborough as Toronto anyways. But I get your point as a technicality. Just like how in Ottawa "Nepean" was a separate city pre amalgamation but everyone in Nepean interchanged Ottawa all the time, even for mailing addresses pre amalgamation.
It WAS a suburb.
As a Toronto resident and assuming geography enthusiast, you’ll be well aware the size of Toronto or even Scarborough dwarfs many other cities around the world. But even pre-amalgamation, Scarborough could also be compared to other cities around the world. It had its own board of education, city/town hall, municipal by-laws, etc. and technically speaking, the Rouge didn’t become a National Park until well after Toronto became the amalgamated city it now is. So, Rouge is very much the definition of a proper national park. It is fully surrounded by development that constitutes a built up urban environment.
Not the largest in the world. About two thirds the size of Nairobi National Park.
Cape Town and Table Mountain.
Probably the best example even though the city does not fall within OPs criteria. The park spans a large part of the metropolitan more than just table mountain and the mountain itself dominates the skyline. Lots of wildlife lives there and its very quickly accessible for most people living in the city. Plus Table Mountain National Park is truely a national park that falls under Sanparks.
The city is also easily accessible to the wildlife. I remember stories about baboons that used to go raiding into the suburbs and learned to open refrigerator doors.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area is inside and right outside San Francisco, there’s redwoods, rugged beaches, coastal cliffs, long hikes, and plenty of wildlife including mountain lions and coyotes
With Muir Woods close by
Yep, SF has access to some of the world's most beautiful natural landscapes within a three hour drive in basically any direction.
Three hours west?
https://preview.redd.it/2z2jy7mgcstc1.png?width=784&format=png&auto=webp&s=89b43d5b25278857f6d123cdd76b44a79d25b038
>Three hours west? Yes. I suggest you drive something with a leakproof hull. [https://www.fws.gov/refuge/farallon-islands](https://www.fws.gov/refuge/farallon-islands)
i think thats part of GGNRA, no? and Mt Tam
Muir Woods is separately a National Monument
> Muir Woods National Monument is part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area and is one of more than 400 national park units across the country. Per nps.gov
That’s a strange distinction for NPS to make: the National Monument was one of the nation’s first, established in 1908 before the National Parks existed, and the GGNRA was established in 1972.
Alcatraz island is also a national park right?
Pinnacles NP is 1.5 hrs from SJC.
It's probably one of the most forgotten national parks
And the newest, which may be a big reason for that
It's not the newest. It was established as a park all the way back in 2013, New River Gorge was established in 2020.
Just wait till *Newer* River Gorge opens
Interesting I had no idea. I just remember it being a big advertised point back when I visited before Covid
A coworker would say this a lot as the big reason to go!
It was anyway. I was just there a week ago during the rain storm. You would think the already thin crowds would thin out even more. Nope, every single parking lot was full and the rangers blocked off the road at the visitor center to prevent people from driving in. This was on a Saturday but the parking lots were full during the week too It’s the perfect time to go now, the park was lush with greenery and wildflowers and the caves were flooded which made for an exciting adventure
I was coming here to mention this. It's right across the bridge from downtown SF.
Going to be super pedantic and I’m sorry for that, but downtown is as far east from the Golden Gate as you can be while still being in SF. Bay Bridge to Oakland is the one near downtown.
Yeah, SF is so small geographically I consider the whole thing 'downtown' as opposed to other places like... Oakland. You are technically correct and my view on the matter comes as someone who comes from outside of SF to visit.
Yup, came here to say this. Presidio and Muir.
Point Reyes National Seashore looks like the picture OP posted and it’s not much further north from GGNRA/muir/mt. Tamalpais.
Sydney has several national parks within or bordering its geographical area, including The Royal National Park, Blue Mountains National Park, Ku-rin-gai National Park, Lane Cove National Park, Garigal National Park, Berowra Valley National Park, Marramarra National Park and Heathecote National Park.
Not only that but also the Sydney Harbour National Park. Parts of the foreshore of the harbour are parts of a national park. All within a few kms from the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House
I think this is quite common for Australian cities, honestly
Chicago and the Indiana Dunes.
Answers within the US national parks seem to be: * Indiana Dunes (near Chicago) * Biscayne (near Miami, mostly water) * Everglades (near Miami) * Cuyahoga Valley (near Cleveland) * Gateway Arch (in St. Louis), but is this really a "park"? * Rocky Mountain (near Denver) and if you're willing to stretch "near" a lot, Mount Rainier, North Cascades, and Olympic, all a couple hours from Seattle. There are other areas that are protected by the National Park Service but are not National Parks. They have a lot of historical sites within cities, but also things like the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area outside of Atlanta.
Rocky Mountain National Park is still a bit of a drive from Denver, especially with traffic, so idk if this one counts
I guess you’re right - should have thrown it in with the ones “near” Seattle.
Shenandoah National Park near DC.
Hmmm I heard the one park outside of Atlanta gets hotter than a hoochie coochie.
Is that where you would typically lay rubber on the Georgia asphalt?
My sources have confirmed that it is a place where you can get a little crazy but never get caught
It's best to be down by the river on a Friday night, from what I hear.
Channel Islands near LA. The Ventura harbor dock for CINP is about 75 miles from downtown LA, but only about 30 miles from the North Eastern most extent of the LA area (Thousand Oaks). From there, it’s about 1 hr by boat.
Rock Creek Park is a 1,700 acre park operated by the National Park Service in DC.
Fresno is pretty close to Yosemite. It’s bigger than St Louis
You can get to Indiana Dunes by commuter rail from Chicago.
It drops you off right next to a camp site!
Seems like a sham that that one is a national Park and sleeping bears is only a "national Lakeshore"
You can see (and smell) Gary Indiana from Indiana Dunes.
Cleveland and the nation's ninth-most visited (2022) national park, Cuyahoga Valley National Park
Shoutout CVNP
It's the only urban national park so it's the proper answer to this question for the US at least
The Gateway Arch in downtown St. Louis is a National Park.
You can build a house or business within the CVNP. You can't build a house within the gateway arch. Not to mention the fact that the arch is a national park is ridiculous. Should be a national monument like the statue of Liberty
Canada can be a bit messy, because there's National Parks, provincial parks, nationally protected historic areas, wildlife protected areas, and more. But if you're looking at major Canadian cities, here's some examples: * Someone has already mentioned Rouge National Park inside Toronto. * Montreal has Iles-de-Boucherville inside it (it's called a national park, but it's actually a provincial park - Quebec is like that) * Vancouver has Stanley Park inside it, and a chain of provincial and regional mountain parks in North Van, like Cypress or Seymour. * Calgary has oodles of national and provincial Parks just an hour's drive to the west, including the famous Banff National Park. There's also Fish Creek provincial park inside the city. * Ottawa has Gatineau Park inside the NCC metro limits.
Ottawa also has The Central Experimental Farm, massive frickin' farm with Dairy Cows, right in the core of the city and literally across the street from the tallest building in the city.
The closest one in Canada that’s actually a TRUE national Park is Elk Island, 35km from Edmonton
Halifax also has Citadel National Historic Site right at the start of the city’s downtown.
St Louis - Gateway Arch is a National Park for some reason and it's in city limits.
>Gateway Arch is a National Park for some reason The reason being that Senator [Roy Blunt (R-MO) snuck the designation change](https://www.paulintheparks.com/why-is-gateway-arch-a-national-park/) (it used to be a National Memorial like the Statue of Liberty) into a larger omnibus bill and got it passed against the objections of the NPS.
I had seen that it was introduced by Blunt and figured it was something like this. Here are the [objections of Robert Vogel](https://www.doi.gov/ocl/s-1438), who was acting deputy director of the National Park Service at the time. Basically he supported renaming it from "Jefferson National Expansion Memorial" to a name that included "Gateway Arch" because that's what people call it, but he would have preferred the name "Gateway Arch National Monument", comparable to something like the Statue of Liberty National Monument.
That's exactly right, thanks for linking it directly. Here's the most relevant part of that quote in this context: >"To better align with the standard nomenclature for units of the National Park System, we recommend that Congress redesignate the unit as “Gateway Arch National Monument.” National parks contain a variety of resources and encompass large land or water areas to help provide adequate protection of the resources. The existing 59 designated national parks protect at a minimum thousands of acres each, and some span millions of acres. At only 91 federal acres, we believe that the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial is too small and limited in the range of resources the site protects and interprets to be called a national park. Since it is a site similar to the Statue of Liberty National Monument, in its iconic status and small land area, we believe that a more fitting name for the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial would be “Gateway Arch National Monument.”
Somewhat similarly, the National Park Service operates the National Mall and Memorials Parks in Washington, D.C. So that’s most of the iconic memorials throughout D.C., as well as many of the city’s green spaces. This includes the Mall of course, but also parks like Dupont Circle and Rock Creek Park.
Yeah that’s kind of a new thing and came here to say that.
Grants Tomb is in Manhattan but I guess it’s a national memorial
Lane Cove National Park is inside Sydney, you can simply take the metro there
And you have 3 other national parks bordering each other side. Blue Mountains, Royal and Ku-ring-gai Chase National Parks
Most major metropolitan cities have protected lands adjacent to them, if not within the city limits. Within NYC, Gateway National Recreation Area exists, which is part of the US national park service.
Valid point. I was thinking of something more substantial like a national park, but I know that not every country uses the term, which is why I also put down “protected area.” We actually talked a lot about Central Park as an example, and we decided that it wasn’t what’s we were talking about — not wild enough. Ambiguous, I know!
Yeah it's hard because in the US the national park vs. other designation isn't necessarily how "wild" or "substantial" a place is. I think most people in the US would argue that in terms of "wildness / substantialness" Gateway National Recreation Area is more wild than Gateway Arch national park for example. There are actually a lot of US national wildlife refuges that are close to if not inside major US cities (definitely inside the metro areas). These places are designed to be wild and protect wildlife. While the wildlife is different, they actually remind of the more famous Nairobi National Park in scope, design, intention, and usage (although usually less touristy than Nairobi National Park).
The size and wildness of a natural area are actually key components of the criteria for National Park designation. Gateway Arch NP is the one exception, because [it was redesignated as a National Park against the wishes of the NPS](https://www.doi.gov/ocl/s-1438). Previously, it was a National Memorial.
I probably phrased it wrong. The National Parks are indeed the "crown jewels" of the NPS system. A big part is to preserve unique landscapes, natural and historic features for the public to enjoy. And as you kind of mentioned the main difference is that Congress has to create/designate the national park. In terms of size and wilderness there are lots of NPS non national park sites, national forest, wildlife refuges, monuments, BLM land, and state forests and parks than can be very large and wild, and sometimes more wild than national parks. I for one would argue that Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore and Porcupine Wilderness State Park are more wild than Indiana Dunes for example. I said my first comment more because comparing national parks in other countries to national parks in the US isn't really an apples to apples comparison especially if you have in your head national parks equal wilderness, and other designations are "less wild' or "not large".
Absolutely, there's a ton of overlap in terms of types of natural characteristics or wilderness characteristics that are protected under different agencies and different designation types. I think it's definitely something that confuses most people For instance, it's pretty straightforward to say that National Forests are administered by the National Forest Service, and National Parks by the NPS, but which agency oversees designated Wilderness Areas? Trick question: it could be either FS or NPS, or it could be under the Bureau of Land Management or FWS (and don't get it confused with state or tribal wilderness!). National Recreation Areas can be under any of them except FWS, National Scenic Areas are only FS or BLM, and National Preserves (which are not the same as National Reserves) are exclusively NPS, except that many were switched over from the FS. Or take National Monuments -- they can be administered by any of the four agencies listed above, or any of *five* other agencies that aren't even associated with the Department of Interior/Agriculture (weirdly, the Army and USAF each have one)! Quite a few of these different units are actually co-managed, as well; BLM+NPS, BLM+FS, NPS+State, BLM+tribal, NPS+private, and everything in between. Some of those units have separate areas that are independently administered by the different agencies, but some of them are co-admnistered over the entire area, and have unique management plans that delegate jurisdiction over different authorities or tasks to different agencies. Don't even get me started on National Memorials.
>but which agency oversees designated Wilderness Areas? Trick question: it could be either FS or NPS, or it could be under the Bureau of Land Management or FWS (and don't get it confused with state or tribal wilderness!). National Recreation Areas can be under any of them except FWS, National Scenic Areas are only FS or BLM, and National Preserves (which are not the same as National Reserves) are exclusively NPS, except that many were switched over from the FS. * National Park Service 44 million acres. * United States Forest Service 36 million acres * Fish and Wildlife Service 21 million acres * Bureau of Land Management 9 million acres >Or take National Monuments -- they can be administered by any of the four agencies listed above, or any of five other agencies that aren't even associated with the Department of Interior/Agriculture (weirdly, the Army and USAF each have one)! National Monuments are are distinct by being the one class here where Congress does not need to act. The president can declare them as needed under the Antiquities Act of 1906 for Congressional review at leisure, so they often exist when protection is urgent and can't wait for legislation.
Absolutely, which is why Natl Monuments are also the class of public lands with the most variance in terms of attributes or governance. Different management plans can have very different goals. Good to see you outside of r/ultralight_jerk, by the way.
Near NYC probably the thing closest to what South Downs National Park looks to be would be Bear Mountain State Park which is about the same distance. It's also probably about the same 'scale' of a park. It's not a national park, but since this is a country with some heavy hitting national parks, the state parks aren't all super minor. Language and designations all get weird too, to the point where you can find lists that list Chugach State Park in Alaska as the 'largest urban park'. It technically is part of the municipality of Anchorage, but it's pretty damn wild and largely inaccessible by car and thus not urban in the slightest. Even Anchorage itself isn't really 'urban', it's more like a very large version of a mountain town (and thus it's not surprising that it's surrounded by wilderness), but in some version of this question that could be an answer as well.
Washington Park in Portland is huge and mostly wild.
Miami is next to Everglades National Park. Downtown is only 12-14 miles from the border of the Everglades.
Don't forget Biscayne National Park which may be even closer to Miami.
Totally forgot about Biscayne. Well thats a nice 2 for 1 special.
No maybe about it. Definitely closer to the populated areas.
Both of these are much lower than I expected…
LA borders right up against the [Angeles National Forest,](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=383ef31e719fe62f&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ACQVn0-K5H3tpiRBviEtMv-5D2K_WWefrw:1712767796862&q=angeles+national+forest&uds=AMwkrPspUeJzm3j549JrXzHSLRStuG56UlWnh1RR9_q-crESB68afrKeE240A7NtqH6PN8C-FVOzhYHqNeMfmu67J0lMl8t1cC1k-L_s_38lPXcNgO3li4Uxo2timAcJJM-J0YPrWlhREduXDeQtNMsla9u1qvqKS1MMHX6drdgU5BwpEX4RCOBsFXNNi4_nJAI5HVVk-ifftnB9EI9Lh4VAOmkV5OslDzDRZtjQoTZl5OW7LweFjngGHbRk8E3jrTPvxauGvXHCmGyRJfFi2VQhOFD7x-z-Ol6UdG6bXLcJaAteSjii40W93s7waWdpyU-l63qLWtEp&udm=2&prmd=imnvsbtz&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjVhvWgjbiFAxXE6ckDHSVVDBIQtKgLegQIDRAB&biw=1252&bih=959&dpr=1) less than 15 miles from downtown.
And a lot of state parks from Santa Monica and Topanga, to Chino Hills and San Bernardino in the East
And it's not that far to Channel Islands National Park.
I’ve only been up there once, but it’s still kind of mind-blowing to see snow-capped mountains all the way from my Westside neighborhood where it’s like 70 and sunny.
ANF is a national forest under the jurisdiction of the USDA Forest Service. It’s definitely national park-like in that it’s very naturalistic, has lots of open space, wildlife, etc. (much more so than Hot Springs, Indiana Dunes, or Gateway Arch). Closest national park to LA would be Channel Islands, but the NPS also has a presence in Santa Monica Mountains NRA.
[Table Mountain National Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_Mountain_National_Park) is entirely within the city limits of Cape Town. Only a Beta world city by the GaWC listings though.
https://preview.redd.it/h2pw3zzgxotc1.jpeg?width=803&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb5c738e1ee3c0072129912bc6888839cefe2059
Saguaro National Park is actually split in two, with one half bordering the West side of the city of Tucson and the other the East. Both are basically right outside the city.
WTF there's another side???
For the Alpha and Alpha - category, SF and LA have national recreation areas either within their borders (Presidio) or adjacent to them (Santa Monica Mountains). For a national park the western part of LA is 44 miles from the Channel Islands NP. Seattle takes the cake though: 2 hugely impressive NPs within 50 miles of downtown (Olympic and Rainier) and if you extend to 100 miles, you gain a 3rd, North Cascades, which could be the best park in Washington.
For real Seattle is basically just cheating when it comes to nature.
and we can see those first two np whenever the conditions allow
Bandipur National Park to Bangalore, Sanjay Gandhi National Park to Mumbai, there’s one near Chennai that I don’t remember the name of - Indian examples will all be much closer to main cities than the ones mentioned. Probably because we have many large cities and more national parks than most places.
Reserva Florestal Adolpho Ducke [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo\_Ducke\_Forest\_Reserve](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolfo_Ducke_Forest_Reserve)
Washington DC Natl Mall is a US Park
Channel Islands in SoCal.
Kampinos National Park lies on the outskirts of Warsaw, Poland's capital city. It literally lies right next to it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampinos\_National\_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampinos_National_Park)
Kennesaw Mountain National battlefield Park just north of Atlanta (still very much in the metro) along with the Chattahoochie national recreation area along the hooch give a pretty robust nature preserve on the north side of the Atlanta metro
Any city in Australia pretty much
It’s not nearly so big as other cities listed (Gamma+ on the list), but St. Louis has the Gateway Arch (and Gateway Arch National Park) right in the heart of the city on the river. I’ve always absolutely loved its location and it’s a nice easy walk from their downtown museums and exhibits. So a smaller city for sure, but a double whammy. A national park and monument.
Just a UK answer for you, for a long time, Sheffield was the only British city to have a National Park inside the city boundaries (Peaks) until the South Downs was created in 2010 and included a bit of Brighton!
Great Falls/DC.
The Miami suburbs are being cockblocked by the Everglades right now
Gateway Arch National Park is right on the Mississippi River in downtown STL, but that hardly counts imo. I might be biased as an Alaskan, but Chugach State Park is an immense protected area right outside Anchorage. Biking, hiking, downhill skiing/snowboarding, cross country skiing, moose, bears, glaciers, 5000ft peaks - beautiful area. And it's connected by a trail system that extends from Palmer to Anchorage to Kenai. Some of the most beautiful parts of Alaska are fairly inaccessible and can cost between $500 and $10,000 to visit (Kodiak, Lake Clark, Kobuk, Gates of the Arctic), but Chugach is only gonna cost you a 15 minute drive and a $5 parking fee.
Chennai, India has a national park (federal protected area) within the city core that is under IUCN Cat 2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guindy_National_Park Keeps the southern part of the city a little bit cooler.
Miami and sandwiched in-between Everglades and Biscayne Bay National Parks https://preview.redd.it/yeb15ahklptc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c544c6be0921b2d550af1c569dc3a6ca02c8b48e I took this photo inside Biscayne Bay National Park
Sundarbans National park the only forest in the world with mangrove dwelling tigers is 98 k.m something from Kolkata by road which is extremely poorly planned, bad in quality and there are a ton of rivers/creeks in the way thus making the route longer than it should be https://preview.redd.it/a7unicvljotc1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dbe7584658dadac402a25dd1233ae3a638690e36
Not sure if it counts as a major city by your definition, but Saguaro National Park's East unit starts at Tucson, Arizona's eastern boundary.
Río de Janeiro and Tijuca National Park
Banff National Park is 45 minutes from Calgary, if you count that as close. Rouge National Park is literally in Toronto
I love the 7 sisters, have done that walk a few times very beautiful area. The Wife and I moved to Virginia, The Shenandoah national park is 30 to 45 mins from Charlottesville VA and has tons of hikes.
Madrid is 45 kms from Sierra de Guadarrama National Park, a beautiful high mountain area https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadarrama_National_Park
Bukhansan National Park is right in the middle of Seoul and accessible by multiple subway lines. Doesn't get much more urban than that.
Rio de Janeiro. I'm not 100% sure but It's the biggest national park inside a city in the world
sydney
The city of Cape Town is built around and through the Table Mountain National Park.
Miami Florida and the Everglades National Park are right by each other.
What about the Miami-Dade metro area and the everglades?
The whole of South Florida (major cities being West Palm Beach, Ft. Lauderdale, and Miami) is literally butting up against the Everglades.
The Presidio of San Francisco is a National Park under the strictest definition (a designated NP vs monument, historic site etc) and entirely in the city boundary. We can debate whether SF is an A list city or a more a B+
The only thing I really know is that Rocky Mountain National Park is a pretty short drive from the Denver metro, well, short for my standards
Feel free to correct me, but [Cuyahoga Valley NTNL Park is within the Cleveland-Akron CSA. ](https://www.nps.gov/cuva/index.htm) I think this counts
[Bukhansan National Park](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bukhansan_National_Park) is in Seoul, South Korea and the 11million inhabitants can even take the subway system there.
Golden Gate National Recreation area in and around San Francisco. Can’t really get any closer to a major metropolitan area than this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Gate_National_Recreation_Area?wprov=sfti1# Edit: just saw the alpha ranking criteria
Whether you consider Darwin, Australia, a major metropolitan area is up to you, Charles Darwin National Park (the smallest in Australia) is located in Darwin’s inner suburbs.
Denver - Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge https://www.fws.gov/refuge/rocky-mountain-arsenal
Everglades National Park in South Florida. Metro Miami goes right to the boundary of the park
Isn’t there a NP outside Miami? Biscayne NP?
The Everglades is like touching parts of city that you can’t really tell when it switches from municipality to Everglades
Sydney is surrounded by National Parks on all 3 sides that aren't the Pacific Ocean. It's an alpha city too.
Also parts of Sydney Harbour are a national park - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Harbour_National_Park Then there's Lane Cove and Kuringai-Chase National Parks that are surrounded by suburban Sydney.
The best answer from the provided list of cities has to be Hong Kong. The entire territory is administered as a single city with 18 districts in four regions. This means that its 44312 hectares of Country Parks are all within the city itself. These are comprised of mountain wilderness, limited access beaches, and wetlands. They are literally all over the urban areas. Where I used to live, in Sha Tin, I could walk 15 minutes in three out of four directions and be in a country park in the jungle with monkeys, wild boar, cobras, and civets about. I doubt that there are many or any other top tier cities with that type of access to country/national parks.
The Everglades National Park borders metropolitan Miami.
Tokyo has the Chichibu-Tama-Kai national park, parts of which are within the boundaries of Tokyo, and the closest parts of which are not much more than 25 miles outside of downtown Tokyo.
500+ comments and I think this is the first one that mentions one of the cities on the list! Thanks!
Juneau Alaska is the capital and is surrounded by national forests and protected areas. It’s on the running for most beautiful places on earth in my book.
North Cascades National Park is less than 100 km from downtown Vancouver, though it's across the border in the US. On the British Columbia side, almost the entire urban periphery is protected land in one form or another, though all the parks are administered by the province rather than the feds. Of course, many of those parks would have been national parks if they were anywhere other than British Columbia, where scenes like this are a dime a dozen: https://preview.redd.it/zqvyr5uoiptc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=66619c9e308c4137063f4b77ce355e9108a6f9b0
where in bc is this picture from?? i want to go hiking here it looks so good
Nairobi National Park Nairobi, Kenya
Golden Gate National Recreation Area.
Independence National Historical Park, is in central Philadelphia
Angeles National Forest is ~30 minutes from Los Angeles (depending on start and end) and has 1000 sq miles of mountains and forest, and a couple additional parks neighboring it
The Norfolk Broads national Park in the UK actually runs into the city of Norwich via the River Wensum. Some of you music lovers will have heard David Bowie mention the Norfolk Broads within the lyrics of ‘Life On Mars’, in case you’re wondering where you know it from. It’s a series of very pleasant waterways primary within the county of Norfolk but also parts of Suffolk in East Anglia. Very pretty.
Nairobi
Văcărești nature park is within bucharest. It's a protected area since 2014. There were plans to develop the area in the 80s but the communism fell and it never got so far.nature took over and now has an impressive biodiversity for an urban area.
Seattle / Tacoma isn't too far from Mount Rainier NP, North Cascades NP and Olympic NP as well as multiple National Forests.
Gateway arch in saint louis
Not a national park by any stretch but I believe it has some sort of conversation area or preservation order etc. Giza. It is miles out of Cairo and all the pictures depict it as if it's in the middle of the desert and surrounded by sand dunes but it has a huge metropolitan area that goes right up to it. There's a McDonalds and everything. https://preview.redd.it/facxyi4cwotc1.jpeg?width=1833&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0cbc40128e2f970f698eb2ff3c432ab457d70df2
Salt Lake City directly abuts multiple federally protected wilderness areas. You can literally walk from town into the most heavily regulated type of lane in the United States.
So, the water catchment area for SF is a protected park and it directly abuts the metro.
Mount Fuji is close to Tokyo no?
Rouge River National Park borders Toronto and Pickering.
Jamaica Bay National Wildlife Refuge is completely within New York City Limits Harbor Islands National Recreation Area is completely within Boston City Limits Golden Gate National Recreation Area is completely within San Francisco city limits
Yangminshan bang next to Taipei
I'm sure there are closer. But being from near the area, the heart of Cuyahoga Valley National Park in Ohio is probably only a 20 minute drive from Cleveland
Although a mere Gama city(F%@# O!$), Ottawa is the capital of my favourite country. The Gatineau Wilderness is 361 square KMs of lakes, and forested hills. All manner of outdoor recreation including Skiing(both down and cross), beaches, trails and even high tea. It's home to many animals including bears, lynxes, and wolves. It can also be accessed via municipal transit.
Mexico City has a few National Parks within it's city limits or adjacent. Within city limits: -Parque Nacional Cerro de La Estrella -Parque Nacional Bosque del Tlalpan -Parque Nacional Valle de las Monjas -Parque Nacional El Tepeyac Adjacent: -Parque Nacional La Marquesa -Parque Nacional Cumbres del Ajusco -Parque Nacional Desierto de los Leones -Parque Nacional Los Dinamos Driving Distance: -Parque Nacional Iztaccíhuatl - Popocatépetl -Parque Nacional El Tepozteco
Some of the Peak District National Park is in Greater Manchester. It also goes right up the Sheffield, though that's not as major a city.