Throughout the history of parks development in Hamilton parks were located in the newer areas of residential development. Often the parks board cooperated with real estate developers to buy the lots the developers set aside as park land. The citizens who moved into the new subdivisions benefitted from this policy because park land provided a buffer and retreat from the industrial areas of the city. The developers benefitted because they could attract a wealthier clientele. This policy did not benefit the working man and his family because they were moving into the areas of the city which were being abandoned by the middle class.
The members of the Hamilton Board of Park Management and its predecessor the Parks and Cemeteries committee of council belonged to the upper middle class in Hamilton. Tyrell's social directory listing those prominent in the trades and professions in Hamilton lists five of the six parks board members who were appointed in 1900.[106] It also lists many of the members of earlier Parks and Cemeteries committees. From 1900 to 1941 the parks board was primarily composed of merchants, businessmen, and professionals.[107] Their actions reflect their social class.
They used parks to enhance the neighbourhoods they lived in. They used parks to attract other businessmen and industries to Hamilton. Parks were a commodity which they vigorously marketed. If park land was required for industrial land it was eagerly relinquished. Urban reform purposes which were articulated elsewhere were of little interest to the Hamilton parks board. Parks were developed in Hamilton as to enhance the city and to allow it to always appear to be progressive.
Hamilton's residents were always very interested in the development of their parks system. From the time of the board's inception various interest groups lobbied for parks in their areas if there were none yet and for improvements to existing facilities. The most frequent lobbyists were the Canadian Club and the Board of Trade. Their requests for improvements were usually granted. The Trades and Labour Council each year requested the use of Dundurn or other parks for their Labour Day picnics but the parks board minutes do not record very many other recommendations or requests from that group.
The working class was not well served by the parks system. The expansion of sports facilities certainly benefitted them but the development of private clubs on public lands perpetuated a measure of inequality. During the Depression when many workers were enduring years of enforced leisure the parks board was not concentrating its efforts on sports facilities or even facilities in the core of the city. The beautification scheme was a great project but it did not affect the every day lives of the mass of unemployed workers.
The men entrusted with the development of parks in Hamilton were certainly aware of park development elsewhere. They vigorously promoted park development in their own city in order that Hamilton would not appear to be less than progressive. The city was committed to growth and the parks board's policies affirmed that goal.