A. POLICY APPROACH TO URBAN RECREATION PLANNING THESIS FOR THE DEGREE OF M. U. P. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JAMES HEDLEY VAN RAVENSWAY 1975 \IHESIS LIBRAR Y Michigan State «a Umvcrsiay aimi- Inn-A may... LU!- 131'- JAM“ \\\\\|\\\ 24I8 514, k 5% W“ 100 \\\\\\|\\\\\\ \\\\\|\\\|\\\\ '“f‘ «*9 I I 3 1293 L WW 3’? W 1F 3 .01 I; . \ ABSTRACT A POLICY APPROACH TO URBAN RECREATION PLANNING By James Hedley van Ravensway The ability of urban governments in America to adequately deliver recreational opportunities to the urban population is being severely eroded by existing, or newly developing, conditions. At the same time, the urban resident is exper- iencing an increase in the demand for, and an increase in time available for recreational pursuits. Currently, recreational planning policies do not ade— quately address the present status of urban recreation, for they are reflective of earlier conditions and factors, and do not take into consideration the growing spectrum of problems of the urban environment. Consequently, the urban areas in America are now experiencing a "recreation crisis". In order to overcome the current problems or conditions of urban recreation, and to better address the future recreation needs of an urban population, a new direction, or policy approach, needs to be created. This thesis represents an attempt to do just that. To develop an adequate policy framework, the following analytical approach is used: ‘. I ,7. . nr:i" fi’r‘fi ' ‘ 4--.. .a-..-— v--L . v . . " 'n';r run‘sn .. ‘.K.fio- . ,. "”V‘." v"~1 ’ — .. ._ ‘---..A-..-.A - ' ‘I "' r-- ‘ o .‘ ¢... .......4 - V- ~~-v-‘:-:-,. .~ ....»-.-_- __ _ ..,. P - .. ‘rw r“., . ~I.‘. i...‘ \ ‘ . ‘ h. kV'_"y-'—‘.'.'_ ;‘ '7 - - "h.““- .' I .__‘ _‘ ~_ .1 . "‘\-L. .1 L4_“ . r C F‘r‘ " .....‘-.‘,‘r ._. ‘ -3 -.. _ .r'. _‘r.r-,‘- I '-‘..;| hh‘ ‘§ ' va“‘ ‘1‘ n I V «i V’1*~. ._ f ‘l- ‘ y. ~'-~.,, ‘.a~. ”1‘. ..._. - he, - «‘1' ‘.> ‘- . L. ‘ r ... , ‘ -N' .- 4‘ ._- r.‘ . - . "nu —*'.N~ ¢‘. ‘4... \ ‘..: arr, ~ u._-~ ‘¢ . . . . l r' F "A f- p_~ . ~ ‘ \. 'r~. . “V‘ v I. \ s ‘ V - .r *.\Cr~ “u “Chm o _ 'r, —‘ ‘ '5 7;. '.‘ P_~ ‘L . . ‘{‘..r r ‘4. | C ’v‘ \1 r-_; . , '.: .-._ ‘ . V. _ -‘ 1)’ 4.. L-; ,~\.‘ -‘~. “P K. L:W-,y § -' n. ‘ “'... . A ,. .P‘I .. '.‘ V' .‘ "t. r: J. u‘ . A \ r \- | 3—- A“ .. ‘ . v- ( y"- L D. |‘ r‘ \'.. A ‘ t ‘ K. ,, ,_—— _ James Hedley van Ravensway 1. Identify and analyze existing, or newly devel— oping conditions that are adversely affecting the delivery of urban recreation opportunities. Such conditions are determined to be the increase in available leisure time, the need for a higher density residential environment, the competition for scarce resources, the energy problem, and past and present governmental policies. 2. Identify factors that are necessary for understanding the provision of urban recreation opportun— ities. Such factors include the level appropriate for planning, e.g., metropolitan or local, and the diverse characteristics of the urban population. 3. Analyze existing approaches to the provision of urban recreation opportunities, including such specific approaches as open space planning and the use of recreation standards. The analytical steps of this thesis provides the basis for a policy proposal that emphasizes a two level approach to urban recreation planning. The policy calls for a metropolitan planning unit, with day—to—day recreation needs planned for on a neighborhood basis, and general recreation needs serviced by a metropolitan wide program. Included within this proposal is the encouragement of both public and private suppliers of urban recreation opportunities James Hedley van Ravensway to coordinate their efforts in a manner that fosters a more equitable and rational distribution of recreational opportunities. A POLICY APPROACH TO URBAN RECREATION PLANNING By James Hedley van Ravensway A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture 1975 To my wife....., ii - 'I.- A‘ ‘ ' o ' """:*w— -‘o— --‘.‘.._--.....A- -"‘ ”5‘ ~‘ _', 4 A - -u‘ ~u.._‘~ ‘ 7‘ uv-rr‘~_"- ~ v-I --V-. "-Hwan- up . ' .- -’ V‘x h'_‘ _‘ —._--o.;.‘ --.‘\ o R _7'7‘~r ‘- ““N-A..: , .—'hr\-: ‘ ~ 4 — ~~‘~“'u- _: '- Y."r~r. \ ,. _‘ . _‘~ .. - ‘ L_‘_’. ‘s w‘ ‘ _ “"v V‘~ ‘.,-L I —- » -__ . ‘h "._ .,‘ . - vb.,‘“ ‘ "qn -‘v-v‘. ‘- ‘u. .‘h‘ t~-- -. ‘ v ‘ “,_ ... ' . v- L , 9- ‘I ‘ . ‘- , - 6‘ bu, ‘3‘ " ‘- v. “» V.- f u ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Carl Goldschmidt, the Director of the School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, and Dr. Roger Hamlin of the Department of Urban Planning, for their assistance in making this thesis more responsive to the field of Urban Planning. I would like to give a special thanks and appreciation to Professor Donn Anderson of the Department of Urban Planning, for his guidance, invaluable input, and more importantly, his patience in the preparation of this thesis. I must, however, extend my warmest and deepest appreciation to my wife, Darlene, for her love, kindness, spirit, tolerance, and above all, help, throughout this entire project. iii A ....- ~. A. ~. u. - v,- "~ 3 . v.7- < .u-. . 31‘ .__ FF- ‘g. ..~ ‘\ ‘ - u. - k ‘H. « " n H - P.” .. -.‘ ~. 1.. 4d o. ‘1 . a. 4.4 s.“ -- 5.. v .. NI ~— - v- n - 5‘ x .. - I ‘ ’3‘ v. v I - v A ‘ ‘ 49- " D .AL 0 ... I .s ~ y... - n \ - ,_ ‘ - \ x I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Acknowledgments iii List of Tables vii List of Figures ix Introduction 1 Part I The Urban Recreation Crisis Introduction 8 Chapter I Leisure and Recreation 11 Leisure ll Recreation 2A Summary 33 Chapter II External Implications for Recreation 35 Higher Density Urbanization 35 The Competition for Scarce Resources A5 The Energy Problem 54 Summary 57 Chapter III The Government Response to Recreation 59 The Federal Response 64 The State Response 71 The Local Response 7A The Impact of Government on Urban Recreation 77 iv -..'.. .‘J‘Ay . - 1 .—,.~- ‘ u." vu..~.v..a. . " r-.. - _h "“‘--v_ ‘v-s‘ .1 .. “$5 a” 's .'_I .. Q‘ I -v~ v Chapter IV Summary: The Urban Recreation Crisis Part II Creating an Urban Recreation Policy Introduction Chapter V Metropolitan Recreation Planning Location of the Population Efficiency Summary Chapter VI Urban Recreation Demand The Urban Client Group The Diversity of Urban Demand for Recreation a. Income Groups b. Other Socio—Economic Characteristics c. Life Style Summary Chapter VII Urban Recreation Planning Urban Recreation Planning Standards a. Types of Recreation Standards b. The Value of Recreation Standards Location Open Space Some Implications for Urban Recreation Planning 8A 90 93 93 97 109 111 112 11A 116 121 123 12A 126 126 132 133 136 1A2 1A5 151 Iu-vv ‘ ,.,..- _ p—n 'OO‘L‘U. I--- l . . A . ~ r4" .- q,‘ A1 1‘ n4 . _ J . -'.1 n" I ~ ‘; ‘r- x I ‘.~"n~r «" r a le‘ v . a. Chapter VIII Creating a Policy for Urban Recreation Opportunities The Policy Framework a. The Neighborhood Planning Unit 1. The Neighborhood 2. Neighborhood Needs and Preferences 3. Measuring Needs and Preferences A. Converting the Need to Recreational Opportunities b. The Metropolitan Recreation System l. Outdoor Recreation 2. Cultural Opportunities 0. The Private Sector 1. Types of Private Recreation 2. Integrating Public and Private Recreation Planning Implications for Planning a. Planning Organization b. Citizen Participation c. Cooperation with the Private Sector Summary Summary and Conclusion Bibliography vi 155 156 159 159 161 16A 168 170 170 172 173 177 180 180 181 182 182 18A 187 - m, N I ,4 ' ) -I g‘...- \_ ___ s . u . *~... o ~‘ _A _‘ r. ‘ --_ ,‘ ‘ . ‘ - '\ ~ 3 ‘ ‘H"‘ I . -I -v“ I-.; a ‘. V1 p ." 54‘3.‘,-'_ v‘-~..-* .. o ‘ . . _ _ -‘ I u: ., ‘ IS... - "‘ , ,U ‘v o ‘ u o..“_ ‘4 . _‘ A ; '- ‘- - .. -. Kc. _ "' .w .. ' .._. - _ .4“ a p... . . h N ‘ -.‘- . . ' « .A__ . l m .. ‘_r‘ 'V . a ‘s IA ..-. o.. I‘ .. .A- .. > u .I ”L."‘. c 5”? . l p. "OJ _ I f» . ‘Q‘ g <- 5 I §,' _ rx. . 4*“ ‘ . ‘.. -‘ , .~' . ‘A.A v U 'l‘ " A ‘ -A - ‘.,. ,_."... . 4 6“.“ .‘ n u- - . . P-" K‘. i. 'A , xx. o v «r ~ x.‘ V .4" ‘ 4 x ‘ U . “n.7,. L14 nx.r , fi ‘ 4“‘-V IA. ,. 7‘. —'-'¢V‘ . v.‘ . \‘ I, I A' .5, o .‘ nr‘ v“ Table ODNICDW 10. 11. 12. 13. 1A. LIST OF TABLES Time Spent on Outdoor Recreation, 1900-1970 Estimate of Leisure Time Spent in Selected Recreation Activities - 1960 Personal Consumption Expenditures for Recreation, 1969 Percentage Increase in Construction Costs Between 1969 and 197A for New Single Family Homes Changes in Cost and Size of Developed Lots Home Building Costs, 19A9 and 1969 Tri-County Region Housing Trends, 1960—1970 Ten Most Pressing Recreational Problems, Michigan Governmental Units, 1973 Revenue Sources by Level of Government for Michigan, 1972-197A Public Outdoor Recreation Acreage by Type and Area and Administering Jurisdiction, 1972 Public Recreation Areas, by Location and Level of Government, 1965 Acreage of Federal Lands in the United States, for Agencies Administering Lands for Recreation Use, 1972 Department of Housing and Urban Development Open Space Program, 1962—1971 Michigan Recreation Lands, 1973 vii Page 27 28 32 A0 A2 A3 AA 50 51 63 6A 65 71 73 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Per Capita Expenditures for Parks and Recreation in 11 Selected Cities, 1960-1970 Illustrations of Type of Standards Illustration of Space Standards by Government Level and Region A Summary of Recommended Space Standards for Neighborhood Playgrounds A Summary of the Goals and Objectives Reference Groups viii 76 13A 135 136 163 ‘- V'I‘ . ._. - - ‘0- v ‘.‘ . ' I ‘4- l \- L n n.» 0..., l ‘7' ...A v a. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Daily Use of Time by Sex and Occupation, 1966 2. Participation in Outdoor Recreation by Activity, 1970 3. Television Viewing By Households, 195A—1972 A. Distribution of U.S. by Residence Population, 1970 5. Participation in Recreational Activities by Income ix Page 20 3O 31 9A 120 INTRODUCTION Having the ability to participate in recreational desires and preferences is fundamental to our American urban society. While not necessarily instinctive, recreation serves as an essential outlet for daily societal pressures, as well as in the preparation of the individual for sub- sequent societal demands. The role that recreation plays in an urban setting no longer requires an explicit rationale or justification. Recreation permeates practically every aspect of American urban society. Recreation serves as the major use of an individuals available leisure time. Recreation can serve as an educational process that aids in the teaching of many of American societies norms and values. An example of recreation as an educational tool can be found in high school, where athletics can serve as a device to teach an individual the concept of teamwork. Recreation can also serve as a theraputic device designed to create meaning to lives that may otherwise be empty, as in the case of the many elderly now residing in nursing homes and other similar facilities. Numerous other uses of recreation could also be listed. The point to consider, however, is the value that recreation has upon the very fabric of American society. 7 7 F,‘ 0.. 8 A a n.‘ 5A.... mt I v..._.'.; -. ' .-......-- a . . ,., . "‘-\r u..-~ - ‘v\ ‘1'»- ' ou‘ ..._‘, ._ . I “‘--..5,. ‘ 0 "'-i-ua .l u "I 3.1)-. 7 7L-““'.A‘ r "a. - V - .5 '1 m... .".-. V"|’-.-;' .. ’1‘ ', .C...‘_fl“‘ . .__ r .‘_.'. ‘ 'v' ' ._v. J‘I‘- V r . M." an”. 4.. . _\~ . "Zr _ ‘ .‘. ‘ -‘ ~ V“, Y'-'¥.. -'-‘_- '.. -_U ._f c ‘r .‘r. "-‘u ,__ -~. ‘ ‘> .\ - y ‘ .'.,'-...r -.‘.~ .. .'. .‘. . ~h3‘t ., .. v- .‘v ‘r‘. . s 4 ‘h ,r: a fly .‘ "P ‘V.‘ ~\ .,~‘\_ 7' 'r‘ “.‘L‘ 7‘ v ~‘1 \ ._' ~ 'r’b. . I l ‘7‘ r‘y. . A.‘ ‘v ’\I . . A ‘c ~j « "i 3—. .o .5. ,' .'~ ,‘ ' w ‘ 'D" ‘k‘ m "*& .‘. ~. . 1‘ . h ‘I \ J 2 Each use of recreation, whether it be as a recreation tool, a theraputic activity, or the countless other potential uses, merits a thorough analysis. For problems and condi— tions do exist within each use of recreation that warrant such an endeavor. To research and discuss each use of recreation is, however, beyond the scope of one thesis. This thesis will focus on one facet of the use of recreation, and that being the use of recreation as the predominate activity within an individuals available leisure time. More specifically, this thesis will investigate the conditions and factors that are influencing the provision and use of recreational services and opportunities of an urban popula— tion. Government provision of recreation opportunities within urban areas has encountered numerous problems. Since the turn of the century, when government first began providing recreational opportunities, populations have grown faster than the fiscal capacities of local government. In addition, patterns of metropolitan growth have encouraged the pro- liferation of suburban units of government and the ensuing fragmentation of the delivery of urban recreational services, which has led to inequities and inefficiencies. There are affluent suburbs possessing large inventories of recreational opportunities which are in direct contrast with most central cities where the recreational opportunities, for many citizens, are dismal at best. On the other hand, the private sector delivery of urban recreational opportunities has flourished 3 into a multi—billion dollar industry. Like the public sector, however, the private sector is also guilty of a fragmented and uncoordinated delivery which too has an inequitable effect on the urban population. The need to eliminate the inadequacies that have been, and still are, characteristic of urban recreation is a priority issue. For example, potential users of recreation are unable to communicate their preferences to the planner, and, "When preferences have been expressed, there is no sensitive technique for translating them into opportunities."l Today, however, new conditions are emerging which are having a more profound and far reaching effect on urban recreation. As a result, there now exists a "crisis" situation. Such conditions include: 1. Substantial increases in time available for the urban resident to pursue recreation; 2. The need for creating living environments of a much higher density than are common now; 3. A scarcity of resources - both in terms of fiscal resources and land; A. The present day energy problems. In addition to both the above listing and the contemporary situation of recreation identified earlier, there is the l Seymour Gold, Urban Recreation Planning, Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1973, p. v. .5, *5; .. _ .- L... h..- - O . '""‘ F « i ‘ .. ‘n_ ‘ .uvv ‘-_ _..' ~ t .. . ,-,- . .. , ...c - -. ‘ . . _ ' fir.~~-‘ ... - '\ A ‘ ..-~‘L "-- ,I W 7“ r u\ . - -"‘41 ._.r. “.4. _". _- . by..-“ T” v. . .7-‘. 7 " -.... 77;? :77.“ u. ~‘- ‘ " n. I‘ ‘1—‘\ V..‘ - .._ . . | _’3--.,,‘._H ‘ .,-...,-“‘ .. 7'- “TV--h‘ r .__ ‘77“ ~A.. I - V ‘ . ”WFV“;.. ‘|~ ‘ 4 ’ ‘7"‘ ' . . '. A '~.“ a... I... H ‘ -~.vg_ —4 ‘ _ V V ., a... ‘, ‘ . ,. . \ 7"h» ' -u.‘ v.‘~.‘~ ‘ ‘ -‘ - ‘5 ‘. \ v._ 7“I.“? r -. _.- ‘vw . '- \‘ ~V‘-,.fi ~ "“L"| 1 ¥ *‘ a . 2:1 ~-‘ '1’“ . L- _ .‘ 4‘ ‘7‘ ~ ‘- k-«v A l '9 “ 7. ,. I .« .4 4‘. ‘\‘ 7-2?“ ‘ “Mt: - V .4 H .v I§ “A ;§:_ .. .,‘_‘ ' ‘ 7 V ‘4; fir,‘ 7 s4._4 K ‘ "‘ “ZN... .. ‘4‘] 7"; o 4 “~-4“ ‘ 'fl. . \ . fl...” \- NV‘Q. \_L ‘h‘ .i ‘ ‘9 ‘ _‘ K, \ ‘ V ‘v V.» _‘ .I-‘ ' ‘K. k. s. ‘_ . -H . ‘ C - ‘3 ‘\ "5 T‘ Q " ~N Q“ 2 ‘ A serious lack of coordination among all levels of government which has resulted in a structure whereby the burden of pro- viding urban recreation opportunities rests almost solely with the local units of government. And in terms of resources, they are the least capable to do so. The rationale for describing urban recreation being in a crisis situation is due primarily to the fact that the character of the problem has been changed dramatically. Prior to the decade of the 1970's it could have generally been stated that the addition of more resources and a greater sensitivity to the needs of those who would use urban recrea- tion opportunities would substantially reduce the gap both in quantity and function between supply and demand. Today, however, there are little additional resources to be had, and there is a greater competition for the available re- sources by other urban concerns that demand attention. Coin- cidental to the fiscal resource dilemma is the physical resource situation such as the present energy problem which is creating a situation whereby most of the urban population will have to recreate near or at home. Thus, the character of urban recreation has substantially changed, and a more serious and explicit investigation of these new conditions is required in order to create a desirable, equitable, and efficient system of urban recreation. It has become quite evident that what needs to be done is to identify and analyze these new factors now emerging, and as a result, provide the framework for a new policy ., .' _ . -‘ __ VAI‘Z“1 ‘ 7 v..». ._, r .y‘r... J...- I ‘ - n ‘ ~-‘ r7. " ‘I‘IW-77 L. -..._.- , ‘JAAELL. . l I ‘.'\ ‘ ..r.‘:... 3 , ‘- _ O « d..-‘—--V b I O ‘ "‘ "Y."" ~ 9 ~ -A- -.~- L...l_.\ - . ~ . "'~ -‘ \ o.~'. . 'I '4 ‘K A - mun -.L~ '1. "a...“rv, . — .4 A w “'*‘-‘...-..n - _ *0 7- A A u . "~..‘Y._r; ‘ .-..‘.4.-...’ A .r h_‘- . 7H " ‘~ | .4- . h ' ' \o .. - ~ — ‘ - "_r- . h ‘ b. -v‘v‘lu‘.‘ . A. - .- : 1 . ‘ ( I -" “' ~._ "‘- ’ - n . - y 1 ‘ . ...l‘1 4 ’ ‘tAJ -“ ‘- 5 . n'y._ ‘ , -. . " ‘ .....- z..,:‘ 4 - 7‘.- ‘r w.. ..., 4. _ .., r .. ,A ‘ V‘. &A_.. ‘ T . ‘ V." -_ . ..; VA r); p ‘ ”At. ‘ 7 ~' - r- . ~ _ . '~ '~ w-. " : ~ :r A 4” u~,4 ;.v v.47-.. r. L r._~ H" "‘>-a"‘\ r ~ ‘ oc~_‘\ 4' ‘ u.,‘ V ,- ‘1 r.‘ _ m.‘ " .‘4_‘ ‘ L a h V. r . "v _ I“ ‘. ”Hr—2'1 . ._" '-.~- ~ -'.“ ‘7 u U“. '." ‘5‘. ‘4. d. ‘ 1 ‘ r. ’ .s U: .,‘ v.“- t . ‘ y ‘ ' ”4x. I, ”.‘_| _~'.'_. ‘7'. ‘k"v. \L H ‘ ."~4‘ 7". "-,; f. . ‘V- ' I a ' nu -~:< ~- ‘. r r" ‘J.‘ ‘ .7~4 [- ‘. I’- : ‘ ‘u '\u ax" 5 designed to overcome them. The policies that now exist regarding the provision of urban recreation opportunities address primarily those conditions that have been charac— teristic of urban recreation for nearly 80 years such as the provision of parking. With the introduction of new and less typical problems, these policies are no longer adequate. To better reflect the present situation of urban recreation, and to better address the recreation needs of an urban population, a new approach and direction needs to be identified. It is the objective of this thesis to focus upon the new, and in some instances unexpected, conditions con— fronting the delivery of urban recreation opportunities. Through such an investigation, the desired result will be a framework for a policy that can more adequately address the needs and problems associated with urban recreation. Likewise, such a policy should be capable of reacting to the needs and preferences of an entire urban population, and not just to the central city or its suburbs. In order to develop such a policy framework, this thesis will focus upon three interrelated sub—objectives. The first sub-objective relates to those factors that are precipitating the need to evaluate and redefine urban recreation policy which is: 1. To identify those conditions which are influencing the delivery of recreational opportunities to the urban population. 6 The other two sub-objectives relate to the policy generating aspects of this thesis, and are a direct result of the analytical activities identified in the first sub- objective. These sub—objectives are: 2. To develop a policy framework that will minimize or eliminate those problems now affecting the delivery of urban recreation, and will also provide for a more relevant, abundant, and equitable level of recreational opportunities to all urban residents, and 3. That such a policy reflect the ability to be uniformly applied throughout the entire metropolitan area. It is the intent of this thesis to be contemporary rather than histOrical. The result of this approach will be a proposed solution to todays problems rather than an account of past mistakes or failures. The thesis will be divided into two parts. Part I, which includes Chapters One through Four, will be a discus- sion of the variables that are serving to create the urban recreation crisis. Part II, which includes Chapters Five through Seven, will investigate the factors in need of understanding prior to the development of an urban recrea- tion policy. And finally, Chapter Eight, also in Part II, will be the proposed policy recommendation. PART I THE URBAN RECREATION CRISIS ng‘.‘ 1— n..---,,. -7 '0 7 . x" , ‘ .Y..l-:, . " ..-.-;. ‘1‘... ‘ U -‘ I . r-.,«. 7""‘y, ' - L.-..:. u-..._ -.. - l’ I : _ . ‘ “H ‘ - . "fiv‘,__~- v -' 'v.‘~ALA.. “ . 7 V .., ~T :‘n‘. ‘ 'Q‘-k' hv‘- v i‘. ‘ O r,. a ‘ , . P ,r “~W»....’. a.»...- A».-. -‘_- v...” 5 “ . . I“ nufi\,>_, {.L‘Ol ‘8'" b > ‘ ~ 7: 1v ‘. r. -AA “A ‘ - ‘. 7' - v . ~ "‘7 . .. ~44 .kax‘L “‘ ~ V“ ' i v,‘,,“_‘ — . V‘ —_ "‘~.:. \ -. ..\v 4“- ‘ ‘r. . ‘V~‘ V ‘ '77“ V I”; n “I ~-... . I‘ v .“ I ; "VI “7“: “.. WV“. . d-.. 1.. 'v ccig~g r h‘-( I ‘,. i -. 1" ‘ 'n-‘,.~ ._ '3‘“ I ,_-‘ "dk ' t . V- 7 5hr..— 7" oar-Q- .‘o»‘ I -.‘v. 'N. A 4' H “‘~ 4"”. y‘.. l- v‘ \ -~ 7 ~A. .9 n .‘l\ ca‘- ‘ “7 K I” r ‘ ".lq ”4"“ l , ‘le ‘- . ’ ‘l I . a R 7‘ Ah—.“ ‘ ‘4 ”N ,‘A ‘7 M. I‘_ ‘1' «MA ‘ .. . .A IN ... “h: L . “‘-.,-V‘"a'. .- l- ‘ ‘v 1' 4‘ | .'-,:~ ‘4' -‘ ‘ <“_‘r R ‘ ‘M N I. . ‘v ‘-«1 ‘ {\- -« .34 3““ I C‘A" . u~~~‘_‘- ‘7' l rxfi ““‘* f. —« ’ A u. . .17 - In“ -.A . (a i :- -4‘ r.-- . ‘ INTRODUCTION America is presently faced with an urban recreation crisis. Many residents within the urban centers, which are being confronted with greater numbers of people, are finding it increasingly difficult to pursue recreational opportuni— ties. Large urban areas are experiencing a shortage of urban recreational opportunities in the face of increasing urban recreation demand. The underlaying causal factors behind the urban recrea- tion crisis are almost as varied as the types of recreational pursuits desired by urban dwellers. For purposes of this thesis, the following are being proposed as the fundamental issues surrounding the crisis. Briefly, they include: in- creases in available leisure time; external factors or problems; and past and present policies and program of government. The increase in available leisure time is a societal phenomena, and the implications of this situation is realized, to a large degree, in the area of recreation. Recreation is the primary use of leisure time, and thus, any increase in available leisure time will mean a parallel increase in recmeational desires and pursuits. Consequently, what is rKNM occuring in the area of recreation can be appropriately 8 - ._ C --- . I . D .. *v'v‘;~ *6 w. . . ,-;.n.av.‘ 5.. .. _ - ,‘ -.,. ._'. .4 ...| . ...v v... 7‘.. v-r 5,. r., 4.-.. J... - v 7.. _ - NFO-v .' u . . b—‘AVA--l, . r(~ ~-. _ ‘ . ‘ . ’,_ rye,“ ‘ , 7““ "“' L-yn ... I W‘. I ‘ n. r ‘ ‘3‘ .1 - . ~.‘ _ . "It '2‘ ‘r .. “ ‘AK. -.¢ ‘ .,."n ‘ I.“ "1 v .‘7 “"¢-.! u. V. L~‘_- Wu. . ‘V ”‘7 . n J.~‘lc \a . . 44-1.. _ ‘- I V'~~‘I ._ ‘,, ' -..,K .‘t -~‘~k. ‘3 .7 " . o ' .'7 ‘Ir OQA‘ h. 7‘ ‘ .- I V... ‘. .‘ 'A‘ -__‘V‘ _.-\ ..,V . r 4‘ V" A ‘,.~ . n4. J_“‘ . .‘ I ,rs‘ ~.,,“ r D_ ‘7‘41. ‘ Va ' -. . ‘ . '1" , -..‘ r~gr . "‘- 4 4‘ A ---_ t, *Q l I k a . w. ~. ‘~_ ~r." -~ . -.,r 4~ ,_ . ’4. b ‘,. . . "‘.'~' ._‘ ~ r F“. _. " a .. ‘ g. -.‘ . . ya. ‘n.. “,a '\ 4“. '_ u ‘ “\.," 'v 7" . .. ' o ‘ '13"- ‘Q' -- ‘..b v . ‘ ‘ N ' L . h ‘7-" b. , A “-53.. ".7“ h~_ ' N Hr- ‘v ‘..' \ O “Q “Q ‘ ‘l « N. , - \ ‘W. ._ , ~ " V g '. ‘.. .“ . . - I . ‘.n . .._ “- ~§ ‘ . ‘\. ‘D v. ‘ 4 5‘.‘. . ..-. _‘ o - . P ‘s. ‘ 4‘ ,~. .z"-.y-‘ - ." ‘ L .‘ 'P K ‘- ~ “_ -.~ ‘k'vr .- k.yt , i . a. .c . 4‘ .. r0 5/ ‘ ; I»- I; ' ..‘ - ’ 3 A ‘ ~. . . .‘_ «I _ '7». 'IL'1,‘ -\ ._ .‘y. 9 described as a "recreation boom." The difficulty is that urban recreation resources are not adequately, nor properly planned to meet this boom. The external implications for recreation are centered upon three areas of concern: the need for higher density urbanization; the distribution or allocation of resources; and the present day energy shortage. When referring to the need for higher urban density, this relates directly to such issues as increasing land costs and the decreasing avail- ability of buildable land, and the increasing size of our urban populations, both of which stress higher population densities. If and when we do reach densities higher than that which now exists, how shall we plan for the recreation needs of a densely populated environment? Resource al— location for purposes of this thesis refers to both physical and monetary resources, and the competition that recreation must engage in for these scarce resources. The energy crisis, a shortage of energy resources, is having the effect - through lesser availability of fuel and higher prices - of forcing people to recreate closer to or within urban areas, where recreation resources tend to be inadequate. The final factor to be considered is governmental policies towards urban recreation. This factor includes all levels of government - Federal, State, and Local. The States and the Federal Government have emphasized outdoor, non—urban forms of recreation, leaving urban recreation problems to :hocal governments which do not have the adequate resources c r--y~—.- . c _1,__‘ v "--V..v_-uo :1 _‘1*‘YI_1 —. ‘4'.-.» \. -o - :‘ ‘fi ‘4..-\' "'4 . . ,, h'L" s. 0'. a . <6- ~‘ ._. ---~--\. ‘ - ¢l< ".4'- lO necessary to do the job. Thus, our State and National Park Systems are being maintained while urban recreation facilities are continually deteriorating. It is through the culmination of the factors that will be discussed in the following chapters that we have the present day urban recreation crisis. The extent to which each of these factors contributes to the overall problem is the subject of this section. CHAPTER I LEISURE AND RECREATION One of the significant factors underlying the recreation crisis is the increase in leisure time available to devote to recreational pursuits. During the previous half— century the amount of leisure time made available to the average working man (in this case, the urban dweller) has increased to such an extent that a "leisure ethic" is begin- ning to supplant the long held value of the "work ethic". The relationship between leisure time and recreation is one that needs to be explored, and understood within a framework that indicates the impact that is occuring because of this phenomena. The importance of this relationship is the sub— ject of this chapter. Leisure The significance of leisure in this study centers on the fact that it is during this period of ones time that the majority of recreation activity occurs. Whether it is in- door or outdoor, urban or rural, recreation is a reflection Of ones choice of the use of leisure time. Therefore, a study of recreation necessitates an examination of leisure time. 11 12 The existence of, and the use of, leisure time has been the focus of study for many years. With the general viewpoint that leisure time is the opposite of work time, what man does outside of his working hours has been an interesting subject of study. Today, however, the view of it as being interesting has suddenly transformed into a more serious investigation of the impact of increased available leisure time on the working man. Through in— creases in technology, the time workers spend on the job has decreased to the point where the very structure of American society is experiencing a major change in many of its institutions and values. Paul Douglas comments that: For the first time in human history, leisure rather than work has become the dominent human factor which integrates life...to accept our leisure as seriously as we once d'd our work shifts a whole emphasis. John Hendricks states this value change in a more direct fashion, and one which indicates the gravity of this change, 2 Paul Douglas, "The Administration and Leisure for Living," Bulletin of the American Recreation Society, XII, Number 3 (April, 1960) p. 11 ‘ ' :r-«x‘xl P‘ r 55*.- _._..v.¢- - v \ a a Q . n‘. K :4. 3 Ha .25.“ .N. O. \ ~77. ~. 0 I~ \ Z... ... v .. . 13 by suggesting that: We are shifting away from the ”Protestant Ethic" and moving towards a "Fun Morality". 3 Hendricks may be overstating the overall consequence of increasing emphasis on leisure time. Nonetheless, we can eXpect important changes in our societal structure because of it. The question of increasing leisure time being a pos- itive or negative condition is open for debate. Many View this situation as a necessary step towards mans sanity and survival. Such a View is expressed by David Reisman when he proposes that: Play (leisure) may prove to be the sphere in which there is still room left for the would be autonomous man to re— tain his individual character from the pervasive demands of his societal char- acter. Reismans view is based on the assumption that man will use his freedom for more leisure time in a manner that will indeed enhance the spiritual qualities of mans existance. 3 John Hendricks, "Leisure Participation As Influenced By Urban Residence Patterns", Sociology and Social Research, July, 1971, p. 26. A David Reisman, The Lonely Crowd, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950, p. 325. 1A To put it in to the context of recreation, one of the impacts of increased leisure time is more aptly stated by Stuart Chapin, who concludes that: ..... there is no doubt that one result of changes in leisure—time patterns will be a greater demand for open spaces to accom- modate recreation needs. Both Chapin and Reisman reflect the issue of increased leisure time by agreeing, in their own interpretive fashion, that the consequence will be one of individuals seeking out the opportunity to use their new freedom in a fashion that will place demands upon the recreation system. What is leisure time? This question needs to be an- swered to gain the perspective that is germane to the issue of recreation. Many people perceive of leisure as being synonomous with recreation, or simplify it by stating that we experience leisure when we are not working. Neither statement is completely true, which therefore requires that a definition of leisure be expressed. It is necessary to point out that definitions of leisure vary a great deal, but the chief emphasis is on the time element. A widely used definition of leisure is advocated by the 5 Stuart F. Chapin, Urban Land Use Planning, Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1965, p. 376. ‘ 15 International Study Group on Leisure and Social Science, which defines it as: ..... a number of occupations in which the individual may indulge of his own free will -- either to rest, or amuse himself, to add to his knowledge and improve his skills disinterestedly, and to increase his voluntary participation in the life of the community often discharging his professional, family, and social duties. A definition that tends to hold more professional status comes from the Dictionary of Sociology, which defines leisure as: ..... free time after the practical neces— sities of life have been attended to. The adjective leisure means being unoccupied by the practical necessities as, leisure hours; the adverb leisurely applies to slow, deliberate, unhurried undertakings. Con- ceptions of leisure vary from the authmet— ical one of time devoted to work, sleep, and other necessities, subtracted from 2“ hours - which gives the surplus time — to the general notion of leisure as the time which one uses as he pleases. The above definitions of leisure indicate that leisure is a temporal process that occurs in the absence of work, 6 Isabel Cosgrove and Richard Jackson, The Geography of Recreation and Leisure, 1972. 7 The definition of leisure was reprinted from the Diction— ary of Sociology, edited by Henry Pratt Fairchild, Copy- right 19AA, Philosophical Library, New York; with permission in Leisure and Recreation, Martin H. and Esther Neumeyer, New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1958, p. 1A. l6 and is further qualified to exclude other necessary functions such as sleep and eating. A more applicable definition, however, is needed to apply more directly to recreation. Thus, for purposes of this thesis, a more comprehensive definition as expressed by Justin Voss will be use, which is: ..... a period of time referred to as discretionary time. It is that period .of time when an individual feels no sense of economic, legal, moral, social com— pulsion or obligation nor physiological necessity. This choice of how to use this time is solely his. In leisure time an individual feels he does not 'have to' do anything, where he is free from the various states of constraints described above. The remainder of non-work time is referred to as non—descretionary time. Here the individual is faced with a sense of legal, moral, social or physiological compulsion or obligation when deciding how to allocate his time. He is not, how- ever, faced with a sense of economic obligation. But here, as in work, the individual feels he does have to do something. Through this definition two important factors become evident. All non-work time is not leisure. Various segments of non— work time still retain a sense of obligation, and thus, are not free time. For example, being on a school board or a church group. Such an activity, while not an economic obligation, is actually a social or moral obligation, which 8 Justin Voss, "The Definition of Leisure", Journal of Economic Issues, June, 1967. 1. .. v. a . 3‘ . ..a y. c «to. i .V ‘ -.. . . . u. _ J .. r a h.‘ . . . . . . n . a. _.... L .T .I 3. y. .... _ C. _.. 6c :: L. a. .s .u. n. .H 2.. :. 5.. .a Q. 7. :L :1. L. y... n.. 1‘ ....o +‘. J. .‘4 m . r. ..u 3. K. .H \L w. ..... 5‘ ...H r: _ s rA. p.“ .C , . a . n... . . . A 7.. 1. .1 .r c 3 «1. ~ .. n a: .. w. 7,. ;. .1, .1 .L I. I. I. S ;. :. .._ w.“ T... :. 3. .3 FL. .. .. 4 L. :2 .5 w; ..u A ;. ._ :c .2 :. .T r.. _ .1 ..,. 4 ... ... . .. 0.1. 0-. .14 ‘4. . . «.s . .u a g . g . ~ . . .u. ~ . .y s g . . y . 17 is not considered leisure time. To put it broadly, leisure is an opportunity to engage in some kind of activity, whether vigorous or relatively passive, which is not re- quired by daily necessities. The second important factor is that leisure is a temporal (time) dimension, not an activity. An activity is something that is done within the available leisure time. As an example, relaxation is often viewed a leisure. Re- laxation is not leisure, but is one way of spending available leisure time. Equally misleading is the notion of recreation being synonomous with leisure. It is not. It is however, the chief way most people spend their leisure time. The emphasis of leisure is on the time element, whereas recrea- tion refers to one way that leisure time is spent. As pointed out by Seymour Gold: In a statistical sense, leisure provides the time dimension for recreation. It is discretionary time or that which is left after necessary obligations are met. Thus, recreation is primarily an activity that occurs within the time frame of leisure. They are not the same. With recreation being that activity that encompasses the majority of leisure time, if leisure time is, on the whole, increasing, so then, should recreation. However, be- fore viewing recreational activity, it is necessary to view —- 9 Gold, Op. Cit., p. 27. 18 the magnitude of the increase in leisure time. Martin Neumeyer stresses this point by stating: The place of recreation in modern society cannot be fully understood with- out a consideration of the significance and development of leisure, because the increase of free time is chiefly respon— sible for the demand for recreation. 0 The working man of today has more leisure time than at any other point in history, and technology appears to be the liberator. As Lawrence Suhm, Director of the Institute for Leisure Time at the University of Wisconsin points out: One thing is clear, cybernetics enables machines, coupled with computers, to perform tasks more rapidly and more accurately than has been possible under the previous period in the history of technological progress. The net result is the freeing and displacement of human time and energy resources at a more accelerated rate than ever before ex er- ienced in this or any other society. Suhms statement is in response to the fact that man works 40 hours a week and lives 70 years, enjoying 22 more years of leisure than did his great-grandfather. We have gained some 1,500 free hours each year. These 1,500 hours multiplied 10 Martin H. and Ester S. Neumeyer, Leisure and Recreation New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1958, p. 21. 11 Lawrence Suhm, "Cumulative Earned Leave; New Tool For Economic Planning", Social Policies For America In the 70's, Edited by Robert Theobold, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1969, p. 117. - y‘: ‘ a- ‘ r '7‘?!“ l.» h45’ - " rr‘ -v-V""‘ u ‘ .A . 1*: ‘.~ ~ ~.. ~ 144 I. g 1. . .l c; H. l_ .... .. n. _ .. .4 3 :5 J W. _ . pk r1 a... .r» L. a. .. a; . .H. A. n. c r” .... r: z. 1. . _. :s v .. \; ... m . Q 5 ~ .4— A t — :5 7. E ‘— I r‘ r- ”: m . . ‘ :‘ a: p... 7“ {I i. .. «J ... :‘ Wk. x» a. a... .1 .2 n: v» 3 .. a . n. .. . » .. \ n E H. .N. ... ».. Q. g... I... 19 by the 30 year increase in our life span amounts to “5,000 more hours - or 22 years of leisure added to our lives.12 This, in turn, implies that there is an average of 22 ad— ditional years of potential recreation time for each person. A recent Labor Department study indicated that between 1960 and 1970, leisure for most employees increased by al- most 50 hours a year.13 This reflects shorter work weeks, longer vacations, and more holidays. To help analyze mans use of his time, the concept of time budgets have been devised. The usefulness of this approach is manifested in Figure l, which shows the daily use of time by sex and occupation for 1966. Even in 1966, the average person had available, for himself, nearly 5 hours of leisure time, which implies a significant amount of time available for recreation. The fact that the working man has a considerably large amount of available leisure time is outdone only by the fact that this will continue to increase in the future. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC), in its report to the President and Congress in 1962, presented projections to the year 2000, which indicated an average work week of 30.7 hours in industry, 3.9 weeks of paid 12 Ibid, p. 120. 13 This statement was made in an editorial commenting on the "Leisure Trends and Industrial Concerns", Parks and Recreation, Volume 6, Number 5, May, 1971, p. 26. —,.-.. .0.."...J .7“ a- ! "‘ I..- ., .v - ‘Y, ”‘s ,. . "<5 _._ .. --.. ‘v ‘. . '-... ‘\ W ‘s K's 0 v‘ F r- / 7‘ / 7 1 7 5 d CH; {4 Z 2O ALL PERSONS..H I ..n.[ I It I TOTAL L////K:;//Rijffi?3133£?\<:<:\\‘\ Female .0. t . 0.. ..'. .. 0 Male ‘ E§k\\\\\ . ,:.=--:;.L\\\1 T 7 T EMPLOYED MALES , l 1 1 W 7//'-==.=;:2}g\\\\\\\1 Labor 31:: //A ..... ...-fi\\\\\\\W EMPLOYED EEMALE I White Col.///, féfi:'- '5....[>:S:§:>::\; Labor ,{jjtkz3 £F:;§::::\x HOUSEWIVES Ml I I I /////.5:='1:':.-1 :2 'i..='-:::=.':.=:-js .Fj-.::-,-i':1 l 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 HOURS PER DAY ' 1????Tri 12222222 Leisure lafiffizkfi Personal and Family Care I , Sleep 1m, Work for Pay Figure l. Daily Use of Time by Sex and Occupation, 19661“ 1A Statistical Policy Division, Social Indicators, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973, p. 219. ‘ ‘1 "par" .. IAU‘."“. n 21 vacation, 10.1 paid holidays, adding up to 406 more hours of free time each year than workers now get.15 Helen B. Shaffer cites a California Department of Water Resources Study that found that: The average worker in 1958 had 2,653 hours of leisure out of 8,760 hours in a year; 1,300 hours on weekends, 1,080 on weekdays, and 263 on holidays and vacations. By the year 2010, the workers leisure hours are expected to increase to 3,621, a gain of 618 hours.16 If these predictions for the future have any validity, the demand that we presently are experiencing for recreation may only be the tip of the iceberg. Not everyone agrees that decreases in work time neces- sarily indicates an increase in leisure time. Helen Shaffer, for example, disagrees with the idea of increased leisure time. She cites a number of what she calls modern devourers of free time as: 1. Long distances traveled in heavy traffic to and from work and shopping centers; 2. The time and effort spent shopping in the super market, in contrast to telephoning an order to the corner grocery for delivery at home; 15 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation In America, Report No. 1, Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. 16 Helen B. Shaffer, "Leisure in the Great Society", Editorial Research Reports, June U, 1963, p. 75. .~ ‘7‘ P’.v"< “‘ .‘V,4“ :\ . ,-. y "h ‘4-A. .1 ‘r -.~- ‘fi-vb‘" ;-";r" 9 -.._“"_. k “r y- “‘./ .._.‘ , ‘V‘A. sp “.40; ’1)“, -__ -V ‘ a W -..“ V’r -\ _\ .sk “\. ‘r‘ n "W-- \— La..‘. v"". I_ I ‘ , —\'\4 . "“4N‘ ‘ ~“ 9w ~ A u \_ n ‘1 * ‘ a V“ e _\ L4. N ‘V 5 ‘f. ‘ ‘V‘.' _ ‘k‘ ‘ \- .- ‘ . u 22 3. Frequent moving from one house or one city to another; A. The extra work falling on the husband when the wife works outside the home.17 Factors such as these, she concludes, reduces the difference in available leisure time between 1850 and 1960 to only a few hours. There can be little disagreement that such factors do represent time consuming activities. However, the extent to which they put a dent in available leisure time is unclear and undocumented. Most evidence indicates that there are substantial increases in available leisure time. Another important factor is that increased leisure time has not been monopolized by the more affluent segments of society. As Gold points out: In times past, leisure was the luxury of a few; today it is the priviledge of many as Americans mo e towards a leisure—oriented life style.1 Added to the expansion of groups with access to leisure is also the fact that more Americans are becoming affluent. 17 Ibid, p- 77- 18 Gold, Op. Cit., p. 27. '1‘ ~‘w Ca .1 y u _ .. l .1. ~ . \x. C; t‘u -. ‘ H1... ( l. n-.. L. .L 71 .34 .N. . ~ I ‘ FL L. Q. v.1. .f. E ... a: h.‘ 3 .~ 2. L. .C ~ . -\ , H § .s n_‘ 23 This tends to create a double—barreled impact on recreation, as indicated by Herbert Gans: While the hours available for leisure activities are thus increasing slowly, I suspect that the aspirations and expectations for that period are rising much more sharply. Not only are various kinds of leisure behavior and recreation facilities broadening, but as incomes increase, more people than ever are able to participate in them. For example, a generation ago, boating and golf were upper income group sports; today almost everyone of middle income who is not afraid of the water or too lazy to walk the fairways can participate in both.1 Increased affluence by a large segment of American society, coupled with the increase in available leisure time, while allowing people more opportunity for recreation, has also served to increase the number of participants. And, as will be seen later on, the impact has been substantial. Leisure is the time framework within which the vast majority of recreation occurs. And, with technology serving as a catalyst, the amount of available leisure time has in- creased, and will continue to increase in the future. What this means, or how it has affected recreation per se, will be examined next. l9 Herbert Gans, People and Plans, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968, p. 113. {a 24 Recreation The term recreation comes from the Latin work recreatio, to restore or refresh; "To restore to a good or normal physical condition from a state of weakness or exhaustion; to invest with freah vigor or strength."20 In essense, it is the time when one "recreates" himself to begin a new, or, in relation to daily endeavors it means: ..... a renewal or preparation for the continuance of routine and necessary work. Thus, recreation is an activity that renews the individual to enable oneself to pursue the functions or activity neces— sary for his existence. For purposes of this thesis, the definition of recreation as defined by the Dictionary of Sociology will be used, and is defined as follows: Recreation is any activity pursued during leisure, either individual or col- lective, that is free and pleasureful, having its own immediate appeal, not impelled by a delayed reward beyond itself or by any immediate necessity. A recrea- tional activity may be engaged in during any age period of the individual, the particular action being determined by the 2C) Max Kaplan, Leisure In America: A Social Inquiry, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Incorporated, 1960, p. 19. 21 Ibid, p. 19. o. u 3 . .An .7 :1 it .3 h. . . H4 3 7.. a . 1. ... a; A. r“ S. r” 1. ‘ Q i . \ ha r.» .1: 3.9 h‘ .. l a. 7‘. .. .. r. a u _ . I « ..v :. 25 time element, the condition and attitude of the erson, and the environmental situ— ation.2 This definition makes recreation almost synonomous with leisure. Again, however, the distinction must be made in that leisure is time, and recreation is an activity that occurs within leisure time. Broadly speaking, it is any activity, either individual or collective, pursued during ones leisure time. It is important to emphasize the word "any", for the concept of recreation needs to be understood as the need to recreate oneself through whatever type of activity that is desired. The significance of this emphasis will become clearer further into this thesis, when the various aspects of urban recreation activities are discussed. Presently, the types of activities that are normally considered under the umbrella of recreation are very limited, either by ignorance or design. The traditional view of recreation emphasizes outdoor, physical activities such as baseball, tennis, camping, boating and the like. Those activities encompass only part of recreation. True recrea— tional activities, and especially within urban areas, are those activities which help in the recreating of an individual. Thus, in this sense, we can speak of such varied activities as drinking beer in a pub, or playing a pinball machine as 22 Neumeyer, Op. Cit., p. 17. .... s. ‘r n... .: L—A h-fi‘d‘.‘ 4.- 26 recreation, if the purpose of such activities are to help refresh the individual. This important distinction will be addressed more explicitly in subsequent chapters, but it is necessary, at this point, to understand what is meant by true recreational activity. The desire for the pursuit of recreation has been in- creasing rapidly in America. When we add to this our increase in leisure time, we are experiencing a substantial recreation boom. This increase in recreational opportunities is matched only by the desire of Americans to have such opportunities. One observer, George Butler, dramatizes this when he states: The desire for recreational op- portunities is so widespread that the American people, even during a depression and a world war, spent several billion dollars annually for them.2 In fact, the demand was becoming so great that in 1962, a report by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, a Federally appointed Commission, indicated how absurd it was that in the middle of one of America's most beautiful Nation— al parks was a traffic light, which was the result of col- lossal traffic jams.2u 23 George D. Butler, Introduction to Community Recreation, New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, 1967, p. 13. 24 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation In America, 1962. -. A» . x V: 71:." 27 What is the magnitude of recreational activity in America? Table 1 shows the amount of time spent on outdoor recreation between 1900 and 1970. Table 1. Time Spent on Outdoor Recreation, 1900—197025 (Million Man Hours) 1900 300 1910 650 1920 2,100 1930 5,300 1940 7,850 1950 12,200 1960 21,012 1970 50,000 Time spent on recreation increased from 300 million man hours in 1900 to nearly 50 billion man hours in 1970. Table 2 gives a breakdown of a specific year, 1960, into selected recreation activities. By far the most actively pursued form of recreation is the visit to outdoor parks and recreation areas. It is in this area that we are witnessing the greatest recreation boom. With the increase in available time and the mobility created by the automobile, the opportunity and desire to 25 Marion Clawson, Economics of Outdoor Recreation, Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1966, p. 25. I r i I) i f K W lo 28 Table 2. Estimate of Leisure Time Spent in Selected Recreation Activities — 196026 (Million Man-Hours) Travel for pleasure 5,330 Visits to public outdoor recreation areasa 11,0A7 Fishing in all areas 1,500 Hunting in all areas 1,125 Boating of all kinds 600 Bowling 660 Organized sports 600 Horse riding 150 a. National, State, County and Munincipal parks, national forests, federal wildlife refuges, Corps of Engineers and TVA reservoirs. pursue outdoor recreation of all types is increasing rapidly. Many people predict that in the future we will experience even greater increases in participation of outdoor recrea- tion. One expert, Marion Clawson, tends to use conservative projections, but even his indicates the potential magnitude of the increase in participation. He states that: If the amount of leisure time devoted to outdoor recreation were to increase from between 3 and A percent in 1960 to 8 or 10 percent by 2000 ..... this would amount to 99-1,100 billion hours in outdoor re- creation then, or A0 to 50 times the total time spent this way in 1960.27 26 Clawson, Op. Cit., p. 24. 27 Ibid, p. 26 .- u . tannins". . ta“ UI‘IV‘L‘§V .. o .,. y I“ , 1 T.“‘ r;.y— .- fi-AA ~.-&|4 _ . ' - "“"v1:. , . -L‘.V L ‘ . . u- -fl. fi;r‘* .0 g, _ \VV-a». v‘. ~..>: ‘ C 2' ‘ v. _{ s ’8‘” r L. I ‘~ I v. --. es 4“ %V_“ 2". u s..~ \ ‘1‘... “I. H" M...» - ‘-L ‘V' _... :r“ “.,: . \ W -H‘ ' uni...” ‘r‘~s V “‘s.."r-"I;_ . ““d‘_\-’ ,0 .‘v., . , _ V L‘ .r‘._ “d A. “i; .- usgv.-« ~‘- ‘ Ir ’ 0 x4-” r‘j‘x.'3 Avv‘. .1 ,- I' . '3 - k‘vdvl-r 1.1,. 0-H“ . 5‘. H r“ 3 s.» .. '9 \A ‘ H": lrl‘ v‘.'1 T _, . 1., '- «I. UZy-Igg . 0%; ‘1;qu x.“ Q , p’.\: | ‘v‘ if“: ‘ A *. Lu'w J. -_: ‘ 'L 1 ‘._‘7‘.‘:‘ , ‘u; r‘,. \- " E " v ‘ :‘A \q‘l >".'..' 4“ -. I5. .. ‘:~*: "“ Fr. ‘VI A ‘ qfis. v'v . 's ' 3 ~_ ’5 ‘9 “N "\ -- 29 This conservative estimate could easily fall short if such factors as a latent population group which has yet to participate will, or more rapid increases in leisure time than were originally predicted occur. A more detailed look at outdoor recreation activities will help to indicate the magnitude of participation. Figure 2 shows the level of participation in selected out— door recreation activities for 1970, indicating the per- cent of the total population that participated, and the average time spent in each activity per participant. Those activities with the largest number of participants are picnicking, walking for pleasure, attending outdoor sports events or concerts, playing outdoor games or sports, and swimming. These activities are pursued, in some instances, by forty percent of the population. Excluding bird watching, which has the least amount of participants, such activities as walking, outdoor games and sports, and bicycling enjoy the greatest number of days per partici- pant, between 30 and M0 days each. It is interesting to note that those activities that enjoy both a large amount of participants and days of participation are also those activities that require very little in the way of expend- itures by the participant. Information related to participation in indoor re- reation activities is generally not available. Consequently, it is impossible to make comparisons. The small amount of information that is available does indicate that an 30 Percent of Population Number of Days Per Participant Participating 0 60 0 2 A 60 Picnicking I... 0.. Walking For Pleasure v 0. o co ' o .0 p '0 ' ' ~- . o‘o' ° ° Natur Walks on... O o O a 0 Q a. ..I Attendin Outdoor Sports Events or Concerts 0:}... .0... O . 0' 0.... . ‘g. on. o o. O ’ . o o a O o .0 ' . o Bird Watching Wildlife and Bird Photography Playing Outdoor Games or Sports Bicycling ". v . fhlii‘n Horseback Riding Boating . . . O .. C. ‘ O Q . O Fishi . '- . 1; .‘ '.o).°olo: ' Campin a. ' . 0 -‘~.':‘ ".' ' Hunting ‘00 I... Figure 2. Participation In Outdoor Recreation by Activity, 197028 28 §gcial Indicators, Op. Cit., p. 219. a; 31 increase in participation is being experienced in this area as well. For example, Figure 3 shows the average Hours per 0.. DJ Q<1 .—*"”’fl OOHi—‘NNWW-II'EUTU'IQONN \fiOU‘lOU‘IOU‘IOU‘IOUlOU‘IO 1950 '55 '60 '65 '70 Figure 3. Television Viewing by Households, 19511-197229 number of hours of television viewing — by far the most popular indoor recreational activity — between 1950 and 1972. By this graph, it can be seen that the average viewing time increased from u.8 hours per day in 1950 to 6.2 hours per day in 1972. A few obvious qualifications 29 Ibid, p. 221 "5.4 NA. \ - Jan“ 4‘.” ’sv‘yflv- ~ .4 0"“ ‘o-Apulgn... >,~A \‘ 4 .. A . ‘1 :4 O to. . u y 1 u .1, r- in P| . .. ... v4 .. 'L. .. .\..4 . a r.. Q. ,..l. . 3 r.‘ a . :4 r; .».. P f... 3c ..1 n; e o :1 ..4 e e . _ ..O we .14 7* ,1 s...» Q» ~. g ..r. 94» § L» 1“ 0.4 ... .c .1? r.. .T .u .-4 ..J 1 . 3. a. ... A: . 17» uuuhA.-.n ..n n S .1 v 32 to this are the increase in population and the increase in the amount of households with television sets. Nonetheless, it does indicate that, while sketchy as it is, there is a definite increase in indoor recreation activities too. Another way to view the increase in participation of recreation is to examine expenditures for recreation. Table 3 indicates the personal consumption expenditures for recreation in 1969. As the Table indicates, over 36 billion Table 3. Personal Consumption Expenditures for Recreation, 196930 (in millions) Type of Product or Service 1969 Total recreation expenditures $36,305 Books and maps 3,226 Magazines, newspapers and sheet music 3,778 Non—durable toys and sports supplies 5,213 Wheel goods, durable toys, sports equipment, boats, and pleasure aircraft A,2l9 Radio and T.V. receivers, records and musical instruments 8,085 Radio and Television repair 1,266 Flowers, seed, and potted plants 1,361 Admissions to specified spectator amusements 2,260 Motion picture theatres 1,097 Legitimate theatre and opera, and entertainments of non—profit institutions (except athletics) 679 Spectator sports A87 Clubs and Fraternal organizations 1,108 Commercial participant amusements 1,719 Pari-mutual net receipts 952 Other 3,118 30 Gold, Op. Cit., p. 32. The original source is the Statistical Abstract, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970. Table 317, p. 200. 'u. .x. .HV L. r“ h. .1 .P. ”a h. :L r“ .. a» . . by .Q. ‘iv - ‘ .WJ ru .3. n. ”a .3 .2 «v .~.v .Hy _.. rt. .... .rt \ ”p.- L. 4 4-..4 ~ ~ \4 4 .,.4 ;V v.» ~C A... a. ‘14 m . a e . .,... L. a; .,.. c. o u 33 dollars was spent in 1969. Another source, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that in 1965, nearly 28 million persons 12 years and older fished three or more days, spending almost 3 billion dollars on this sport. For one singular expenditure — transportation - the ex— penditure figures are staggering. For example, Dan Bechter estimates that National Park visitors spend over 6 billion dollars a year on travel.31 Richard Kraus es- imates that for all transportation related to recreation, the total expenditure is nearly 80 billion dollars a 2 year.3 The expenditures for recreation, as well as overall recreation participation, are enormous. What has been termed a recreation boom is certainly an appropriate des- cription. Present trends indicate that, in the forseeable future, participation, and consequently expenditures, will be increasing. Summary The focus of this chapter is to indicate the relation— ship between leisure and recreation. Recreation is an activity that occurs within available leisure time. Also indicated is the fact that available leisure time is 31 Dan M. Bechter, "Outdoor Recreation", The Federal Reserve - Kansas City, November, 1970. 32 Richard Kraus, "The Economics of Leisure Today”, Parks and Recreation, Volume VI, Number 8, August, 1971, p. 61. 3“ increasing substantially. Consequently, with recreation being the principal use of leisure time, we also find the demand for recreation increasing to the extent that there is currently a recreation boom. The significance of this, in terms of urban recreation, is that with the majority of America's population living in urban areas, we will find that our urban areas will become the arena where the increase in demand for recreational opportunities will be realized. And just how adequately we are able to meet this demand will be the focus of future chapters. __‘_H" y- __,L on». A : :. :1 Ya. .,.. a. ...n s; 1:. :.. L. 71. no 2. .-e .r.. ..4 ¢ . .—! A .n. in. «:4 n1; fi~s .‘ .4 4A no .. c . ,c 1 “I g 054 h c. . R ..h n. . . v . r .. V \ «A . Tu a. v \ ‘ A ,_ s L. . 4 J ‘ L. 3 x,» ..nH F: ‘ T a: CHAPTER II EXTERNAL IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATION Recreation is an area of enormous significance and activity within itself. By the same token, it is also vulnerable to conditions or factors external to it. It is this vulnerability, and a number of external conditions that are currently influencing recreation, that are accelorating the urban recreation crisis. While numerous external factors could be identified, this thesis is primarily concerned with three areas: the need for higher density urbanization; the competition for scarce resources; and the current energy problem. Other factors, such as economic considerations or changing societal values, will not be discussed since their impact, or influence, is reoccurring and generally predictable. The three factors cited above will be examined in this chapter. Higher Density Urbanization The question of moving towards a higher density style of living than that which exists today is a question that most would consider a problem that either will not occur, or will not occur during their life time. It is the contention of this thesis, however, that current evidence indicates 35 >4 3 ;. 4.4 ..r z. A. f. ,. n ~ 1...... 3. i .. r . _ .1 no r} flay r1” ..C .1 r k .r» I. . 4 o. 4 1rk L; f: a .5. h. 44 W. L. r... ..u T. «.F. .M. Q. 36 just the opposite. Through such factors as the costs of housing - particularly the detached single family home — and the costs and availability of land, it is becoming more evident that we are being forced to move towards higher density styles of living more rapidly than we may necessarily envision or desire. The relationship between recreation and present urbani— zation trends is very critical. If the trend is towards a higher density, or a more compact style of living, then how do we plan for the recreation needs? Todays density standards, by comparison, are relatively low, and yet, much of our ur— ban population 1acks accessible recreation opportunities. And given the prospects for a more compact urban environment, our ability to deliver adequate recreational opportunities emerges as a critical question. The basis upon which the prediction is made towards a higher density living style is the present housing market. And more specifically, the single family detached dwelling. While it may appear tangential to speak of single family housing in a topic on recreation, a strong relationship does, in fact, exist. This linkage requires some elaboration. Generally speaking, the demand - or desire - for recrea— tion is dependent upon, to a great extent, the need for and the availability of recreation opportunity. In low density residential areas, where there are larger lots and more openness, the need for many kinds of recreational outlets is lower when in comparison to higher density urban living such rw V1— 14. ‘ .4¢-- - .1.. ‘u is so P C .3 .C .3 H" 4.4 .1 2 I r.” ..e ..1 44 Law L. r (Q T. ;c To L. r&. A: a. ‘1: r1 1 a : r: .. r“ en en o‘ 4 .r. .« ‘ Z L. x c a a. _u .0 . ‘ is .,.. .1 r .. 91 Avg n.. s.. :1 : R14 r. _. .2. .. u ..i» .. H. A 4 «N» \g s x p. a L a: .5 .s .w . . v y 37 as high rise apartments. This type of contract can be found in larger central cities versus the more spacious suburbs. Excluding cultural and social recreational desires, e.g., parties, barbecues, etc., a person in a higher density en— vironment will often times feel a greater need for many rec- reational needs. This may entail the desire for more open space just to get a sense of fresh air, or a park to do numerous outdoor activities. A suburban dweller may be able to do these things in his own back yard. Thus, a more compact and denser form of living may indeed increase the desire, or need, for recreation outlets. If the above hypothesis is true, then, by virtue of the present trends in housing, we will certainly be experiencing a greater demand for recreation within our urban areas. The housing condition is essentially the fact that single family homes are becoming too expensive to continue as the dominant housing form. Instead, we may have to adopt other housing alternatives - higher density in most cases — to meet future housing demand. This, in turn, will force upon us a more dense form of urban living. A look at recent data will demonstrate the reasons for this. The price tag for new single family housing in America has increased substantially during the past decade. Between 1963 and 1969 the median sales price for new housing in- creased from $18,000 to $26,000.33 When converted to square 33 Lynne B. Sogalyn and George Sternlieh, Zoning and Housing Costs, Rutgers University, the State University of New Jersey, 1972, p. 20. _. . 1).. .. n... .1. ..T .. o .H 3. ‘1 .n, H." . A r” _ ‘ « a .,u 4‘.» W. :14 a; . e . . a: :g i. _.,: afil & .. i. u ‘ u. ' V ‘. ‘ V PM“ u: 1.? .._ .1 r. a. .... .n. 2.1 a . 1 .t 2.4 .. J D « ~ g L. .. 4 D .J 0 f. v... .» y . _r .o ‘ ‘ .. x 1 ‘ 3 ‘I x 1.4% x; :N ...u A c .3 no ‘ .s r .. . . s s . .7.” . . ~ 38 footage of finished floor for new homes, including land, the price increased from $13.20 per square foot in 1963 to $15.35 per square foot in 1968.3L4 When viewed in an urban market context, the results are startling. For example, The New York Regional Planning Assoc— iation, a private regional planning group in New York, states that presently the lowest price for a new house on vacant land in the Region ranges from $30,000 to $145,000.35 To deflate the argument that this is a result of New York's cost of living, Lansing, Michigan closely resembles the same situation. In Lansing, and the Tri—County area, the price of an average new home ranges between $25,000 and $45,000.36 As a result, when considering the high mortgage rates and real estate taxes, bankers generally require that a home buyer have an annual income around half of the purchase price of the house. Thus, only families with $15,000 a year or more income can actually afford new housing. In New York, this includes only 20 percent of the population, or in other words, excludes four out of five families. 34 Elliot Wilbur, Jr., Housing: Expectations and Realities, Washington, D.C: Arthur D. Little, Inc.,l971, p. 17. 35 William A. Caldwell, How To Save Urban America, New York Regional Planning Association, New York, New York, 1973, p- 21- 36 Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Housing Market Analysis: Tri-County Region of Michigan. March 1973- 39 What this indicates is that the present market for new housing cannot meet the majority of market demand. If the market demand is to be met, or at the minimum, a response is made towards the greatest area of demand, a more inexpensive form of housing will be needed, i.e., townhouses, high rise apartments, etc., where the costs per unit are generally lower due to economies of land and construction costs. This would, of course, convert to either a higher density or more compact form of urban living. What factors account for this increase in cost of single family housing? While numerous reasons can be cited, the most important factors are the rising costs of construction, the rising costs of, and the diminishing amounts ofl build- able land. For example, Table 4 indicates the increase in construction costs for single family detached homes between 1969 and 1974. As this Table indicates, between 1973 and 1974, construction costs increased by over 12%. Just as critical as construction costs are the avail- ability and costs of buildable land. We cannot continue building on new land forever, and the land we do build upon is rapidly increasing in price. While it does sound incred- ible, there are signs that indicate a shortage of buildable land in many areas. As Richard Nelson points out: An entirely new factor has within the last five years suddenly appeared on the American scene. For really the first 40 time in our history, we are faced with the problem of land shortages.37 This is not to say that the United States will be running out of vacant land. able for development is finite. However, land that is suitable and desir— Table 4. While it is true that three Percentage Increase in Construction Costs Between 1969 and 1974 For New Single Family Homes38 1969 to 1970 to 1971 to 1972 to 1973 to 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 FJH Ml—‘UUNN .3% .8% .3% .0% .1% quarters of the American people live on only 1.5% of the land, the other 98.5% is not all buildable land. the 2.3 billion acreas of American land is still farmland.39 Nearly half of And of the remaining land, there are mountains, forests, parks and other land forms not desirable for urban use. 37 Richard L. Nelson, p. 7. 38 Robert H. Greg, 39 "Land Values in the United States", Urban Land Institute, Volume 28, Number 2, January, 1969, Current Homesite Development Costs, published Annual Report, March 1, 1974, p. 4. , "The New American Land Rush", Time Magazine, October 1, 1973, p. 86. O \f‘" ; V‘AlU-gafiti A u “1“ 1 ..A v" ‘y-A’xv I9- at. .h’- v p \A ' .1 4 u v . . C s: . v.,\ ”EU a.» . 4 ‘II ‘0 :4 CM 14 aC mu. 3.. L. . « ~~ .. s. L 0,4 0 CH. .1 v.1 ..Na Pl... ..VH hfi% n \I \ ‘1 i 0‘ 4 C In PM» Luv \r . . s ”4‘ 5: .ps. .. .. A.\ .41 k u 41 in a practical sense, there is a limit to the amount of land that can, or should, be used for the urban environment. Where the problem is presently becoming acute is around the larger metropolitan areas. Some cities, such as Cincinnatti, have physical boundaries that tend to limit growth. Others, such as St. Louis and Chicago, are invading prime agricultural lands to the extent where movements to curtail growth by strong land use controls are being consi— dered. Medium size cities, such as Lansing, Michigan, while not experiencing the same problem as the large metropoli- tan areas, are also beginning to question the uncontrolled absorption of land that may be better suited for land uses other than those associated with urbanization. While it is true that with technological advances, less people are needed in agriculture to feed the American people. It is not equally convincing that less land will be needed. Nonethe- less, every year vast amounts of prime agricultural land are being lost to urban development. As an example, state Government officials estimate that Michigan is losing up to 50,000 acres of undeveloped land each year to urban develop- ment, with a large percentage of the lost land being prime agricultural acreage. Given this condition then, land both desirable and suitable for development is diminishing rapidly. The final factor deals with the rising costs of build- able land. A few argue that land prices are not really rising, that in reality, urbanization is now occurring in areas not ”r F‘N '- V1 p: .\ l.» 3 1.» sh Cs .v.» Vi .1 v... i. 3 9 6... 3 a ... p1 ::.:. :o .r... r... a. L.» ‘.u(.: a; 1.“, ~.. “v. a \ 71¢ \ ‘. ‘ . _ ~ \ a. .. so v. 1 4 a s :4 42 originally considered for development. In certain instances this may be true. However, convincing evidence supports the first argument. For example, a National Association of Home Builderssfludy found that while lots have generally been in- creasing in size, the price of the lot has been increasing at a higher rate, as indicated in Table 5. The study found that the annual increase in lot size between 1950 and 1969 was 3.7 percent, while during that same period the cost of the lot increased 15 percent annually. An extreme example of this can be found in Orange County, California, where the Table 5. Changes in Cost and Size of Developed Lotsl4O Year Average Lot Size (sq. ft.) Average value 1950 7,558 $1,485 1960 8,932 2,808 1964 10,312 4,567 1969 12,839 6,183 price for an acre of land for a single family home increased from $3,000 to $30,000.ul Nationally, it is estimated that all parcels of land of all ages has increased from $2,569 40 National Association of Home Builders, NAHB Survey of Membership, 1969. ”l , "The Challenge of Rising Land Cost3,n The Urban Land Institute, Volume 72, June, 1968, Number 6. c. . 1..» i r. v. 1». ..4; «1‘ V. ... .a. A u' w. v - LC .1 4 . n ‘1: x I‘ Q Sm m4» ‘1‘ ~..g.na.. .H. ,1 Suit... E V“ x r.\ ..4 \ .1 Z .._. a; r. m. a-.. J .,.. 1.4 Q» 3‘ 2. \. \ \. N\.~A\ FIV H... 44; “3 in 1956 to $3,92U in 1966.142 Hence, land costs are definite— ly increasing. Not only are land costs increasing as a whole, but they are also becoming a larger percentage cost of the price of housing. Table 6 shows the land costs percentage of the total costs of a structure for 19u9 and 1969. The table in— dicates that land as a percentage of the total cost increased from 11% in 1949 to 21% in 1969. Table 6. Home Building Cost, 1949 and 1969“3 Type of Cost l9U9 1969 Structure 70% 56% on site labor 33% 18% materials 36% 38% Land 11% 21% Overhead and profit 15% 13% Financing 5% 10% As a consequence of rising housing costs, the market is already showing signs of responding to the need to develop U2 “3 Allen A. Schmid, "Suburban Land Appreciation and Public Policy", Journal of the American Institute of Planners, No. 36, January, 1970, p. 33. The original source is the Bureau of Labor Statistics and National Homebuilders Economic Department, Congressional Record, October 29, 1969, p. E9113, as reprinted in the City of Lansing Community Renewal Program, Housing Market Analysis: Lansing, Michigan, October, 1972. 44 lower per unit cost housing styles. Using the Lansing area as an example, Table 7 indicates the number of new housing units by type between 1969 and 1970. Here we can see that, Table 7. Tri—County Region Housing Trends, l96O-—l97OlM Change 1960-7O 1960 1970 Number Percent Year Round Units: Single Family Homes 76,680 84,274 7,594 9.9 Duplex Units 5,923 7,689 1,766 29.8 Multi-Family Units 8,457 19,878 11,421 135.0 Mobile Homes 1,543 3,945 2,402 155.7 Total 92,603 115,786 23,183 325.0 excluding mobile homes, multi-family units increased by 135 percent, versus single family homes, which have increased by only 9.9 percent. Thus, it is becoming evident that there is a definite trend towards higher density living styles. The evidence is clear that the present housing situation is requiring that a more clustered, or dense, form of urban living may have to be realized in the near future. This, in turn, is going to require an efficient 44 Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Housinngarket Analysis: Tri—County Region of Michigan, March, 1973. In‘.“-*‘~ " bl“ ‘" \ .-.\.vuu\A v- u ' ~ 6- : -. n;nngt‘ w - ohv.vu'v¢\.no n 0 "J Rwy :‘§-‘ 0 “‘- V...A. .4 .‘ m n. ‘ '. 1 1 D: N _ "t V' V]. r “Kffi‘\. - " |\ ‘ A. ‘ I H 1" ~fi- 1 K "‘-v - .L \. h - ., ‘r‘fl‘ - _ . \.- .. VHF: ;\ . a. P" ..4 Y" 'y‘ -..l_~': | .L' . ‘ ‘- .. -3 ‘WV 1 }- .. “‘1‘. < .~ m. ,7. 11>— \. ..w 434 ,. .. fln$¢: ‘ .4 a, V"L"‘u|; ‘ ‘ A \ . Q' N .‘ \pP' u ‘ ‘f‘ V. D T‘VI‘_ ‘ " b‘ld‘ "1 “ 57‘s,} 1 . M ‘ “AK-1‘ w +- 45 method of delivering recreational opportunities to meet the recreation demands of the population. The Competition For Scarce Resources The decade of the 70's is ushering in a new and dif- ficult problem for our cities - a scarcity of resources. While it is true that the problem has been growing through— out the 20th Century, it is only now that we are beginning to experience the problem in any meaningful scale. In terms of urban recreation, the resources of greatest concern are money and land. The question of the allocation of scarce resources is a critical one. States Seymour Gold: In a society of competing needs and relatively scarce resources, the question of whom gets what, when, where and why are important and con- troversial.“ Such a situation is requiring an evaluation of the process of establishing priorities, as well as to carefully 45 Gold, Op. Cit., p. 11. .‘ ‘- ..A.‘ .L. «J .5“ .l x; 46 evaluate the use of each resource. Competition for natural resources will almost certainly force a more careful evaluation of their value for different uses in the future than has been characteristic in the past. And as the determination of allocation begins to weigh heavily upon the perceived or realized return or benefit, the policy issue becomes: ..... how far is the public willing to make resource allocations based upon comparagive marginal returns or values? Such questions become very critical when the decisions to allocate scarce resources need to be made. As resource allocation relates to urban recreation, the question or issue is one of competition. Urban rec- reation differs greatly from other resource competitors by virtue of the fact that the benefits derived from urbant recreation are not necessarily amendable to quantifiable means. It is difficult to measure the benefits upon ‘which allocation decisions are normally made. Thus, all too often, resource allocation for urban recreation is 46 Clawson and Knetsch, Op. Cit., p. 299. 47 Ibid, p. 310. . f. .1 J... .g . i! . . . .. . . o x c -. o _ V .11 : ‘ .r1 . Q.» r. ; l. ..t _.. 2 ~ r. ... .v .1 . i 3). Q1» v.4 I» AHA \‘V L\ .2 x .. vi. « by 3 o . .. . _ .. l .- . . . _ . A l . ..c .-v fly fix» n.» — Q; r; Cy 2A 2 2 CC N; v‘ n. ; ._ l 3 Q S 3 .. a E w .. a. C o: 3 b: . .. . . Pu at t v r... :4 .,.V a: _ 0. v.« E. ha “..4 ..c r. w. r: v.” AC .. a: ..L ..C r w. 5.. ‘ Iv ,4 ~ . .3 .,-.. ..Z L... .. l ..t .34 .2 .5 F u. 2.. rt. x J . . . ..-.. ..l T L ... 7. T. n. a. C n. .1 x. , ..\ ,‘ :1. 47 often made after other, more readily measureable needs or desires are met. Public policy on leisure and recre- ation ..... remains on a catch—as-can basis, depending on left over resources, fiscal as well as physical, which are essentialfig organized for non-recreational purposes. Much of the controversy stems from the qualitative value implicit in urban recreation. Urban recreation is a means - one of many - towards a quality of life desired by society. In other words, urban recreation is one ele— ment of a desirable quality of life. When viewed in a means—end relationship, urban recreation takes on a sig- nificant value, and ultimately, a justification for resources. Too often, however, urban recreation is view- ed as an end in itself. Just the provision of urban rec- reation is considered the end product. This narrow View becomes translated into the attitude of delivering urban recreation services only when possible. The failure of this approach becomes manifested by the current state of urban recreation delivery - non-creative, ill-planned, and un-used. The low status attitude towards urban recreation finds its greatest impact in the area of monetary resources. Local 48 Urban Recreation, A Report Prepared for the Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan, Department of Housing and Urban Development, November, 1972, p. l. ;\ «Q «q yr]. 48 units of government are experiencing an acute shortage of available monetary resources in the face of increasing demand for such resources: While expenditure requirements for goods and services are increasing, many local jurisdictions do not have the re- sources to meet the rising costs, and even the more affluent local governments are able to finance their expenditures only by placing a heavier tax burden on resident property owners. While almost every facet of urban government is exper- iencing vast increases in needed resources, social related programs are claiming the largest bite. States Richard Kraus: ..... the cost of welfare, slum clearance and low cost housing, education, law enforcement, and related programs has risen dramatically. As a single example, New York City's Budget in 1960 was $2.2 billion. The mayors proposed "survival budget" for 1971-72 was $9.1 billion.50 Other problems, such as environmental pollution, are, because of their present significance and popularity, commanding larger shares of local resources. For example, it has been estimated that the total cost of cleaning all 49 Richard B. Clemmer, Paul K. Gatons, Arthur F. Schreiber, Economics of Urban Problems, Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1971, p. 128. 50 Kraus, Op. Cit., p. 62. 49 of the nations waterways will be over $100 billion, and that a heavy share of this cost must be borne by the cities.51 With a greater demand being placed upon resources from so many other urban services, and with the rather low status placed upon urban recreation, many recreation programs are in a tenuous position, with many operating with serious deficiencies. One example is the City of Cleveland, whose park and recreation department experienced an 80 percent budget cut in the winter of 1970—71.21 Another element to the problem is the increase in demand for urban recreation, while at the same time, recreation departments are unable to receive increased funding. In 1973, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources conducted a survey of all units of government within the State of Michigan, regarding various aspects of recreation activity. One of the questions involved the priority listing of the ten most pressing problems related to rec- reation. The results of this particular question are found in Table 8. For all levels of government surveyed — county, township, munincipal and State - the report states that, "Although there is some variation, there is agreement among all of them that money to meet recreation needs is 51 Ibid, p. 63. 52 Ibid, p. 64. I»; “14 s . _ ._ w-.. r t . r C “a .. 1. A1 3.. . H v l 2.. .34 ~i—xd fPU h!!! AH » O 94. ..J .. L .I\ .. ‘ .._\ x u : x . r . r C R. g o C .,... .1 R. .,..l .1 e .2 .. ._ .2: h». 2 .. x 1‘ ..v . E n . .... E .3 1.x. s r. . \— a x. a 50 Table 8. Ten Most Pressing Recreational Problems Michigan Governmental Units, 197353 Specific Problems Cited: l. Apathy, indifference 9. No public programs 2. Fed./State regulations 10. Not enough aid 3. Funds competition 11. Not enough time 4. High taxes 12. Low funding priority 5. Income limitations 13. Other (not specified) 6. Land use 14. Poor public relations 7. Need technical help 15. Schools not involved 8. No more land in area 16. Vehicle use conflict Rank County Township Munincipal State Prob. % Prob. % Prob. & Prob. % l. 4 18.37 4 20.75 4 21.33 4 20.79 2. 3 12.25 1 15.72 1 14.67 1 14.55 3. 6 12.25 5 11.32 3 12.00 5 10.16 4. 12 12.25 6 10.69 5 10.67 3 8.31 5. 7 10.20 7 6.92 8 8.00 8 6.24 6. l 10.20 8 5.03 7 4.44 7 6.00 7. 13 6.12 16 4.40 14 3.56 6 5.77 8. 2 4.08 10 4.40 12 3.56 16 3.93 9. 14 4.08 14 2.52 13 3.11 10 3.93 10. 5 4.08 11 2.52 15 2.22 14 3.23 the most pressing problem of them all.5u An examination of the sources of financing for urban recreation helps to indicate why the problem is so acute. 53 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michi an Recreation Plan - 1974, State of Michigan, 1974, p. 125 54 Ibid, p. 130. .. . V1)“ v»— 'v.'\ H. ‘4‘..- V. J». 1r"; pr‘.“ r 1 ‘ \- -.. a 4 3“ a .1, ..i. 3 .f... TV .. . .-u 3. . A.V:J... 3 3.1V :4 AV. ‘ ‘ :2..u ..V .C 21.70. 0.12;. . .. n .1...... . . . ..c f C .1 a g .24 : 4 .. .. a . .1... .,-C I} . . .1. : z . i K. T»; = Table 9 indicates the per capita and percentage expenditures 51 for recreation by unit's of government in Michigan by Table 9. Revenue Sources By Levels Of Government For Michigan 1972-197455 General Revenue Special Other Unit of Fund Grants Sharing Millage (Fees, Etc. Government P.C % .C. % P.C. % P.C. % P.C. % County .25 20 .54 43 .06 5 .29 23 .11 9 Township 1.58 59 .32 12 .12 5 .11 5 .50 19 Municipal 5.80 79 .31 4 .35 5 .30 4 .61 8 0-2500 1.74 35 .56 31 .39 8 .11 2 1.23 25 2500-5000 3.41 43 .35 17 .07 0 .18 2 2.86 36 5000-10,000 10.73 72 .08 7 .60 4 .84 6 1.65 11 10—25,000 4.56 71 .64 10 .40 6 .22 3 .60 9 25-50,000 4.49 53 .67 8 .78 9 .11 l 2.40 28 50-100,000 16.77 85 .22 l .85 4 1.22 6 .62 3 100-250,000 5.01 87 .08 l .43 7 0 0 .32 5 P.C. = Per Capita revenue source for 1973. are: (a) general fund tax dollars; sharing funds; (d) special millage; (fees and charges). exhibit a preponderant reliance upon general fund revenues. The five revenue sources inditified (b) Grants; (0) revenue (e) and other sources As the Table indicates, munincipalities This indicates a situation where local recreation must compete 55 Ibid, p. 130. C r‘ LgV mod nw“‘ A i V n .. 4h “- \ wort.“ "‘.Y) Anvibv V UM. 1 Y‘ n J Y i - O :rQV'a‘ \v" no.1..- ..‘l v14; .r. ‘ :.a .1 .2 \.\ 52 with other munincipal program priorities for the limited amount of revenue available from the general fund pot. At one time, revenue sharing was considered a great new monetary resource for recreation. However, this has not turned out to be the case. Table 9 indicates that during 1973, only 5% of recreation expenditures came from revenue sharing resources. One major factor cited for this occuring comes from a U.S. Treasury Department Report which points out that: Many jurisdiction officials felt that they should treat general revenue shar- ing entitlements as "windfall" money be- cause the program may terminate at the end of its current five-year authorization. Officials seem reluctant to use revenue sharing money to fund operating programs which must be financed after 1977.5 Instead, the report goes on to state two major uses of the revenue as: 1 Most governments visited (i.e., large cities and large urban counties) are us- ing funds in part to forestall tax in- creases. 2 Revenue sharing generally enabled lo- cal governments to prevent cuts in sources. 57 56 Compliance Division, Office of Revenue Sharing. Report on Compliance Visits, May-June, 1973, U.S. Department of Treasury, Sept. 1973, p. 33. 57 Ibid, P. vii. . .. d w s. u 1. v1. -. ,2 ..1 LL ...n .L .g 1.; w... a» a: a. .l f: n. . . w“. .,... a; n... ..o. w l .r-.. .. l 11 P. E C C E ..r. E . 0 t. E w u. ..c 3.... C r... .1 .C n .. _ n. .1 .- . a. . .3 H ..L J C a... .4 . v. . ..r. L. ..lu .r.. r“ .1 may on ) «.0 u a 11 C C n . hi 0 .r 0 vi... .,.. .x& «.v ”1‘ 3....“ . . H. : . n: «(v : ‘ h. a: .. u .. 7.. p... .. r“ mm .1; rd r. ..T. ~ .q n. .. e . .1... a. N; . r.» I . «\v 53 So, in effect, sources other than general revenue funds have not been utilized to any great extent for recreation. For munincipalities in Michigan during 1973, grants, revenue sharing, special millage and fees accounted for only 21% of all revenue sources. Along with the competition for fiscal resources is the problem of land resources. This problem entails the dif- ficulty involved in allocating expensive, often times highly marketable, urban land to a non-economic use such as recrea- tion. Within the urban centers there is much competition for developed and undeveloped land by many uses, and recrea- tion must also find itself in competition. The taking of urban land for recreation use eliminates it for a use which can be more economically justifiable. The provision of parks and open space in densely populated urban areas cannot be economically justified on a benefit cost with other public or private goods and services. Through the characterization of recreation as a "merit want" by society, we have been able to support such taking of land 58 Gold, Op. Cit., p. 41. Q.» ‘. L ..4‘00-\ 7--- A . 54 for recreation uses.59 Nonetheless, the competition for such land is still considerable, and in many instances, recreations bid for some land have not been successful. The competition for scarce resources is having a profound effect on recreation today, and, should continue to do so for a long time to come. With the growing social, environmental, and economic needs of our cities, recreation is going to find it even more difficult in the short run to acquire the resources needed to meet recreation demand. The Energy Problem Certain external forces will have a definite impact upon recreation. For example, there are periodic shifts in consumptive values of society - typically called "fads" — which may require a temporary, and sometimes permanent, shift in recreation needs or demand. Such impacts can normally be absorbed by the recreation system. However, other external situations may exist that create a more serious and lasting impact on recreation. A current example of this is the energy problem. The present energy problem now being experienced in America is going to have, and is already having a tremendous 59 A "merit want" is defined as a good or service that is deemed desirable by society, but the private market can— not supply the demand adequately, thus justifying govern- ment intervention. Another example is Housing. Glemmer, Gatons, and Schrieber, Economics of Urban Problems, 1971. «D p: 55 impact upon recreation. The impact is substantial enough to require some mention in this thesis. A major portion of America's recreation is dependent on the automobile, which is also the prime user of fossil fuel. With a dwindling supply and availability of gasoline, which has the additional consequence of higher gasoline prices, the effect is going to be less travel by automobile. The history of our allocation of recreation resources has been to create recreational opportunities away from our urban centers, thus necessitating a dependence upon the automobile. This depen- dence on the automobile is expressed by U.S. Representative Divid R. Obey, who states that: Outdoor recreation is ..... the victim of the inefficient use of energy by our transportation system. Eighty—six per« cent of the travel in this country has been by private automobile while only 4 percent has been by trains and buses combined. 0 The National Park Service states that parks will experience a severe impact due to the fact that over 90% of the park 61 visitation is private automobile. The emphasis placed upon automobile usage for recreation has created a situation 60 Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation Action, Department of the Interior, Report 31, Spring, 1974, p. 5. 61 Ibid, p. 23. 71‘ ff» 56 of precarious vulnerability. The overall effects of the energy problem are succinctly spelled out by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation: The energy crisis - replete with re- duced fuel allocations, Sunday gasoline station closures, a 55 mph limit, and pub- licity about higher prices and a possible recession — is affecting recreation pat- terns and the recreation/resort industry. It will take longer, cost more, and be uncertain for people to travel to re— creation destinations. This situation should result in (1) a decrease in recrea- tion at distant parks, recreation areas and resorts, and (2) an increase in use of parks and attractive close to where people live. Higher unemployment, temp- orary layoffs, year round day light sav- ings time and possible four-day school and work weeks resulting from the energy crisis will further increase discretionary éeisure time and use of close-in park areas. 2 Arthur Webster, a U.S. Transportation Official agrees, in that: Large cars, cottages and long- distance or European vacations will become a thing of the past with people resorting to more home entertainment and long-distance communication. 61 62 63 Ibid, p. 23. Ibid, p. 18. Reprinted from the State News, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, April, 1974, p. 14. r y ..m ... Si. . . r: r“ rug . W. e . ..l... L 4 r .. ..4 m? _ : 4 FL Q» 0 A a“ ..u r1 r1 : m i A: l... +. sh... r.. . M g b .\ w :7 n ~r; r. "i. a 1 n. w 1“ a . no .nu n u C» .,.c 0.. Mi Qy .: Q; A: .1 ..... 5 .1 ..u w. e g. . .. . .3 r: z. r-.. ....... .,.w 2. ..x. .u WC ... u 57 Thus, the immediate impact for recreation will be that people are going to have to recreate closer to home. This means using the facilities within and around our urban centers. This will create a critical problem by the very fact that many urban recreation opportunities and facilities are in- adequate to meet such a demand. Many facilities are already overtaxed, and the prospects for a heavy increase in demand is most certainly frightening to local recreation officials. The level of impact, and the needed response to it, are difficult to assess at this time. Nonetheless, it is a given fact that more and better recreational opportunities are going to be needed in our urban areas, and that planners need to be preparing for this now. States one planner: Many problems will emerge as a result of the energy crisis, but perhaps there will be some benefits too. For recreation leaders throughout the country, this is a time of regfissessment, a time for defining new goals. Summary Recreation, by virture of its value of supporting mans quest for a quality of life, finds itself dependent upon many external variables. Presently, such factors as urbanization, 64 Ray Agnew, "Meeting the Challenge of Nearby Recreation," Outdoor Recreation Action, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Report 31, Spring, 1974, p. 36. .. . 3 m. a 3 ‘3» n; 5). §b 41¢ 58 scarcity of resources, and the energy problem are all impact- ing recreation. As a result, they are making a substantial addition to the urban recreational crisis, and are serving to require planners to re—evaluate present urban recreation delivery mechanisms to better meet urban recreation demands. CHAPTER III THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO RECREATION In the previous two chapters, the discussion has focus- ed on activities that have a definite influence on urban recreation. These factors, however, primarily serve as an influence on the supplier, that is, they serve to measure the amounts of recreational opportunities that need to be provided. These factors are essential in any analysis of urban recreation. To complete the analysis, however, it is also necessary to examine the supplier. In this case, the analysis of the suppliers of recrea- tion will be focused upon government. While it is true that the private sector also supplies recreational opportunities, such an analysis would be impossible to undertake in this thesis. As a result, the investigation will be confined to the recreational opportunities supplied by the Federal, State, and Local governments. It is essential that an analysis of governments response to recreational needs be presented, for much of the present urban recreation crisis can be attributed to governmental policy. What should become evident as a result of this analysis is the imbalance of government towards rural outdoor recreation, and the neglect of the needs of the urban 59 sxb a. @— r.. ... L. kg 5. L» h. w 3 .C .14 rd 5; rt.» 60 residents. The present emphasis is on the allocation of recreation resources towards outdoor recreation activities that are located away from urban areas, while neglecting to satisfy the day-to—day recreational needs of those in great- est need - the urban dweller. Government response to recreation has been relatively recent. George Butler states: Until late in the nineteenth century, Federal, State, and Local governments con- sidered recreation primarily a private concern and with few exceptions spent no tax funds for recreation. A striking change in attitude during the last half century, however, has resulted in exten- sive recreation developments under govern- ment auspices. Recreation is now considered a major concern of Federal, State, and Local governments, which, through a variety of agencies, are contributing to the recrea- tional use of peoples leisure. Thus, the history is not a long one, but certainly one which has helped to generate our present urban recreation problem. As the three levels of government initiated their responses to meeting the growing recreation demand, they also initiated what is considered to be a major reason for the present recreation dilemna. From practically the beginning, each level carved out its own area of influence, and 65 Butler, Op. Cit., p. 37. 61 preferred not to work together as a unified whole. This ex- clusive "turf" approach is still found today: Professionals have diligently tried to do this by defining the areas of responsibility in each governmental level by imposing limits of area, limits of function, limits of finance, by pleadings, and by coercion, but without complete success especially in the borderline "areas of Egay" between any two levels of government. As a result, each level of government has primarily stayed within their own sphere of activity, with very little overlap. As a result: ..... villages and cities do supply the hourly and daily recreation needs; counties do aim their services at the half-day or day long visitor recognizing his desire for more space than the city park; the states do entice the weekender, the vacationer, the tourist, all with more native scenery and some of the State's unique features; and the Federal Govern— ment practically ignoring the demand for neighborhood facilities, concentrates on the magnitude and glories of this wonder— ful country of ours. In other words, the city provides the smaller areas for active play, the more man made replicas of nature, the artistic and cultural achievements of man, the entertainment local of an urban existance. The county suggest the delights 66 Charles E. Doell, Elements of Park and Recreation Administration, Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1963, p. 88. 62 of a more native environment, at the same time supplementing the effort of the les— sor and weaker portions of the metropolis in their effort to provide local forms of recreation. The State enlargens the hori- zon; it ignores the neighborhoods, focuses attention on nature, provides facilities for unorganized recreation in a native or simulated native environment, but not with— out attention to accessibility of population centers. Only the widest expanses of the absolutely superlative in nature are worthy of Federal concern -— but with a newly oriented focus 8n an enlarged concept of responsibility. 7 This lack of cooperation has resulted in an over abundance in Federal recreation areas, with a local urban recreation system that is lacking in nearly every essential resource. As Table 10 indicates, the Federal Government recreation acreage is 266,719,900 versus the local recreation acreage of 1,629,100. In terms of actual location, Table 11 shows that by far the vast majority of recreation land that is under the jurisdiction of the Federal and State Govern— ments are located in non-metropolitan areas. This situa- tion has occurred over the years in spite of the fact that the greatest need for recreational opportunities are within the urban areas. The type and extent of recreation supplied by each level of government will be the focus of the following 67 Ibid, p. 89. T2... Nehru < f To Cn...\. ~\. ~ .l: n... A A >.. T ...:,. ..< L C .2: 711.32.115.24 a. “:5; «S a a: N EC< \n 3 31.....LL IN.~. 2:2..TZCLLl :\ \ C C. :2 u .» m..m:..~ L 3...: LOO? q :C U N fl L2. N . yN a~ ~.....Ns .ww .Q .mwmfi .LmQEoomQ .oOHmmo wzflpcflhm pCmECLm>ow .m.D ”.o.Q .COpwcHnmmz .moaposz one mo onEpmeoQ .m.: .cme cowpwmmoom hooopso mUHECOHpmz .Coapmomoom Looopzo mo zwmhsm mm C m.oa:.mm H.MHm.Hm m.amm.fi m.omm.om m.mmfi.:ma m.mma.mm m.m:m.mfim apnea m.mH H.:m o.m o.m: m.m m.mpa H.omm anocsoo Hmcoflm6m 6cm muonnpnna Coapwmhoom ocm xpMm 0.0 w.Hm m.o m.wm m.mm: 0.25 :.Hmw aunn:369 21:.mm o.mmm m.a m.mom m.mwm e.gmp H.mmp.fi span ,6 o.mm m.mmm.fl m.HH A.mo:.a m.no:.: m.mmm.a m.HmH.w gnesop m.ogo.fi m.mm:.a :.m: :.H~g.mfi m.mmo.ma :.mfiz.: m.:mm.a: pnnnm m.mmm.mm w.qmo.mm m.oam.fi m.amg.mm H.mmH.O©H m.mOH.mH m.mfip.mwm Hanpppm Logpo mmmpd mmmp< .paso mmog< memo mmmpd mmop< .omm Hmpoe GOHpoHUmHQSW Hanannz s .nnflm s nmflm nnpnom pen nxnnm wcunpnanHEU¢ .zwfloz cum .EEoo ..mmm Amogo¢ wo mpcmmsoze :Hv mwmwma .COHQOHomHLzh wcflhmumflcflao< Ucm mmp< wo make mp mwmopo< :oaummpomm Looopso oafinzm .QH mHQwB DC 61. Tc n r: . A 6 .. n . 39 a ..v . .1 I... I . .. .6. i. . . m . ..l W... .. l 0.. a; ll .2 3.... s. C l a. "1. "1 :1 P t PM. u; «IL 1.9 a .u v H . rU. P... Q.» r. n1 ”1 . .. Dc 9. as .,..b : l t «C n Pin 414 .31.. mu m.... a C .s... ti 0 .11 .9 m 1 T. rh n ”:1. .1 * “a; P h « .. l e .. «C M... Q» 2» PM an) u. ¢ Q. N- MAI Viv .. 4 AL at .r... C» no 2‘ N. 1.. x. s. Y. . N ~ . r U .\ Yu N" 6“ Table 11 Public Recreation Areas, By location and Level of Government, 196569 (Millions of Acres) Non- Metropolitan g Metropolitan E Total Federal 36.0 8 410.7 92 446.7 State u.3 11 35.u 89 39.7 County .7 23 2.3 77 3.0 Munincipal 1.4 70 .6 2.0 Total H2.H ‘— E39.0 __ H91.3 Percent 9% 91% 100 sections. This will be followed by an analysis of their role in the present urban recreation crisis. The Federal Response The Federal response to recreation demand has largely been to promote non—urban types of recreation. The Federal Government, encompassing a number of different land and water agencies, administers 8“ percent of the total acreage of all types of non-urban public recreation areas.70 The function of Federal recreation is primarily of three types: operation of Federally owned properties that contain fac— ilities for public use; provision of funds or advisory 69 Urban Recreation Forum, Op. Cit., p. 37. 70 ClaWson and Knetsch, Op. Cit., p. 183. .~. ~ . L. C 3 H.-. .l ,J 0 "Mb add ‘1; W; h Pk; av Any mm C. a.» ..C -m- ..V .5. M 9. vi,— ” \ Ab $L .14 «Q .,.Q a. E .n a h . . .. w A \fis ‘ —L Q .,.c ..4 r. .. mu x114 EV ..... A: 2.“ h. n... a. A: “1 hi h; h; rt... 9A.. ..uu. ..J. a: x: .2 ... o .\ ..C «9 hp. 3 .P E r. u. r... C.» \ ‘ Ex ‘43- A. 1. s W; . 65 services to States and other governmental units on request; conduct of programs and operation of facilities for Federal employees, the Armed Forces, and personnel in Federal hospitals and other institutions.71 To help simplify the various types of programs, rather than explain each function separately, the discussion will focus on the role of each Federal agency. The recreational effort of the Federal Government is essentially found in three departments: The Department of the Interior; the Department of Agriculture; and the Department Table 12. Acreage of Federal Lands in the United States, for 72 Agencies Administering Lands for Recreation Use, 1972 Agency Acres National Park Service 2U,560,635 Forest Service 187,074,19H Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 27,990,u58 Bureau of Land Management U73,99H,8U8 Bureau of Reclamation 7,58u,737 Department of Defense: Army, Navy, and Air Force 22,955,783 Corps of Engineers 10,612,013 Tennessee Valley Authority 910,687 Total 755,683,355 71 Butler, Op. Cit., p. 37. 72 Nationwide Outdoor Recreation Plan, Op. Cit., p. 85. 66 of Housing and Urban Development. Together, they manage almost 756 million acres of land, as indicated in Table 12. Other Federal agencies are also involved in recreation, but their scope and level of involvement is very minimal and will not reveal anything of significance. Therefore, emphasis will be placed on the three previously mentioned departments. Located within the Department of Interior are four public land managing agencies which provide recreation. The National Park Service, however, is the only Interior land managing agency with a direct recreation mission. A fifth agency, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, while managing no land of its own, provides recreation opportunities through grants and other indirect forms of assistance to local governments. The National Park Service administors more than 275 natural, recreational, and histroical areas totaling about 30 million acres.73 This land has been set aside by Congress or Executive action for preservation and public use. Facili- ties include tent, cabin, lodge, and hotel accommodations; bridal and hiking trails; boat docks; museums and picnic 74 facilities. While incumbent within these areas is the provision of recreation, another important, and co-equal goal 73 The Urban Recreation Forum, Urban Recreation, Department of Housing and Urban Development, November 8, 1972, p. 38. 7“ Butler, Op. Cit., p. 38. 67 is the protection of our resources. In addition, the major— ity of these parks lie beyond major urban areas. The Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife is mandated the mission of the conservation of wildlife and their natural habitat compatible with recreation activities such as bird watching, nature study, photography, hunting, fish- ing. Other related recreational uses are allowed provided such use does not damage the natural habitat. The Bureau of land Management manages over 450 million acres of public land.75 Originally, these lands were con- sidered only for their consumptive products such as minerals, forage, and timber or as potential agriculture lands to be held for disposal. Little of this land was actually used for recreational purposes of any type until 1964, with the passage of the Multiple Use Act, allowing the Bureau to man— age the land for recreational resources. This opened a new frontier in terms of additional non—urban recreation lands: The grazing districts, 0 and C lands, and other public land under the adminis- tration of the Bureau of Land Management have not had large scale recreation use in the past, but they may become more impor- tant for recreation in the future. The Multiple Use Act of 1964 and the creation of the Public Land Law Review Commission almost surely presage programs to make 75 Urban Recreation Forum, Op. Cit., p. 39. 68 these land more generally available to outdoor recreation use.7 They still, however, lack a specific charter to provide recreation services, and thus, are not able to provide the amount of recreational opportunity that they are capable of. The Bureau of Reclamation, in administering and managing resorvoirs, has opened them up to such activities as fish- ing, boating, picnicking, swimming, hiking, and other recreational activities. However, instead of developing and administering the recreation resources of its area, the Bureau will normally transfer them over to another Federal Agency. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is responsible for administering the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1965, which was established to ensure the availability and acces- sibility of outdoor recreation resources to all Americans. The Act appropriates funds for three activities; (1) planning; (2) acquisition of land, waters, or interests in land or waters; and (3) development.77 Forty percent of the fund is set aside for Federal purposes, and the other 60 percent is allocated to the States. The state allotments can be 76 Clawson and Knetsch, Op. Cit., p. 188. 77 Hearings Before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Insular Affairs - House of Representatives, 90th Congress, Second Session, February 6, 7, 21, and March 4, 1968. 69 filtered down to the local units of Governments on a 50-50 matching basis. The catch is that only projects involving land acquisition and facility development for outdoor recrea- can be assisted under the fund program. Within the Department of Agricultural, there are two agencies directly involved in recreation; The Soil Conser- vation Service and the Forest Service. The Soil Conservation Service assists localities in flood prevention and watershed protection. The programs provide for the construction of resovoirs with recreation or fish and wildlife enhancement as the primary purpose. The Forest Service, under the Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, manages national forests for a variety of purposes including range, timber production, watershed, and fish and wildlife, as well as outdoor recreation. The Forest Service manages 187 million acres of land, upon which are located 6,800 camp and picnic grounds and over 206 privately owned 78 and operated ski areas. The recreation objectives of the Forest Service are to: Provide the facilities and services needed by the people to enjoy the healthful out— door recreation opportunities available in 78 Urban Recreation Forum, Op. Cit., p. 45. 70 the national forests and to keep all public use areas in safe and sanitary conditions.79 Activities such as camping, picnicking, skiing, riding, mountain climbing, hunting, fishing, and other activities, appropriate to the forest environment are located here. One of the more well known programs, the open space land program, is administered through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. This program was established under the Housing Act of 1961, and broadly extended in the 1965 and 1970 Housing and Urban Development Acts. Presently, the program has been terminated, but it is a significant enough program to be mentioned here. Basically, the program provided a direct 50 percent matching grant to local communities for acquiring and devel— oping land. Since 1962, over 1000 local units of government were assisted in acquiring approximately 348,000 acres of urban open space with grants totaling $442 million. As the following indicates, Table 13, 23.5 percent of the grants were for cities under 50,000 population and 76.5 percent for cities over 50,000 population. In addition, Title IV of the 1970 Housing and Urban Development Act included historic preservation under the open space program. 79 Butler, Op. Cit., p. 39. 71 Table 13. Department of Housing and Urban Development Open Space Program 1962—1971 (dollars in thousands) Population Size 4,999 and under 5,000 to 9,999 10,000 to 24,999 25,000 to 49,999 Total small communities.... 50,000 to 99,999 100,000 to 249,999 250,000 to 499,999 500,000 to 999,999 1,000,000 and over Total large communities.... TOTAL ............ Projects No. % 349 10.0 316 9.1 550 5 8 441 12.9 1,662 47.8 403 11.6 459 13.2 383 11.0 362 10 3 295 5.9 1,912 52.2 3,474 100.0 Grants Acres Amt. % No. % $ 18,546 4.2 21,632 6.2 17,254 3.9 12,372 3.5 32,711 7 4 20,103 5 8 321121 £12 111992 312 $103,662 23.5 71,172 20.4 39,253 8.9 26,645 7.7 65,016 14.7 59,413 17.1 64,261 14.5 41,265 11.8 89,317 20.2 55,789 16 0 80,377 18.2 93.970 27.0 $338,224 76.5 277,032 79.6 $441,886 100.0 348,258 100.0 The State Response The state response to recreation needs is still primarily rural oriented, with the goal the protection of resources and the aquisition of land in rural areas. role 80 Urban Recreation Forum, Op. in recreation is cited as a crucial one. ., p. 41. Even so, the states States the 72 Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission: In a national effort to improve out- door recreation opportunities, State gov- ernments should play the pivotal role. They are more advantageously situated than either local units or the Federal Govern- ment to deal with many current recreation problems. States have direct experience in shaping programs to meet varying condi- tions and particular needs of their citi- zens. And they have the necessary author- ity. They ..... are responsible for guiding and assisting all the political subdivisions within the States. Generally speaking, the States have entered into the market of supplying recreation on a large scale basis. For example, State park and recreation agencies are now spending about a half billion dollars annually, nearly 500 percent more than ten years earlier.82 With the advent of the Land and Water Conservation Fund in 1965, each State has designated an agency responsible for Statewide recreation planning. As a result of this fund- ing, State park acreage has increased by 75 percent.83 However, the vast majority of this increase has been in rural recreation and resource protection. 81 Ibid, p. 43. 82 Ibid, p. 44. 83 Ibid, p. 45. 73 Michigan represents an example of State recreation resources that are primarily rural in orientation. As Table 14 indicates, of the over 4,400,000 acres of recreation Table 14 Michigan Recreation Lands, 19738Ll Resource by Total Total by level Jurisdiction Acres of Government National Forests 2,692,296 National Parks 170,538 National Wildlife Refuges 111,384 Federal Total 2,974,218 State Forests 3,770,056 State Game Areas 262,935 State Parks Class I 1,520 Class 11 19,314 Class 111 78,444 Class IV 53,901 Class V 64,023 Class VI 969 State Park Total 218,171 State Water Access Sites 30,910 State Total 4,282,072 County 33,532 Township 8,562 Munincipal 65,821 Regional 18,600 Local Total 120,515 Grand Total Public Recreation Lands 7,382,805 84 Michigan Recreation Plan — 1974, Op. Cit., p. 120. 74 land in Michigan, the State has jurisdiction of almost 4,300,000 acres, all of which are State parks, forest, or game areas. Only 120,000 acres are devoted to a more local use. The State perceives their role not as a supplier of recreation to urban areas, but rather, to develop natural and recreational areas accessible to urban areas. Many of the State parks and related areas possess features of scenic, scientific, historical, archeological, and other rec— reational interest of statewide signifi- cance. However, many of the other State park and recreation areas have been selected primarily for their proximity to concentrations of population, and they have been developed largely t08§eet the need for non-urban recreation. Consequently, very little in the way of State funds or resources are given to local areas for recreation needs. The Local Response Local units of government have been supplying rec- reation for only 100 years. Initially, the recreation movement started with playgrounds in Boston during the latter part of the 19th Century, became more elaborate with the Central Park schemes in the early 1900's, and resulted in the present urban recreation system which delivers a variety of recreation services and programs. 85 Clawson and Knetsch, Op. Cit., p. 46. 75 A rough estimate of the magnitude of urban recreation systems is indicated by a National Recreation and Parks Administration survey conducted in 1970. The results show 1,119 local agencies managing 30,509 areas totaling 486,400 acres and 22,500 centers for indoor facilities.86 The study also revealed that in 1960, cities spent nearly 5 percent of their budgets, or $551 million, for recreational purposes. In 1970, the figure was still 5 percent, but the dollar amount was $1.3 billion, an increase of 240 percent. Per capita expenditures reveal similar increases. Table 15 shows the per capita expenditures for eleven selected cities for 1960, 1965, 1968, and 1970. In 1970, per capita expenditures ranged from $4.98 in San Antonio to $17.78 in Peoria. Between 1960 and 1970 the average per capita expenditure increased from $5.63 to $10.96, nearly 100 percent. Coinciding with the increase in recreational expend— itures is the increase in facilities and recreational opportunities being offered to the local resident. Clawson indicates that between 1925 and 1960 the acreage of parks ichreased by nearly three fold.87 Facilities located in these areas have also increased, For example, softball (tiamonds have increased nearly ten times; baseball diamonds Inore than quadrupled; golf courses and bathing beaches more 86 Urban Recreation Forum, Op. Cit., p. 46. 87 Clawson and Knetsch, Op. Cit., p. 196. 76 Table 15 Per Capita Expenditures for Parks and Recreation In 11 Selected Cities, 1960-197088 City 1960 1965 1968 1970 New York $4.22 $6.48 $6.19 $6.92 Los Angeles 4.78 5.67 4.77 8.72 Chicago 7.57 8.97 11.72 13.79 San Antonio 1.72 2.56 2.83 4.98 St. Louis 4.82 5.57 5.85 8.44 Atlanta 3.67 4.76 9.11 9.85 Minneapolis 7.14 6.17 9.09 14.70 Nashville 5.09 4.50 4.52 5.95 Oakland 8.59 9.87 13.21 16.73 Dayton 5.70 7.15 8.90 12.73 Peoria 8.63 10.63 14.69 17.68 11 City Average 5.63 6.58 8.26 10.96 than tripled, and tennis courts have more than doubled.89 Thus, the involvement and investment in recreation by local units of government is substantial. By far the most popular recreation use offered by local agencies is the playground. The NRPA survey reveals 90 that in 1970 there were 7,999 summer playgrounds alone. The popularity of the playground rests with the diversity EH3 National Recreation and Park Association, "Local Agency Survey", Parks and Recreation, Volume VI, Number 8, August, 1971, p. 21. 89 thpan.Recreation Forum, Op. Cit., p. 46. 90 Ibid, p. 46. 77 of activities normally found within their boundaries. Beyond the playground, cities now offer a variety of recreational opportunities in the form of bike trails, soccer fields, shuffle boards, swimming pools, and many other activities. It is mainly here, at the local level, where such a variety of activities is offered. Local recreation agencies find themselves being the main agency for delivering recreational opportunities to the largest number of people. Federal and State recreation areas, while serving a large user population, are util— ized mainly on weekends or during vacations. On the other hand, local recreation areas are needed by urban residents for use on a day-to-day basis, thus requiring more extensive facilities, and more of them. On other words, cities are the largest supplier of recreational opportunities in both usage and expenditures. The Impact Of Government 0n Urban Recreation It is now obvious, by the information presented in this chapter, that all levels of government are substan- tially involved in providing recreational opportunities. Thus, when aggregate recreation supply is considered, it can be said that all levels of government are working towards the goal of providing a variety of recreational opportunities. When examining specific needs, however, particularly those of an urban population, one finds this effort falling woefully short. 78 As urban residents are allotted more leisure time, and the urban environment becomes more congested and in- tolerable, planners find that the greatest need for some kind of recreational outlet to be within the urban areas. States Elinor Guggenheimer: The urban dweller is, in our era, so often the victim of frustration, of traffic congestion on the streets and pedestrian congestion in stores and office buildings, of noise and air pol— lution and of tension and delay. Activ— ities that provide pleasure and content- ment and that are recreative of the human sBirit are especially important to him. 1 The accessibility to daily recreational opportunities becomes essential in an otherwise crowded and hurried environment. Historically, and this still continues today, the primary agent for the provision of urban rec- reation has been the local units of government, who are finding themselves lacking in the ability to meet this challenge. The fact that the Federal and State govern- ments have not involved themselves with supplementing local governments for purposes of recreation has greatly added to the current urban recreation crisis. 91 Elinor C. Guggenheimer, Planning For Parks and Recreation Needs In Urban Areas, New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1969, p. 26 79 The Federal Government has, within its command, vast monetary and technical resources capable of making a sub— stantial impact on the recreation needs of the urban dweller. The fact that they do not is a policy long held by the Federal bureaucrats. In the late 1950's, when the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission was established by the Federal Government, the indication of an explicit policy of hands off towards urban recreation was first revealed: ..... critical analysis of the legislation establishing the Commission and the Com— missions studies and published reports reveal a very limited emphasis on urban parks, and primary emphasis on resource oriented parks and uses. This was not the fault of the Commission, but of Congress for passing a law which mandated, "Outdoor recreation resources shall not mean nor include recreation facilities, programs, and opportunities usually associated with urban development such as playgrounds, stadia, golf courses, city parks and zoos". In essense, Congress stated that information about the recreation problems and potentials of the cities was not needed; this is one cause of the problems characteristic of urban recreation today.92 Thus, at a critical time in America, when cities were growing quite rapidly, and recreation needs were incre- Sing substantially, Congress turned its back and allocated 92 Gold, Op. Cit., p. 24. 80 sorely needed resources to other areas. States Gold: By calculation, or by oversight, Congress can be held responsible for creating this turning point in the quality and quantity of urban recreation facilities.93 The effect of Congress diverting recreation funds to rural outdoor recreation use has been to create an imbalance in terms of recreation resource allocation. In other words, there is a definite bias towards recrea— tion that is to be used by the urban population by es- caping from the city. There is an implicit push for people to seek out recreation in distant places: The Federal government has assumed a major role in acquiring and developing outdoor recreation resources through a system of national parks and forests.... To date, Federal funds have focused mainly on supporting the development of recrea- tional facilities rather than recreational programs. For the most part these recrea- tional benefits have been available primarily in non—urban areas.94 Such escape types of recreational opportunities, which are normally used on weekends and vacations due to their 93 Ibid, p. 25. 94 Urban Recreation Forum, Op. Cit., p. 32. 81 distance from the cities, do very little to aid the urban dwellers in their need for day-to—day recreational escapes. Much criticism has been leveled at the Federal govern- ment for this policy, including the Citizens Advisory Com- mittee on The CACEQ Thus, the Environmental Quality (CACEQ), which stated that: The bulk of Federal monies for recrea— tion are still for park and recreation projects outside city limits. There have been some reasons for this emphasis: the land is much cheaper, and, it can be argued, in many cases it does serve the people of the city. The fact remains however, that the most important recreation for people is their everyday recreation. The needs are now particularly acute in the central city, and, it is in the center of the city, ngt somewhere else, that they must be met.9 goes on to say that: We urge a substantial reordering of priorities for Federal aid to recreation. Not enough money is being made available; too little of what is available is reach- ing the urban areas that need it the most - and what little does ggach them is of secondary importance. Federal resources for recreation (money and tech- nical manpower) that could be used to make a significant 95 Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality, Annual Report to the President and the Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C., 1972, p. 23. 96 Ibid, p. 22. 82 impact on urban recreation, are not. Consequently, urban areas must utilize their own overtaxed resources to supply urban recreation. Another potential aid for local recreation is the States. However, they too follow the policies adhered to by the Federal government: The states largely have followed the recreation policy of the Federal government. Their focus upon acquisition of cheaper rural land removed from urban populations has resulted in an imbalanced distribution or recreation benefits for most urban people.97 The states have primarily allocated recreation resources for parks and natural areas in the rural sections of the States, which again, require urban residents to travel great dis— tances to reach them. While states are in the advantageous position, due largely to their more direct link with local units of government, to offer direct assistance to urban areas for recreation, they too have chosen not to do so. Consequently, through the policies of the States and the Federal government not to supplement local units of government in the provision of urban recreational opportun- ities, the cities have had to, for the most part, go it alone. And the cities, in terms of fiscal resources, are 97 Urban Recreation Forum, Op. Cit., p. 45. 83 the least capable to do so. With the rising costs and demands of local services, and the already overtaxed revenue genera- tors available to local governments (the prOperty tax), the resources needed to supply such services are being spread very thin. On the other hand, the states and the Federal government have a much better capability to generate re— sources, i.e., the income tax, needed to support such services as urban recreation. Unfortunately, they have decided not to do so. Thus, we find the situation of local units of government having to bear the burden of providing urban recreation opportunities, which, at this point, is not sufficient to meet the demand. At the same time, the States and the Federal governments, which have the ability of greatly in— creasing the capability of local units to provide urban recreation, are adhering to a policy of allocating their resources to rural outdoor recreation instead. Hence, we find present governmental policies greatly contributing to the present urban recreation crisis. CHAPTER 1V SUMMARY: THE URBAN RECREATION CRISIS The three previous chapters have served to indicate those factors that are creating an urban recreation crisis. The term "crisis" here is meant to reflect the seriousness of the problem, and that, unless positive measures are taken to alleviate the present condition, the siutation will become very grave. The dictionary defines crisis as the "turning point", or "a decisive or critical moment". For urban :recreation, this is most certainly the situation. We must either make the decision now to reinvest our resources ‘towards providing the opportunity to recreate oneself within ‘the urban environment, or stand to lose one fundamental aaspect of our quality of life. And, faced with the prospect (If a more highly sophisticated, congested, and fast paced socxiety, this we cannot afford to do. Each chapter dealt with various factors individually. Thifis chapter will attempt to put the urban recreation sittlation into perspective by combining the various aspects Of“t11e problem into a complete picture. The majority of Americans now reside within the urban cerltesrs. At the same time, the majority of working Americans als3C> work within an urban area. The critical question of 84 85 of this thesis concerns the urban dwellers activity during non-working hours. A percentage of this time, it can be assumend, will be spent on some form of recreation activity. To the working person, it is essential: No human being can survive without acti— vities that represent some change in pace from that portion of his life that is characterized as work, obligation, or duty. 98 And this need becomes most acute in the urban environment, due largely to its seemingly impersonal and congested character. Historically, recreation was to be acquired through individual initiative, which meant it was up to the individual to find whatever it was that one desired to do for recreation. This was provided either by government, who, not by design necessarily, had vast open space reserves which could be enjoyed by those who desired it, or it was furnished by the private sector in the form of amusement or entertainment. It wasn't until the early part of the twentieth century that government seriously entered the service of providing recrea— tion. This was due primarily to the recreation needs created by the growing industrialized cities. Throughout this century, the provision of recreational opportunities was a function of the increases in population. 98 Guggenheimer, Op. Cit., p. 27. 86 This, however, was often times difficult, and normally, sup— ply has not maintained pace with demand. Today, however, additional problems are being added to the recreation problem that now elevates the problem to a crisis situation. First of all, no longer are recreation units confronted with the singular problem of increasing demand due to normal population increase. There now exists the situation whereby the individual is experiencing an increase in available recreation time. Thus, demand is now increasing by two functions - population and increasing individual recreation opportunity. The effect is to have existing recreational facilities overcrowded that much longer. This will make it even more difficult to provide an adequate supply of recrea- tion opportunities. Secondly, this increase in available recreation time afforded to an increasing urban population will, in the future, take place in a much higher density living environ- ment. Consequently, there will be larger clusters of people desiring additional recreation opportunities. At a time when cities are experiencing this rise in recreation demand, the resources available to meet this de- mand are becoming more difficult to find. Cities are cur- rently experiencing a fiscal crisis as well, in terms of monetary resources, and those resources made available for urban recreation are not always adequate. In addition, the urban areas are becoming developed to the extent that con- verting urban land to recreation use is very costly in terms 87 of benefits lost to the city, i.e., income generated from revenue producing uses. In effect, then, cities are slowly losing ground in a battle which is essential to win. Adding to the already complex problems facing cities, there now enters the serious problem of energy shortages. With very little hope for a short term solution, cities are now confronted with the addition of weekend vacationers upon the urban recreation scene. That is, with the lower supplies of gasoline, and its higher price, those individuals who would normally migrate from the city to far away recrea- tion spots are now finding it necessary to fulfil their recreation needs closer to home. Excluding the energy issue, the problems identified in this thesis have been occuring over a period of time. Hence, these are not startling facts discovered overnight. In other words, government officials had some idea that these problems eithervmnweoccuring, or very likely to occur in the future. Nonetheless, government policies have done little to alleviate, or mitigate the problems. Both the states and the Federal government have adopted a hands—off policy re- garding urban recreation needs, thus leaving the problem to the cities. Unfortunately, the cities are not capable of handling the problem alone. And even the cities have, on occasions, neglected to fulfill this responsibility by rele- gating recreation to a lower priority item for scarce city resources. Then means-end relationship of recreation is often times not fully understood. In essense then, even 88 the local government response to the urban recreation problem has not been serious enough to adequately address the problems, and in a very real sense, have actually added to the problem. In View of the problems facing urban recreation, the serious problem of meeting the recreational needs of the urban population needs to be addressed. Identifying the steps that are necessary, and the creation of a policy neces- sary to circumvent this situation is the focus of the second half of this thesis. PART II CREATING AN URBAN RECREATION POLICY INTRODUCTION The dilemma that confronts the provision of recrea- tional opportunities to urban dwellers is not unsolvable. While the present situation is certainly serious, there are avenues that recreation planners can follow which can serve to turn around the present trend of decreasing recreation opportunities. One approach or alternative to solving the present dilemma of urban recreation is the focus of this :section. The subsequent chapters of this thesis will describe £1 proposal for reducing, or eliminating, the crisis situation ;)Iesently being experienced by both the suppliers and users 13ulation. The following discussion addresses both of tzlileese points. 9EiSEngation Of The Population Population location bears a direct relationship to 7t:171<3> need for metropolitan wide recreation planning. This .3:3 ‘33 :tgationship is based upon two important considerations: 93 94 100% 73.5 ‘ 69-5 58 3 50% /E 27 7 6 / ¢ 31-5 26.8 Urban Metro. Urbanized Central Outside Cen. Areas Areas Areas Cities Cities Figure 4. Distribution of U.S. by Residence Population, 197099 1. The majority of the U.S. population is located within the SMSA's, and 2. the location of the population within ‘the SMSA's. The consequence of both necessitates a move izowards a higher planning Scale than the individual local 14nit of government. For nearly the last one hundred years, the population tilrend in America has been one of people moving to urbanized Eilreas. We are truely becoming an urbanized society. lg‘filgure 4 indicates the population distribution by residence in the United States in 1970. According to the 1970 (3:63nsus, nearly 74 percent of the population live in urban ‘Eidreeas, which is defined as incorporated areas consisting \ $9359 Urban Recreation Forum, Op. Cit., p. 5. 95 of 2,500 or more population. More importantly, the census indicates that nearly 70 percent of the population live in metropolitan areas, which are the 247 SMSA'S. Therefore, when speaking of areas of greatest recreation need, i.e., population numbers equating recreation demand, the metropol- itan areas of the country become an important area of concern. The need to focus on metropolitan areas is also sup— ported by indications of population residences in the future. Most Americans live in relatively few large metroplitan areas, which keep getting larger. By 1980, 54 percent of the Nations population will live in . urban areas with a million population. Fully 71 percent of all Americans will live in 125 metropolitan complexes whose population exceed 250,000. Rec- reational opportunity will be most deficient in those populated areas where the supply of open space is dim- inishing rapidly while competing demands for it are increasing sharply.l 0 Crude greatest area of demand is presently in the metropoli- tléin areas. In the future, this demand is going to increase E3“\ren more. Thus, for adequacy of recreation opportunity, 3r112rw and in the future, the area of greatest concern is in tZJTle metropolitan areas. \ 100 Ibid, p. 5. 96 The need for recreation planning at the metropolitan scale is also evidenced by the location of the population within the SMSA's. Within metropolitan areas there is an unequal distribution of recreational opportunities. By virtue of an individuals location within an SMSA, it may indicate the types of recreational opportunites available, or unavailable, to the resident. States an ORRRC report on Chicago: The difference in the socio—economic character of these people in the City of Chicago as against that of those in the suburbs, in the relative accessibil- ity and the availability of outdoor recreation opportunities and facilities, are two of the most striking factors. A higher portion of the people in the' city have less mobility and below median incomes; the city has much higher net residential density with less per capita public or quasi-public open space; a greater variety of urban type recreation opportunities exist in the city. Place of residence thus has a most important influence on outdoor recreation practices and interests.101 '3711e distribution of recreational opportunities within a 1ij1€Etropolitan area points to the need to develop a uniform EDZr’ocess of ensuring adequate opportunites to all. For €3<>