‘wv.‘o\°‘t.,'w“%m‘“m°.“”fm~~,w21‘0""vv‘v‘.._“:‘v-_‘_w~.__‘____ '_ . ..-.. . ‘ _ ‘ -.-. -. ._ ‘ .- "3— _ ‘ H) A cmnoua AND APPRAI- : . CURRENT RECREATION PLANNING. - , . METHODO‘LOGlES AS APPLIED _ - o INNER cm AREAS o - .. O . . . . x ,_ _ O r .' ' l - y . ~- 0 L 0' a . .I - ' I o . . -.-. 1 ~. .L' « - n o . O , ‘ OI I G O . . D 9. ...,v '-, 4- . . - . o [‘0 0‘ " ' ' g. _‘ u ' ' 0 . . o .. s fl. .. 'o.‘- . . A : ~., .. , 9' g' | . . _ § 0 . .l . ' . ’ O _ - . w . ' C v -, . . tn - " ‘ . _ .- . - - -- G - - . a u . . O 0' a. . . - . - , - . . . , . ‘. . ., _ _’ ’Je:- rw - I. '... . '- .- i. ‘ . - O ' 0 ‘ ' ' 0' --o ‘ .4 ~1-. ., - .... .....-o V‘_ o 9 --o.-‘- O . ¢ " * a... o- ‘ ‘. . . - . . , -- . . ao........ o ... . ... M‘. -- - ' - - - 0'. n . '— . a. o - '- 0' . .. "J’ a ' ourO. ' a5": _. . r . -.v-¢ - _ .~ , , . 0.. p .. . .g. . ,_ _ “:2... ¢ _ . . o . on. c -_ . *7 4 ' . . . - . . o . - — _ o "4~ . 00¢. -u r- .0 .0. .. o . .‘ ”~'-s . .o n . _- . - ov‘ , '. a - ._’ "’ . .. . .. .0 .0. fix: . . - - -- - -~ . 1,. - . 0 cl. 0 ‘- ft. - ° In .... o. o V0 - . .-.a - J. . .~,. .,.‘ .. . ~ - o ‘ ' o .3. ‘ o '0 ' 0¢<~' .v .fi’r. -¢-‘ .- . . - . . . , .'- . N' ' , .,' . . . v . u., ,' . . . _ I . o I! >01. 0 . - . .-r .-.'a n - 0". :.- r ' 0- l 0 ¢ ‘to- ‘ 0.9 -v y o.- -‘ fi ' , ,, .. . v , . , . .. J‘r ‘ o - ‘ o. ago a.“ ’ ' - -o .‘ -Q—, . -_y- - " .‘ o ,..- . , _ . _ .. 'W’ . . v 0., ..o. ..- ~--. 00'..-'. .¢-' . . .. . 1:”... .. 'f- - -. '¢ I '4 I rtc'oOO" -‘?.-v to 'c- Iy-H' . l "I... '..» ' u g. r-_ -. ‘ -7 m1" . ...~ I.J,':. l - -.. .. ."l.' up -.c.‘pa,.. -.r.-o.. o .0 . . 'f . - .flo ..I .. 'If a . 01‘ M, I 5' - oID' . r-..v.o ' 0- of" - ~aa . - ’ ' ' '. O . - > .. .I I. r' 0.. o .' _ .. 0,. ._— MW. " 4 'Ug‘aa v -----49.'0 *Otl .Ioc-‘9- °." C ‘ . 4 'l" -- “."-O . - .. -,- .1. . , My rlv'yco. ..- .», . - ' O¢J.. . -v- .,...,' ,. ,, -\ . | - '1 . .to I. . a. . ,gg . . a..- . ""’ . ’I'Or '1 ‘Oo.l' "-¢.-oa-(-loo, '40! .~ - . . ..09 o..‘ . o! < - --- , 4 __. . ~ av .... _ . . (I. .rrI-‘t ' '-" 07-4 0-4 ..-. ,.V'.;.'.-,.H’p,, - . ‘.. 9..- I. ,- - -.."4-',’ .. ..-.‘._' , _. ' -,.-. ' "' - ' - . t.§‘lo- ' tllll .oi'l '1 Ito-o ’ .. -- ‘. - " "' 044 9" --l':O'o'--- . .0": ..a -I-.- l , y—I.’. -’ :‘a." ' P." ‘ . v . n ‘ g .c ...’.. , ' p 'o' cooo~ . . . a- u 'f’ .-4'-4 "'~‘ ". ' . , "'/:.II I... . -I.‘ " ‘.’-J¢ .’ u “.4 ..~..’, ., .,:.’l.".". .‘w I . ‘ l r-’ V.‘..”” I. - .1 -I" f.'..n.--W'-.oao.aod.o .. p..".p .uO-o.l—:o:"..f-.’,-.-' .Aoo- -. .-. a . ' vr°c .O-OI ' ~ 'IV.‘0’ -o’-' It , . -‘I 1 O '0. I -'0 'Q . w,‘ . ~." 010'”. .. ..-,_ J 4' .-., -40c. r|.'9" n!”‘-.‘-""‘- .-.,T‘,:".-. '0 -M , '- ‘ - o ' - wort v..‘ a o¢-- '---.' -I:' a . -. a c- “ root; 0 ' - .' ‘. .0 ;f.‘(. .....' I-‘o'f f?“'r."~'.'ao- , o— m. . . - ‘Al'ffa o a. ‘ftj‘P-Ov. .90, ' ' rt~.-o-ar'n-Qap ,~,c —'-- 'Of—O- ’0...’U4mgubu-IDO'OO'O’I-rlp ‘-,- dg-abcaoo;'.-l.,.."ov If .. ‘ ' 'l4 a... . ,-.4o‘ 1!. .o 4. ctr. “' '9 o-ou'd‘o -\ . ’ - - W""fl..‘ 'I.MH'.'nOr(o ay.vc.a- '.-""OI:""fO"OD;—O"r.l."ui0"... 9,. .. ‘ .. . -—.‘ ' I (1 0 OJ (ct 1.4-0.0:10’ o H; ‘ two?! o-\ . - . . ";I.‘>’I‘"“I""D’C’O ’I- ’fiiqfop’o v (Ono-r;:ru"o-d.l."r . . . . ‘ .-.I"';""_‘" J! a .9.".""0.‘4‘4.005'15’ a " .’ ’tr.'.",- . ‘ . . '4 .' no 4 . 0-0.! 'I.'A”II" - o I — '9 .,.r. .Ha.-....-!.,',g., ,W 0.0‘ o . _." o._-'.oo"r 'Dco '- o-— - ., ..,.{- 0.x o ' .' ‘ o"'¢' '00.!!5 It‘l'o-oIoflno WHO'r'OM"'P’|;-"..‘ 'C"<'.‘;( 'v .4 I ‘ . I 04.) .6!Oo. - 'cho n» , ,y’f'y r'.~-~- ‘ 'O",~.‘l f r.ou o . O ‘01 Wm '"J."O"." .tp'..'_M.-'.‘:.lr’o0pf:un'l‘ulo. ._' a I. ._ ‘ ~ . .. . ’-‘- J‘Ogva—I. 0:9!(1' r2.‘ _. . ~~a -c.’ —- 4;» -'.0Io o.v(;o , 0'. f I n. I, I,‘ -¢o- “’1‘ lO-voI-i JE-goivi'rmep.|uc—‘yfopoa -,". ’U’.Il:;—;o‘ r . ”V a. . c—I 4 u o . v . . _‘ - ‘ . I g . . .. . I I - . i - ‘ . .a .. . . ‘ - p a", ’. ": u . . o _ . r . ' a .4 {,.:.- '::o‘.- '0 --"O' .OU t'f«"‘{:'l’uvv 4":- . "" l '0- ' a O. l.’.c .1 '.l fr, ' . ' ~ '1’; o. "" ' ' .4 .4 . ,. I--uoDoJ/.l". . ..’f ’,'.L a o ‘ ‘ t....( ’ -’ 'v:dto .l ”Na ' W35 ‘ .’ l ji- ' _' ",.-._' A .. .‘ _ .. s . - o .. . . o C V g c O ‘r o ‘0 o ... .l. .C < ‘. :1 . ..: 1‘: a“. .'s_‘ u‘;;: ‘U. .3 \ I \‘u ’Q" \ ‘ ‘ \ C ‘ ‘ 1~ \ ( ’1‘! .0 ’ II'urn -o.«¢p,~o-!o .rn’r-Irpr’-. ,, . f l’" ' . J . . . . ' .'.. o . " 'l.". r-" .r'ra"ovo¢ 0’ -'I ”MR'I’JZI 0‘0"" ' ° ' ' . n 6 . . . . . . ‘ “' ' ' .‘ 4-; V'PV 0 D. - u t ' - . , , .. . ._ , , X.‘ ' ‘1 ‘I I 'r’ '4’ ~_.4,.,.,n,.-' ’vrgfr:w-,.l'p‘ ’ - . " I. ' '-o I u .. ' I .0 .0 .f ' , o. a n l. -.';.l’ a . .’-':. . If. ’VI""'.G". ' - o o I .. n. '4 . 'l. [’7' r ' 0 I 4.4 9 ' ‘ol—'I.I";- . ' ' ' 0 . °-' ’ '0 > I ' I I 0-b~ - 4 0' . .- . . . ~ . , _ . .'. ‘ . " .. ‘ .‘ W‘Q ‘ ' ' .r.l.—.’o ~.{o o -. ' I . o ' a'4 0"“; 'Oprffi. "’l”’ ’1'}. 'r‘r' I ‘ - o o 1- . . _ . . . . ' I — . - 4 . v- ' " - O ' ....' '~ .. , 'l_f.‘ro"'. OI! I! ': ,:- 'o’". ”ti-1";sz r I ’ ‘ . u .v , . . , .f ._ ii. ' 0 ~DA50’9'Dbl-O’0lfl‘fl’tu- 1&6”. 5/3; ‘57:; “I "9.. ;.u‘;’t7¢ r’. - ' . . .. . ' , 2' "' /‘ cwwro' to d-""’" ; If :;/2 ’J.,§§-' "f“ . , U... ‘ ' - - n '-'."- , " . .' .'. , 1H.".‘ '0 . rm rrc- _"r (:Z’...,"'nfo':' .1"; " h ' '. " H " ' . 0'0 90-00.. i..' - 4- ..';-'~.' v-r-larr. . I. . . o ', ‘V' . - 'l/ '» co . .a .t ‘l '.,’.' ' 0". O O - . , " " ' o . n a a . .J. a p o I ' 0"6”"' I . . ' ‘ ' ' ' at to --. Jo ' -. _ 1": >'0 . o .. . ' I ,.o-. . - . . '. I.‘ 1 . .. ;.' ' .'. . D val'.. ’. . 'I’:""""'o";f" . . ' ' ‘ ' - - ' " ’ r - I, o. o ; lb O0 0 v . no ’00. - . ,., 0 , o,.. "4'0 I . i J o- I' ,D .‘ ; o. d f I ,f ' o ’fi’fl ..;’.,'.'.o ’ ... o ' ‘ ‘ o u . . ’. .... ,. 0V -:,'.J.';.'.{'Jo.".: '0 JA.- ya, '9', :J'; ,'. . . '0 ... . . ,. - .. . - - ‘ ' o , - ‘ .‘ 4 ’ ‘ ' ' Do ‘.' . ‘. . . ,'... "... ‘ O’."s’p.’.uo-hc:l...o. . ‘ _ ." A,"”". ’. 'H " ' ' ' ‘ ' . M "'f«' ’ "“‘r ’f nip-’apvw 0-H . .. I .o- . . .... . . ..... . . v ,nf’ocr ol..¢),‘.. ,. ., ‘l 'm"‘ ";' ’0. I» " . '0 o‘ '- '- v I‘ .... '0 000-6 s a. . ,ull. . f, . 'fl‘fflp "b’:.:'." O . 4 I 0 05:2. l’rf; ' ' ‘ ' ' "" . .‘ ." .. .' "‘, ul'.oa"‘.’lll" a"..';..‘r’..:'.f.-a. 0"-lr‘ 3“}:. l ". 5'}: {$’.'f’;'.f" " ' ' ' it -o .4... . . "“"P""""" ' n l ‘ ompl - '1' “-100'0'190’ fr . - - . , . ,. _- 5 5 . I! Io.-o.-oo..,,oo-.o :. -; ,,-u .-;o::o::"("pl O I f d . . .... . I . ., .. ‘ ,. , . .- .o . . .n,,. ., :,_:',,‘/,f,[,,w . ..' . . . , . .,,... .lvoch.Ov.o.-p .0-.; moo. ’ng o’.vg;,”f.ao"o)r , o .n .. . . . ' ’_ " ' -O- 0‘. :".-.o g -’..;..,’ '.’I".‘:"-’..."‘.I 5.0roJ-oto n.1,. . 00:01.; . "' ' u. ,... 0" .0- l ‘ ft 4.4 0‘9""...O o mum; \nzlmgugum w 1m my mm m “M u . , LID; ARY 1 Michigan Stats University A CRITIQUE! REC Recreation 18 5 patterns, and its impot mowledged. mus, P aticularly significa recreational activity. 2:" our urban communiti tecreation facilities nthave the'quality z ties and programs whi fi'eilable to them in figates the status of :1?! areas, and in pr iieas are under servec :DC egg: and the met ABSTRACT A CRITIQUE AND APPRAISAL OF CURRENT RECREATION PLANNING METHODOLOGIES AS APPLIED TO INNER CITY AREAS BY Gloria G. Woodard Recreation is a vital part of our everyday living patterns, and its importance as a human need is increasingly acknowledged. Thus, public recreation facilities play a particularly significant role in satisfying our need for recreational activity. However, not all areas and residents of our urban communities are being equally served by public recreation facilities. Particularly inner city residents do not have the quality and types of public recreation facili- ties and programs which meet their needs and interests available to them in their environment. This Thesis inves- tigates the status of public recreation services in inner city areas, and in probing the causes of why inner city areas are underserved,focuses on the recreation planning process, and the methodologies and conceptions involved therein. Finally, this Thesis takes a look at some alter— native planning approaches and recent innovations in recreation facilities and planning techniques. A CRITIQUE RE't METHOIDLOGIES A5 A CRITIQUE AND APPRAISAL OF CURRENT RECREATION PLANNING METHODOLOGIES AS APPLIED TO INNER CITY AREAS BY Gloria G. Woodard A THESIS Submitted to IMiChigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER IN URBAN PLANNING School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture 1973 My sincere L: the preparation I am especial] itesis advisor, fc Shanks also g< Eli Recreation Def tier. of the thesi Finally, my I: Patience and unde :3: his encour ag‘ ; ~45”) “go-Xi m b“ ACIQJOWLEDGEMENTS My sincere appreciation to all those who assisted in the preparation of this Thesis. I am especially grateful to Professor Keith Honey, my thesis advisor, for his advice and suggestions. Thanks also go to Professor Lewis Moncrief of the Parks and Recreation Department, whose assistance in the prepara- tion of the thesis proposal was invaluable. Finally, my personal gratitude to my family for their patience and understanding; and a special thanks to David for his encouragement and assistance. ii .zccmancm'rs . has or cou'rm'rs use or TABLES , LIST or FIGURES . monucrron , PART I. Cilapter II. THE SC III. SUI. TABLE OF CONTENTS AcmOWLEmmENTS O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter II. III. PART I. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF RECREATION RECREATION: ITS FUNCTION, MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE O O O O O O O O 0 THE SOCIAL REFORM ORIGINS OF MUNICIPAL RECREATION O O O O O O O O O C THE NEED FOR RECREATION IN THE INNER CITY . The Inner City--A Definition . . . . Lifestyles of the Inner City Resident . . . . . . . . . . Implications for Recreation Planning . . THE STATE OF PUBLIC RECREATION IN THE INNER CI“ 0 O O O O O O O O O SUWY " PART I o o o o o o o o 0 iii Page ii iii vi vii 15 22 22 29 31 39 54 faster :mflmMRHTC m Tmaamnumv The‘Recr W. «MLSCW’E Definit: and L User Ve VH. RECREATI< 'IYpes Stan An Eva and VIII. ASSESS]; The 1 am Iden REC: Chapter VI. VII. VIII. IX. PART II. THE RECREATION PLANNING PROCESS: A CRITIQUE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . THE RECREATION PLANNING PROCESS . . . The Recreation Planning Process . . GOALS OF PUBLIC RECREATION . . . . . Definition and Content of Expressed and Latent Supplier Goals . . . . User Versus Supplier Goals . . . . RECREATION STANDARDS . . . . . . . Types and Uses of Recreation Standards . . . . . . . . . An Evaluation of Recreation Standards and Their Use . . . . . . . . ASSESSING NEEDS AND INTERESTS . . . . The Importance of Assessing Needs and Interests . . . . . . . . Identification of Past Methods of Assessing Needs and Interests. . . Recreation Participation Patterns . . Recent Methods for Assessing Recreation Needs and Interests . . . . . . PART III. THE PROSPECT FOR CHANGE INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . THE NON-RESPONSE OF MUNICIPAL RECREATION . . . . . . . . . iv Page 57 59 61 72 75 88 107 108 114 131 132 136 140 152 165 166 fazter RECENT I II. F SUMMARX BIBLICK Chapter Page X. RECENT AND FUTURE APPROACTES TO PLANNING RECREATION IN THE INNER CITY. . 178 I. Recent Planning Approaches . . . . 179 II. Future Planning Approaches . . . . 194 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 188 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 190 Growth of P Public Recr Level of Recreation - J Reaction 0: Affects ( Recrea‘ Opinions 0 38 3 Pac Reaction 0 0f Chang SignifiCar outdOOr Factor EffECtiveI PartiCipa 0cmncil LIST OF TABLES Growth of Public Recreation . . . . . Public Recreation Areas, by Location and Level of Government, 1965. . . . . . Recreation Acreage of Selected Cities . . Reaction of Cities on the Question of the Affects of the Class of PeOple Upon Recreational Design . . . . . . . Opinions of Responding Cities on Age Level as a Factor in Recreational Design. . . Reaction of Responding Cities on the Affects of Changing Neighborhoods Upon Design. . Significance of the Relationship Between Outdoor Recreation and Socioeconomic Factors 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 Effectiveness of Councils . . . . . . Participation in Decision-Making of munCil-s O O O O O O O O O O 0 vi Page 20 41 118 142 142 143 148 176 177 h‘t‘fp “not " 4 h 2. Man ' 3 Use 0 Interpret A system of Standards LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Man's Use of Leisure Time Broadly Interpreted . . . . . . . . . . 100 2. A System of Parks Laid Out According to Standards . . . . . . . . . . . 113 vii It is no seen her cities are eithc they: and streets co space. and the equi and poorly ninta ine conjures up an image isolate piece of no activities, and fees pation as well. In inner city is justi "in ”Y that the sq andPrograms are po WM. lies with t I: claimed that the rub terfugs fer the INTRODUCTION It is no secret that recreation facilities in our inner cities are either scarce, run-down, or non-existent. Alleys and streets constitute much of the available play space, and the equipment which is provided is old, shabby and poorly maintained. The mere mention of playgrounds conjures up an image of an asphalt and/or gravel-covered, desolate piece of nothingness. Drab programs, unsuitable activities, and fees and charges are barriers to partici- pation as well. In many instances such treatment of the inner city is justified by municipal recreation officials who say that the equipment which is available is not used and programs are poorly attended. Thus the blame, of course, lies with the users--the inner city residents. It is claimed that they are not interested or cannot use the equipment properly. However, such attitudes are but a subterfuge for the real reasons why municipal recreation has been such a failure in the inner city. But for what- ever these reasons are that recreation has not been pro- vided.fbr residents of the inner city, the lack is apparent and the need even more salient. 1 In the past, with few notable exceptions, there have been no extensive attempts made to identify and docu- ment exactly what the problems are which inner city resi- dents encounter in satisfying their recreational needs, how these problems came into being, nor any preliminary hypothe- sizing about relationships and correlations between observed phenomena. In addition, there has not even been much sys- tematic Observation of recreation behavior patterns, trends, or much else as far as recreation in the inner city is con- cerned.d'lhus, this thesis is an effort to identify and discuss some basic problem.areas involved with the provi- sion of public recreation in inner city areas. Specifi- cally, the problem to which this thesis*will address itself is the inadequacies of current recreation planning methodo- logies and conceptions to produce adequate and meaningful recreation facilities and programs for inner city areas. It is the contention of the author that because of inherent weaknesses in planning methodologies and misconceptions re- garding the nature and role of municipal recreation, the people who would have the most to gain from a well organized meaningful system of public recreation are the ones who are currently receiving the least benefits from existing recre- ation facilities and programs. It is obvious from looking at recreation facilities and programs in inner city areas that there has been very little thought given and/or action taken by recreation planners and administrators to identify critical problem areas and to take steps toward alleviating the problems. They continue to go on assumptions which have not necessarily proven to be correct as well as to use planning methods which are ineffective in determining where and what types of recreation should be provided. The purposes of this thesis, then, are four-fold: 1. To present a realistic appraisal of existing recreational facilities and programs in inner city areas in general, with specific illustrations: 2. To identify concepts and procedures in the re- creation planning process which have led to the provision of inadequate facilities in inner city areas: 3. To identify the reasons why there has been a non-effectuation of change in existing conditions: and 4. To suggest and illustrate possible alternative approaches for planning recreation in inner cities. While there is no hypothesis to be tested per se, the problem.of this thesis may be stated in the form.of a guiding hypothesis, which sets the framework within which the research is to be carried out. Hypothesil PrOVider “6&8. be more tique d teas ar firm-1c: “poet Plans, rim f and 1): b9 cor be do; primJ 4 Hypothesis: That certain identifiable and researchable fac- tors and conditions exist in current recreation planning procedures and concepts that have re- sulted in inadequate recreation facilities and programs in inner city areas; and that alterna- tive approaches to planning recreation in the inner city exist which, in view of present con- ditions in these areas, would better meet the needs of the residents. The focus of this thesis is upon public, municipally provided recreation facilities and programs in inner city areas. Exactly what these facilities and programs are*will be more clearly outlined in the body of the paper. The cri- tique deals specifically with the recreation planning pro- cess and concepts and ideas related thereto. Thus, while financing, budgeting, personnel and similar administrative aspects are essential to the implementation of recreation plans, they are not part of the process which determines, fiwith funds which are available, what types of facilities and programs are provided and where, and as such will not ‘be considered.here. The clientele with whom the author will ‘be dealing, than, are the residents of inner city areas, and ;primarily those who cannot provide their own recreation be- cause of and social condi' obtaining re aim of thi who cannot 1 the: or not ofa large 1 Par provides re and critiqu Qaptera 31 line and T1 Fment at. Punches t Ti '3 ionow: 3 Older. CB. Zed W de Vironment 3300:. the cause of such factors as age, insufficient finances, or social conditions, and who therefore must be assisted in obtaining recreational Opportunities. However, many pre- mises of this thesis are equally applicable to all persons who cannot provide their own recreation, regardless of whe- ther or not they reside in the geographical inner core area of a large metropolitan area. Part I which includes Chapters One through Pour, provides relevant background infermation for the discussion and critique of recreation planning covered in Part 11, Chapters Five through Bight. Finally, Part III, Chapters nine and Ten, presents concluding remarks concerning the present status of recreation planning and alternative ap- proaches to planning recreation for inner cities. Definitions: The terms used throughout this thesis are defined as follows: Inner-city area - Geographically defined as the lolder, central core area of the city: physically characteri- zed by decrepit buildings, filth, crowdedness, and other en- vironmental inadequacies: and inhabited primarily by the poor, the elderly, blacks and other mdnority groups. 6 leisure time - That free time available to an indi- vidual after necessary work and other survival activities are accomplished, which may be spent at the discretion of the individual.1 Municipal recreation (Public recreation) - Organi- zed recreation provided.by the municipal government for the use of all residents. It is financed primarily by general tax revenues, and includes the establishment, operation, conduct, control and.maintenance of programs, service areas and facilities.2 Recreation - Any activity or experience chosen by an individual to occupy his leisure time, based on self- choice for reasons of personal satisfaction or desires. Recreation planning - The systematic gathering, or- ganizing, and processing of technical information related to the provision of recreation, on which decisions regarding 1Norman P. Miller, Duane M. Robinson, The Leisure Age: Its Challenge To Recreation, Belmont, California, Wadsworth Publishing Co. Inc., 1963, p. 5. 2National Recreation Workshop, Recreation for 0mm- munity Living, Chicago, The Athletic Institute, 1952, p. 164. me provision o “unity are r Recrea‘ spaces, and bu fixed nature a m orderly devel over a given Pitt! as 0:91 and faciliti. the provision of recreation facilities and programs for a community are based. Recreation area and facilities - Land spaces, water spaces, and'buildings with related devices or features of a fixed nature set aside for recreation.3 Recreation plan - A guide for the systematic and orderly development of recreation facilities and services over a given period of time. It might be composed of such parts as organization structure, activity programs, areas and facilities, personnel, and financial support.4 31bid. , p. 163. 4Ibid., p. 163. HIS'IOR PART I HIS'IORY AND BACKGROUND OF RECREATION RECR One func‘ recreation, in a to all people i particular: and mildly living and others who and leisure pr iaportmt. the D" Jay Rash : Should: CHAPTER I RECREATION: ITS FUNCTION, MEANING AND SIGNIFICANCE One fundamental assumption of this thesis is that recreation, in and of itself, is of some significant value to all people in general, and to inner city residents in particular: and as such, is a necessary and vital aspect of everyday living needs. While recreationists, sociologists, and others who have written on the subjects of recreation and leisure propose many various reasons why recreation is important, they do agree that, indeed it is. For example, Dr. Jay Hash states that among other things, recreation should: 1. Be genuinely interesting. 2. Build stature through self-confidence. 3. Be creative. 4. Be valuable for its own sake. 5. Bring happiness to the participant. 6. Cbntribute to health. 7. Offset tension. 8. 9. I laydrearn.‘ human nee sided. 1 are iden‘ frustral tions 1 tire dz mithe have 1 '(J r" o (D H- f" 2’ 10 8. contribute to fullness of life. 9. Allow an individual to let down, relax, even daydream.5 He further contends that recreation satisfies many human needs and desires, without which life would be one- sided. These needs and opportunities that recreation offers are identified as: 1. The need to "let down and dream". 2. The need for an expression outlet. 3. The need for an antidote to the fatiguing and frustrating pressures of industrial, urban life. 4. The opportunity to know of man's cultural crea- tions (music, sculpture, painting, crafts, etc.) from primi- tive days to the present. 5. The need for alleviation of mental fatigue: reintegration of the self. 6. The opportunity to socialize with others and have face-to-face contacts. 7. The opportunity to have creative experiences. 8. The opportunity to ”belong“ . 5Dr. Jay B. Rash, Philosophy of Recreation and Leisure, Dubuque, Iowa, Wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1953, p. 117. The oppor \D iiealS". 10. The OppO‘ eiucational activiti With some va ‘3oughts; Elinor C. Guggenheiy No human be represent some life that is ch Douglas Sessoms: PlaYo like Of Social wishg 0f Personality. iences, and the is a necessary 5. R, SIQVSOn; Everyone f satisfying OCC him: pSyCholog everyday livin m. p 7 . 2: Ellnor C IfCreation Needs 8 H, Don f ' - 91 {ream Resear real ‘ d2 ation ll 9. The opportunity to accomplish "democratic idealS". 10. The opportunity to participate in important educational activities.6 With some variation, others state similar ideas and thoughts: Elinor C. Guggenheimer: No human being can survive without activities that represent some change in pace from that portion of his life that is characterized as work, obligation, or duty. IL Douglas Sessoms: Play, like work, is a vehicle for the fulfillment of social wiShes and psychic needs, for the expansion of personality, for the integration of life's exper- iences, and the extension of one's social self. It is a necessary ingredient in human existence.8 S. R. Slavson: Everyone feels the need within himself for some satisfying occupations and diversions that will remove him, psychologically at least, from the activities of everyday living. This craving for difference and di- 6Ibid., pp. 118-123. 7Elinor C. Guggenheimer, Planning for Parks and W: New York. Twayne Pub- l13hers, Inc., 1969, p. 27. 8H. Douglas Sessoms, "Measuring Outcomes in Terms Of Sc"cialization and the Mental Health of the Individual", 3$££§33tion Research, .American Association for Health, Phy— 1:31.32: Education, and Recreation, Washington, D. C., 1966, 9. The oppoi iiea15"o 10. The OppO‘ eiucational activiti With some va icoughtsz Elinor C. Guggenheir No human be rePresent some life that is ch E. Douglas Sessoms: PlaYo llke Of social wishe 95 Personality, lences, and the is a necessary 5. R. 313,30“: EVQIYOne f SdtiSfying OCC hm“ PSYchoioc EVEIYGBY liViI; 6 . M's p 731‘ F's _ lilo!- .iSherS' Inc :9 8 ~: H D0 4; . 9 u iClallzatiog .' ati deal RESear ll 9. The opportunity to accomplish "democratic ideaIS". 10. The opportunity to participate in important educational activities.6 With some variation, others state similar ideas and thoughts: Elinor C. Guggenheimer: No human being can survive without activities that represent some change in pace from that portion of his life that is characterized as work, obligation, or duty. EL Douglas Sessoms: Play, like work, is a vehicle for the fulfillment of social wishes and psychic needs, for the expansion of personality, for the integration of life's exper- iences, and the extension of one's social self. It is a necessary ingredient in human existence. S. R. Slavson: Everyone feels the need within himself for some satisfying occupations and diversions that will remove him, psychologically at least, from the activities of everyday living. This craving for difference and di- 6Ibid.. pp. 118-123. 7Elinor C. Guggenheimer, Planning for Parks and fiscreation Needs in Urban Areas, New York, Twayne Pub- lishers, Inc., 1969, p. 27. 8H. Douglas Sessoms, "Measuring Outcomes in Terms Of SOWIialization and the Mental Health of the Individual", 3$EE§51tion Research, .American Association for Health, Phy- 310:: Education, and Recreation, Washington, D. C., 1966, 12 version is primary and basic to man as a biological, psychological, and social entity.9 He further states: Perhaps recreation is a means for filling in voids in one's life, discharging aggressions, satisfying selfish and egotistic strivings or social cravings and impulses. Perhaps recreation is all of these to some10 and some of them to all at different times and moods. Nbrman Miller and Duane Robinson express the function of recreation in terms of two alternative views. The first view describes recreation as a compensatory function. That is, it provides a therapeutic relief from work and the ten- sions and strains of living, compensating for what is lack- ing in the work aspect of life. The second view presents the function of recreation as being complementary. It come plements the daily work life, further enriching and integra- ting that life. Thus, while the first view suggests that ‘work and play are opposites, the second sees the two as inseparable, with recreation performing an integrative function.11 These two views have been used extensively to explain recreation behavior patterns. Recreational behavior 98. R. Slavson, Recreation and the Total Personality, New York, Association Press, 1946, p.v. 1°1b1d., p. 1. 11Miller, Robinson,.gp. cit., p. 164. 13 which differs from'work and daily living patterns is seen as serving a compensatory function, while behavior which is similar to work and daily living patterns, or which reflects work interests is said to reflect the use of recreation to serve a complementary function. Theories of play also exist which seek to explain the meaning of recreation behavior in psychological terms. ‘While classical theories of play focused on play as a result of surplus energy or instinct, modern theories now'seek to explain play in terms of (l) arousal-seeking, and (2) come petance/effectance. The arousal-seeking theory states that play is caused: . . . by the need to generate interactions with the environment or self that elevates arousal (level of in- terest or stimulation) towards the optimal for the individual . 12 The competence/effectance theory views play as being caused: . . . by a need to produce effects in the environ- ment. Sudh effects demonstrate competence and result in feelings of effectance.13 Thus, for whatever its intrinsic value, and for what- .ever reasons people engage in it, recreation is an important 12M. J. Ellis, "Play and Its Theories Re-Examined', Parks and Recreation, 6:51-55, August, 1971, p. 55. 13Ibid., p. 55. ;art of everyday :as been establis zany fervent rec: Lievinq that rec: xiich transforms :eationists cons tion is not a pa _::cblems such a: busing. Howev recreation is 5 {item that life Eest, 14 part of everyday living. Of course, While its importance has been established, we must not make the misjudgement many fervent recreationists are led to make--that is, be- lieving that recreation is some sort of a magical activity which transforms all who engage in it into what these rec-4 reationists consider a well-adjusted human being. Recrea- tion is not a panacea. It will not solve social or economic problems such as hunger, unemployment, racism or even poor housing. However, though not a cure-all for social ills, recreation is still an important part of life, especially when that life exists under conditions which are minimal at best. the mi 20th c 1385 i ting 1 initi; recre 0f re ham of pi tiat four. CHAPTER II THE SOCIAL REFORM ORIGINS OF MUNICIPAL RECREATION Organized public recreation had its beginnings in the missionary reform movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The creation of the Boston Sandgardens in 1885 is the event most frequently acknowledged as initia- ting the organized recreation movement. The Sandgardens initiated the playground movement which evolved into the recreation movement, and the acceptance of the provision of recreation as a municipal function. The purpose of this Chapter will be to briefly trace the historical beginnings of public recreation, with an emphasis on why it was ini- tiated, and the beliefs and concepts upon whidh it was founded. The idea of the sandgarden was borrowed from exam- ples of play areas for children established in Germany. In .1885, the first such play area in the United States, termed a "sandgarden" was created in Boston by the Massachusetts Emergency and Hygiene Association. These areas were super- 15 riled W ”the” of the“ ”“931 :hildren. The ‘ spread to other Philadelphia.” Shortly another signif: lishnent of th New York City house movement 090W and co: Mtluent ho to rid cities 1‘ m ‘easem ilation And I ”it: from t. their duty t and be“Mic: \- 14 B. in Harp 16 vised by mothers and neighborhoodwomen.l4 The purpose of these sandgardens was to provide play space for young children. The sandgarden concept caught on quickly and spread to other cities such as New YOrk, Chicago and Philadelphia.15 Shortly after the development of the sandgardens, another significant development occurred with the estab- lishment of the Neighborhood Guild, a settlement house, in New'York City in 1886. This event initiated the settlement house movement--a movement which virtually shaped the phil- osophy and concepts of municipal recreation today. The settlement house movement was a missionary reform effort to rid cities of slums as well as to Americanize immigrants. It was essentially a reaction against increasing industrial- ization and urbanization. The leaders of this early move- ment, from.the middle and upper classes, believed it was their duty to teach slum-dwellers middle class aspirations and behavior patterns.16 The neighborhood playground and 14Thomas S. Yukic, Fundamentals of Recreation, N. Y., Harper and Row Publishers, 1963, p. 24. 15Ibid., p. 25. 16Herbert Gans, Recreation Planning for Leisure Be- havior: A Goal-Oriented Approach, Unpublished Ph. D. Dis- sutation, university of Pennsylvania, 1957, p. 29. l7 recreational activity were the primary tools used to achieve this transformation of slumrdwellers into ideal American citizens. Hence, settlement leaders pushed hard for the establishment of more recreational facilities. Hull House in Chicago, founded by Jane Addams, was probably the most famous settlement house. In 1892, a model playground was developed there. Similar play areas soon developed in other cities. Another event which spurred the development of the playground movement was the organization of the Playground Association in 1906. (This association became the National Recreation Association in 1930 and is currently called the National Recreation and Park Association). The Playground Association, largely composed of dedicated social mission- aries, was organized for the purposes of developing commu- nity playgrounds and creating "public support for the play movement”.17 Essentially a social movement, the early missionary settlement and playground movement sought to address itself to several issues: 17Yukic, 92, cit., p. 27. Thus, - ills e a sep group 01n51 the 1 inte life Sea; big] 0am Was 18 1. The effects of the Industrial Revolution: 2. Urbanization: 3. Rise in crime and delinquency: 4. Increase in population: 5. Rise in incidence of mental illness: and 6. Unwholesome commercial recreation.18 Thus, the concept of recreation as a redress for social ills emerged. Bar 11 Park Movement The development of the public park concept began as a separate movement, and did not merge with public play- grounds and recreation until much later. Frederick Law Olmstead, who designed Central Park in 1853, was one of the primary initiators of the idea that parks should be an integral part of every cityscape. He believed that slum life could be made more bearable if areas of rural land- scape were provided, where city dwellers could escape from high density residential areas to peace and tranquility. Central Park was an impetus for other cities to provide laReynold E. Carlson, Theodore R. Deppe, and Janet R. MacLean, Recreation in American Life, Belmont, Ca1if., Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1963, pp. 38-41. parks a an vide publ Acceptanc B to be acc century. and not j grounds f viding re midi gav Programs W responsib and Playg t° improv crease re gives an '1 \ J is “Brim 19 parks, and by 1902, 796 cities had made a beginning to pro- vide public parks.19 Acceptance of Recreagion as a Municipal Function Beginning in the private sector, recreation began to be accepted as a municipal function in the early 20th century. Agreement that recreation was necessary for all and not just for crowded slum areas gave cities even firmer grounds for their acceptance of the responsibility for pro— viding recreation. Eventually, legislation was passed which gave cities legal authority to provide recreation programs and to secure funds for such programs. With the acceptance of recreation as a municipal responsibility, efforts were increased to develop more park and playground facilities and acceptable standards for them, to improve the training of recreation leaders,20 and to in- crease recreation budgets. The following table on page 20 gives an indication of the growth of public recreation. Throughout the 20th century, municipal recreation programs continued to grow. The depression years of the 19Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp, 515,, p. 29. 20Carlson, Deppe and MacLean, Reopeation in American Life, 9p, cit., p. 42. Year 1906 1910 1929 1946 1948 1950 1960 N a CR men: and Mega Institute, 1) 11 W 1961. P. 4 * 1930's was First of a tumed to relief pr: theassisn (”with much p 20 a Table 1 Growth of Public Recreation Year Cities with Organized Expenditures Public Recreation Programs 1906 41 $ 904,000 1910 336 * 1929 945 $ 33,539,805 1946 1,740 $ 54,000,000+ 1948 2,500 $100.000,000+ 1950 * $269,000,000 1960 2,678 $471,000,000b 8compiled from information given in Charles E. Doell, and Gerald B. Fitzgerald, A Brief History of Parks and Recreation in the United States, Chicago, Athletic Institute, 1954, pp. 71- 76. bNational Recreation Association, Recreation and Park Yearbook, 1961, N. Y., National Recreation Association, 1961, p. 46. * Data not reported. 1930's was a period of major advance for public recreation. First of all, with a lack of personal funds, many people turned to public recreation facilities; and secondly, work - relief programs commonly featured recreation projects. With the assistance of the works Progress Administration, many communities that heretofore had been unable to afford rec- reation programs, utilized federal funds to initiate and ”PM expand recrea were also PIC only for mili ark as well. reation Divi: cially 1191pr recreation p1 Chang forty hour we nificant in 1 Sum. social IEfOI‘I accepted fun the characte 11-11080th 3 21 Pp. 72-75. 21 expand recreation programs. Numerous recreation facilities were also provided in connection with both WOrld Wars, not only for military personnel, but for millions in defense work as well. The Office of community‘War Service, Rec- reation Division, created during WOrld'War II, was espe- cially helpful in assisting local communities to develop recreation programs.21 Changes in work patterns, such as the advent of the forty hour work week, paid vacations, etc., were also sig- nificant in the growth of public recreation. Summing up, organized recreation began as a private, social reform movement, but gradually evolved into an accepted function of municipal government. However, while the character of organized recreation changed somewhat, the philosophy and concepts altered little. 1 Doell, gistoryof Parks and Recreation, 9p. cit., pp. 72-750 tions wh public rl necessarj adiscus tants ar- foundati! recreati. to inns: dEScribe general 11611 are litany ‘ CHAPTER III THE NEED FOR RECREATION IN THE INNER CITY This chapter will deal with the reasons and condi- tions which make the provision of recreation, and especially public recreation, important to the inner city. It is necessary then, to lay some basic groundwork in the form of a discussion of the inner city, what it is, who its inhabi- tants are, and what their lifestyles are like. Upon this foundation, the argument will be constructed that public recreational facilities and programs are indeed necessary to inner city residents. THE INNER CITY--A DEFINITION This definition and description of the inner city describes no one specific city in particular, but reflects general conditions in the inner cities of major metropol- itan areas and many smaller cities as well. Physically deteriorating, and socially and econo- mically isolated from the rest of the city, the inner city 22 and conditic factors. Pl any minor '11 city: coupl' groups, as ' quent loss 1940, two c lived in t1 cities helc lion, almo: age than ‘ income peo it became, educated t Renown Semice or '11 00re 1 911V irl 23 and conditions therein have occurred as a result of many factors. Primary among these factors are the migration of many minority groups and poor rural people to the inner city: coupled with the flight of middle and upper income groups, as well as industry, to the suburbs; with a conse- quent loss of a substantial percentage of the tax base. In 1940, two out of every ten Americans or 27 million peeple lived in the suburbs--a total of 19 million less than the cities held. However, by 1970, suburbs contained 76 mil- lion, almost four out of every ten Americans and 12 million mppg_than the cities.22 As more and more middle and upper income pe0p1e and industrial concerns fled the inner city, it became, "a stagnant ghetto, inhabited by the poorly educated blue collar worker, the indigent aged, and the Negro."23 Of the inner city, a report by the Research Service of the Boy Scouts of America states: The central city has really become the worn out core of the "social city", filled with a myriad of environmental inadequacies and massive contained 22Community Council of Greater New York and the New‘Tork Foundation, Urban Parks and Recreagion: Challenge of the 1970's, New Ybrk, 1972, p. 70. 3 Edward Higbee, "The Importance of Recreation in the City", Small Urban Spaces, Whitney North Seymour, Jr. ed., New Ybrk, New Ybrk University Press, 1969, p. 194. inner there build the P eoono ican hopel tants pover insti 1 inner cit overall r (11 pover centratic tion, (6} or skill: (residem 3111!: are: fMilies. tion and Stveral . 24 inner-city areas of poverty. . .The inner city is, therefore, not just an urban community of decrepit buildings: the inner-city is an urban community of the poor who are, to a large extent, socially and economically isolated from the mainstream of Amer- ican life. It is an environment of pessimism and hopelessness--a personal reality--for its inhabi— tants. It is an environment for the culture of poverty in which both its victims ang4its disabling institutions are inexplicably bound. There are certain identifiable elements of the inner city, which when pieced together, give a general overall picture of the inner city. These elements are: (1) poverty, (2) run-down housing, (3) crowding, (4) con- centration of lower class people, (5) racial concentra- tion, (6) concentration of people with little education or skills, (7) many welfare cases, (8) internal mobility (residents have mobility onlwaithin inner—city or other slum areas), (9) crime, (10) health problems, (11) broken families, (12) inadequate community services, (13) isola- tion and alienation, (l4) dirt, and (15) fire hazards. Several of these elements will be discussed in detail below. 24Boy Scouts of America, "urban Poverty and the Dynamics of Inner City", Recreation and Leisure Service for the Disadvantaged, John A. Nesbitt, Paul D. Brown, and James F. Murphy, eds., Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, 1970, p. 158. poverty all the « influencc the inne: level cor generallj consider is possil chaos."2' is not t‘; much non.- definite be consi metrOPOI million petll>le so More“) \ %. n. 25 Poverty Poverty is one of the most potent and pervasive of all the elements, as it is this factor which so powerfully influences and indeed causes many of the other elements in the inner city environment. Though exactly what income level constitutes poverty varies according to the source, generally about $4,000 and.below'family income level is considered, "real, indisputable poverty. At this level it is possible to use words like misery, defeat, terror, and chaos."25 And although the $5,000 or $6,000 income level is not thought of as severe poverty, it is still not very mudh money. Expenditures have to be watched and there is definitely no money for a lot of extras.26 The extent of poverty in the central city seems to be considerable. In 1968, about 10 percent of the total metropolitan area population of the United States (12.9 million persons) lived in poverty. The proportion of poor people was almost twice as high in the central cities (13.4 percent) as in the suburbs (7.3 percent), and even though 25David R. Hunter, The Slums: Challenge and Res- ppnse, New York, The Free Press, 1964, p. 30. 261bide p pe 30e sore P90 in centr urbs (7- the $6.0 the leve not pern reation, only thi years in the exte of New Y lived at that in less tha Bay Area incomes ”further likély t \ Committe 26 more people lived in the suburbs, the number of poor peoPle in central cities was significantly larger than in the sub- urbs (7.8 million and 5.1 million respectively).27 Using the $6,000 figure for annual family income cited above as the level which, though not absolute poverty, still does not permit a family to spend.money on extras such as rec- reation, we find that 40 percent of our population receives only this much money or less.28 Studies conducted in past years in several major cities have continued to document the extent of the problem. In a 1964 report, Mayor Wagner of New Ybrk City stated that one in every five New Yorkers lived at the poverty level. A 1957 Detroit study revealed that in 1955, 41 percent of the families had incomes of less than $5,000. In addition, in 1959, the San Francisco Bay Area had 25.4 percent of its population with median incomes of below $5,000.29 And if present trends continue, "further population changes in metropolitan areas are likely to cause certain groups with a high incidence of 27Anthony Downs, Who Are the Urban Poor?, New York, Committee for Economic Development, 1970, p. 2. 28Hunter, 9p, cit., p. 29. 29Ibid., p. 29. mVeItYI great 1y“ only cor the cycl from and Ind! resc shri up, Thrc vice and Poverty, Mmts ir Wm into the lipidat¢ DaVid H1 is new! 27 poverty, particularly within central cities, to expand ” 30 greatly . As a result, conditions in the inner city can only continue to deteriorate via the process described as the cycle of poverty: . . .into those central city neighborhoods which we now call the inner-city pour millions of refugees from a worse poverty in rural areas. People of wealth and marketable talent move out of the central cities. Industry decentralizes and moves out. The flow of resources into the city declines. The tax base shrinks. . .The tax rate of the central cities goes up, and again, more people and industry move out. Throughout the entire cycle, the need for city ser- vices, particularly in the inner-city, becomes more and more severe. Poverty, then, is perhaps one of the key descriptive ele- ments in the definition of the inner city. Run—down abusing Though not all housing within the inner city falls into the category of being run-down or dilapidated, most di- lapidated housing is located in the inner city. Also, as David Hunter points out, sometimes even public housing which is new seems slum-like.32 Deteriorated housing can be des- 30Downs, 92. cit., p. 4. 31Boy Scouts of America, 92, cit., p. 158. 32Hunter, op, cit., p. 21. cribed 3 holes: 5 missing or bath structuz itable < habitat: Crowdim ing too such ov a high overch nuisanc 28 cribed as that housing which has critical defects such as holes; sagging walls, floors or roofs: open cracks: or missing materials: or housing which lacks private toilet or bath or hot water. Thus, slum housing includes those structures which have deteriorated from their original hab- itable condition, as well as those which were never fit for habitation from the start. crowding Crowding refers to high density--high density mean- ing too many persons per room or building, with too many such overcrowded buildings in one area, rather than merely a high number of people per square mile or block. Such overcrowding adds the elements of lack of privacy, noise, . . 33 nuisance and Violence. Isolation and Alienation Many researchers have produced evidence that many residents of the inner city have feelings of being cut off from.the rest of society, of isolation and alienation, and of having no control over their lives or their surroundings. Hunter cites a scale developed by Leo Srole which measures 33Ibid., p. 36. ”anomie are det 1y tick him are circle Part of city re garded havihg alienat: conseq“. virOHmel 29 "anomie". It includes the following five elements: 1. The individual's feeling that community leaders are detached from.and indifferent to his needs. 2. The feeling that the social order is essential- ly fickle and unpredictable. 3. The individual's belief that he and people like him are going downhill. 4. The belief that life is meaningless. S. The individual's feelings that his immediate circle of relationships is not comfortable and supportive.34 Part of this alienation also stems from the fact that inner city residents realize that they do not live what is re- garded as an "acceptable standard American life". By having to be less than everyone else, their feelings of alienation and isolation are enhanced. LIFESTYLES OF THE INNER CITY RESIDENT The environment of the inner city is not without consequence upon its residents. As a result of their en- vironment and life condition, residents develop particular 34Ibid., p. 89. nethc peopl lower Hut-.- What to de Thai: pulai time lati: learx . ‘ A L. _A_ _A_ __ -_ 3O methods for dealing with their surroundings and other people. Many sociologists refer to this method as "the lower class cultural system". Lee Rainwater states: They are not simply the passive targets of the destructive forces which impact upon them, but rather react adaptively, making use of the available human resources to work out their strategies for survival. 5 What results then is a lifestyle which is heavily oriented to defense against the many dangers present in their world. Their relationships with other people are based upon mani- pulating and exploiting those people, while at the same time attempting to prevent these other people from manipu- lating and exploiting them. The ghetto resident also learns that: . . .those who are socially superior to him take the attitude that he is of little consequence, and, therefore, it is taken for granted that he can be forced to accept inferior service and protections from.the formal institutions of the community. To some extent the individual can isolate himself from the sense of constant relative deprivation, were he to ignore his inability to live as an "average American". HOwever, he cannot isolate himself as well from.the lower class ghetto community: he is continually confronted with the prdblem of living in a world full of dangers--not only, not even 35Lee Rainwater, "Poverty, Race and Urban Housing", The Social Impact of Urban Design, University of Chicago Center for Policy Study, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1971, p. 9. 588 Thus. havior lish w city w public factor that i housin inner Provid the re 31 most importantly the physical dangers of the ghetto world, but also the interpersonal and moral dangers which his exploitative milieu presents.36 Thus, the environment is a pervasive influence upon be- havior, recreational and.otherwise. IMPLICATIONS FOR RECREATION PLANNING The purpose of the above discussion was to estab- lish what conditions and factors exist within the inner city which make its need for recreation, and especially public recreation, considerable. The implications of these factors and conditions will be considered in this section. Although recreation is no panacea for social ills-- that is, it cannot substitute for a decent job, adequate housing or a satisfactory education-~conditions in the inner city are such that public recreation, if adequately provided, can fill the recreational needs and desires of the residents. Public recreation is especially important: . . .in such groups where housing conditions are crowded and unsanitary, where incomes are low'and consequently opportunities for enjoying sound commer- cial entertainment restricted, where many mothers have to leave their homes for gainful work during the 36Ibid., p. 8. TIL-I _. |_ .— -‘ - -~ ‘2. 5 [FAT I - day is merefo imer c reation must be only in cipal 3v employm' authors city by conduct; League < tha1 ade< mm for \ Harper ; #0110“, In the j Studiu' embel- 32 day, where the proportion of disorganized families ' is great, and where juvenile delinquency is high. Therefore, because these conditions are evident in the inner city, certain considerations are necessary for rec- reation planning. First of all, recreation planning in the inner city must be considered in light of a history of neglect--not only in terms of recreation, but virtually all other muni- cipal services, and such important necessities as housing, employment, health care and education as well.38 Several authors and studies have noted the neglect of the inner city by public recreation officials. Results from a study conducted by the Urban Studies Department of the National League of Cities revealed that: In most cities surveyed, officials readily admitted that the needs of all population groups were not being adequately met. Only in recent years have cities be- gun to recognize an obligation to provide recreation for the handicapped and the deprived.39 37Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma, New‘Ybrk, Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1944, p. 346. 38Reasons for this neglect will be discussed in the following chapter dealing with the condition of recreation in the inner city. 39National League of Cities, Department of Urban Studies, Recreation in the Nation's Cities, Problems and gkpproaches, washington, D. C., National League of Cities, IDecember, 1968, p. 2. Thus need tion Civi stud its : show Occu: / er I? 33 Similarly, Richard Kraus states: Not until the 1960's did the recreation profession begin to take a special interest in meeting the lei- sure needs of the poor--especially the non-white poor-- in urban slums. This came about as a consequence of the Federal antipoverty program which provided special funding to serve the disadvantaged: it did not gain full impetus until urban rioting erupted throughout the nation in 1964 and 1965 and brought the needs of the inner-city45esidents forcefully to the attention of the public. Thus, it was not until inner city residents expressed their needs and desires through violent means that their condi- tion was brought to the fore. The National Commission on Civil Disorder, created by President Lyndon B. Johnson to study the nature and causes of the urban riots, revealed in its report the seriousness of the situation. The study showed that, in a majority of the cities where riots had occurred, grievances concerning municipal recreation pro- grams were expressed. In fact, poor recreation facilities and programs ranked only after police practices, unemploy- ment and underemployment, and inadequate housing. The most common complaints focused on, "Inadequate recreational 4oRichard Kraus, Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society, New Yerk, Meredith Corp., 1971, p. 388. _. H—i ._.___._. facil gram! publ: resiu reat. to P the 1 all reli ever teat "Ker. (A) {a 34 facilities in the ghetto and the lack of organized pro- "41 grms O O O In spite of this growing recognition of the lack of public recreation in the inner city, and the need of the residents for such facilities, there are still those rec- reationists who maintain that develoPing a special approach to planning recreation for inner city areas violates one of the basic concepts of municipal recreation-~"recreation for all regardless of race, sex, creed, socioeconomic class, or religion". However, it is doubtful whether this concept has ever been a reality: Recreation for all conceived within the first two decades of the twentieth century was meaningful and continues to the present time as a valid con- cept. As an operational procedure, however, it is doubtful that it worked in 1910 or 1920 and it cer- tainly does not work today. Contemporary insights from education, psychology and sociology show'that the disadvantaged do not participate the way the advantaged do because of social deprivation, pre- judice, insufficient finances and other reasons. . . The traditional recreation gor all concept is not a viable operational policy.4 A second consideration important to planning rec- reation in the inner city are the physical conditions which 41National Advisory commission on Civil Disorders, "Kerner commission Report: Grievances", Nesbitt, Brown, and Murphy, 92, cit., pp. 42-43. 42'Introduction", Nesbitt, Brown, and Murphy, op. cit., p. 4. .r’ti- F 41' ll . ' y I. have i dirt are n golf come inhal oeigl Hint: ment recr thei And Pres 90v: moat teat 35 have been shown to exist. Dilapidated housing, crowding, dirt and rats constitute a grim environment. Here, there are no private play spaces--no large grassy backyards, no golf or tennis clubs. Small, overcrowded apartments be- come easily unbearable in the summer heat, forcing their inhabitants out into the streets or to other places in the neighborhood. Poor heating does likewise during the cold winter months. Certainly some relief must be provided in an environment which is completely void of all amenities. However, at the same time the inner city environ- ment intensifies the need and desire of its residents for recreation, social and economic considerations restrict their ability to provide their own private recreation: The poor, the potentially delinquent, the elderly and the disadvantaged are groups with the least resources and the highes§3need for community- supported recreation services. And as previously mentioned, the poor and the elderly (whose presence in the inner city is largely a result of their poverty also), are the predominant groups residing in the central city. Thus, inner city residents do not have the money to travel to or to pay for recreation. nor do their 43David E. Gray, "The Case for Compensatory Rec- reation', Parks and Recreation, 4: 23-4, April, 1969, p. 49. buds ment reat viou that tion Not tion Hork deft time time 36 budgets provide for expenditures for recreational equip- ment such as campers, motor homes, boats, skimobiles, etc. For many, the only recourse is municipally provided rec- reation. The study by the Rational League of Cities pre- viously mentioned, stated as one of its major findings that : Residents of deprived urban neighborhoods are almost entirely dependent upon public recreation facilities, whereas residents of more affluent neighborhoods have a wide range of recreational alternatives. Adequate recreation programs and facilities thus are considered a high priority item among the deprived.44 Unemployment is another social and.economic condi- tion which affects recreation for the inner city residents. Net only are they without financial resources, but tradi- tional notions of leisure time being an earned reward for work places them in a peculiar position. If, then, by definition leisure time is viewed as free time one earns by working, the unemployed may have little or no leisure time,‘but large amounts of uncommitted and forced idle time. Samuel C. Jackson of the Department of Housing and Urban Development states: 44National League of Cities, pp, ci ., p. 2. have envi port life they faci may fact diff is 0 tion eSts beli and haed 37 Even the notion of recreation programs to occupy leisure time fails to take into account the fact that leisure is only one of the forms that uncommitted time can take for the urban and ghetto dweller. The man, woman or teenager who is out of a job may have little or no time to devote to leisure, but much time is uncommitted. As previously mentioned, many inner city residents have developed particular methods for dealing with their environment and other peeple. This is an especially imr portant consideration for recreation planning, because this lifestyle they have developed has a definite effect on how they relate to municipally provided recreation activities, facilities, and leaders. Residents' actions and attitudes may be perceived as being hostile or destructive, when in fact it may only be that their interests and attitudes differ from.those of recreation officials and leaders. It is only when it is perceived by the residents that recrea- tion leaders seek to discredit their attitudes and inter- ests, and to substitute instead, municipally-sanctioned beliefs and activities, that the residents become hostile and unresponsive. Recreation planning must consider the needs and interests of inner city inhabitants. 4sgagks and Recreation in the Urban Crises, Report from a Porum.convened by the National Recreation and Park Association, washington, D. C., National Recreation and Park Association, 1969, p. 233. pr an 16' ic: res nee det are all 11!qu 918; have int 38 These, then, are some of the most critical condi- tions and factors within the inner city which create a pressing need for public recreation facilities and programs, and the implications of these conditions for planning recreation. Thus, if the assumptions can be made that, (l) mun- icipal government has the responsibility of providing rec- reation opportunities fer its citizens, and that (2) the need of the citizens for public recreation is the prime determining factor in deciding how and where such recrea- tion is provided: it seem then, that municipal government's greatest responsibility (aside from providing recreation for all--which was identified as their highest priority, though unrealistic, goal) ought to be to those citizens with the greatest need. However, such a logical conclusion seems to have eluded municipal recreation officials as we shall see in the next Chapter. area: it p: absel are 1 whet] are 4 dur'n Caus. the ; Plan: Plays tiOn cultu ”4% CHAPTERIV THE STATE OF PUBLIC RECREATION IN THE INNER CITY The condition of recreational facilities in urban areas in general is critical, however, the situation in the inner cities of these urban areas is even more distressing. At present, adequate space and facilities are noticeably absent. Vel Moore states: "Disadvantaged neighborhoods are distinguished by their lack of recreation services-- whether they be public, semi-public, private, nonprofit 46 Further, those facilities which do exist or commercial". are either a result of hasty planning to avert trouble during hot summer months or they are poorly planned be- cause no effort was made to match facilities and programs to the interests of the people. As a result of this poor planning, ”. . .the development of community centers, playgrounds, and parks has not borne any discernible rela- tion to population densities, age factors, or neighborhood 46‘Vel Moore, ”Recreation Leadership'with Socio- culturally Handicapped Clientele", nesbitt, Brown and Murphy, pp, cit., p. 167. 39 tastes then: 1 facili‘ existe of exi areas. and pa recrea severi aged a tion a 242 EN Citi‘e: had 01 only . betwe. then. areas a“Ea. 4O tastes and preferences."47 The purpose of this chapter is, then, to relate the condition of inner city recreation facilities, and to set forth the prime reasons for the existence of such conditions. This first section cites examples and illustrations of existing conditions in various urban and inner city areas. Generally speaking, as indicated above, urban areas and particularly inner city urban areas, are lacking in recreation facilities. The following figures indicate the severity of the situation: In 1950, "Urban places aver- aged an estimated 133 persons per acre of park and recrea- tion area, but 22 large cities averaged only an acre per 242 people, and the older more congested section of these cities only one acre per 960 people."48 By 1965, conditions had only further deteriorated. The figures in Table 2 not only evidence this fact, but point out as well the disparity between urban and non-urban areas. On the national level, then, while 65 per cent of the population lives in urban areas, only nine per cent of total public recreation acreage is located in these same areas. 47Guggenheimer, op, cit., p. 56. 48Cane, Leisure Behavior, 22, cit., p. 67. Peder: State count Hunic Pe Popul Perce Conse pom larg. Que“ the 910; are; {hay this ‘5, .QEn 41 Table 23 Public Recreation Areas, by Location and Level of Government, 1965 (millions of acres) Urban NOn-Urban Total Federal 36.0 410.7 446.6 State 4.3 35.4 39.7 Cbunty .7 2.3 3.0 Municipal 1.4 .6 2.0 TOTAL 42.3 449.0 491.3 Percent 9% 91% 100% Population (est.) 123,813,000 68,372,000 192,185,000 Percent 65% 35% 100% aClonservation Foundation Letter, March, 1972, Conservation Foundation, Washington, D. C., p. 3. (NOTE: Urban here is defined as Standard Metro- politan Statistical Areas, which includes in some cases large suburban and rural expanses. Thus conditions are even more severe than the above figures make them appear.) Studies now'being conducted for the Department of the Interior and the Department of Housing and Urban Dev- elopment indicate that even these sparse urban recreation areas are dwindling yearly. In the last six years, more than 22,000 acres of urban parkland, much of it close to the inner city, have been usurped by other urban develop- ment. This land is being taken for highways, utilities, housi actic ofte: redu: aIBE N. i Spae Qt ’wl. 42 housing, and other projects. Thus not only does such action decrease available recreation land in area, but often brings more people into the same area to share a reduced supply of recreation facilities.49 Herbert Gans also found that, in several cities, an inverse relationship existed between density and the amount of available recreation space.50 Higher density areas in Boston, St. Paul, Detroit, Chicago, and Charlotte, N. C. consistently had the smallest share of recreation space. The Detroit report noted that: Recreation lands within the city proper amount to. . .2.8 acres per 1,000 peOple. . . But. . . well over one-half of the total acreage. . .(is) on the fringe of the city, accessible only with difficulty to the thousands of residents in the inner communities who have at their immediate disposal only the sketchiest facilities. The same criticism holds for playgrounds and play- fields and small parks. Over the entire city . . .1ess than one acre per 1,000 people. . . For the inner communitiesS the ratio falls below a half-acre per thousand. 491971 Annual Re rt, Council on Environmental Quality, cited in Conservation Foundation, pp, cit., p. 5. 50Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp, cit., p. 73. 51Pro sed stem of Recreational Facilities. City Plan Commission, Detroit, August 1946, p. 17, cited in Cans, Ibid., p. 73. tribes the 10 recrea school ters' that r city a reatio additi. facili able . utiliz. 43 In her book, No Place to Play, Margo Tupper des- cribes similar conditions. For example, she found that in the lower east side of New'work City, there was only one recreation center--"a poorly equipped gym adjoining a school yard”--and a few "sorry so-called neighborhood cen- ters" to serve a total of 27,000 children.52 Clearly than, statistics and descriptions illustrate that recreation areas and facilities within urban and inner city areas are insufficient to meet the needs of residents. However, statistics which indicate the lack of rec- reation in inner cities do not tell the entire story. In addition to there being a lack of recreation spaces and facilities, of those areas and facilities which are avail- able, the majority are unevenly distributed and under- utilized. It has already been shown that a great disparity exists between urban and non-urban recreation acreage, with the greatest percentage being in non-urban areas. However, even within urban areas, recreation facilities are unevenly distributed. A study report by the community Council of Greater New'Eork revealed that a large portion of 2 5 Margo Tupper, No Place to Play, Philadelphia, Chilton Books, 1966. p. 45. IGCfei 31983 n mH-rfD-hrfa () mom has I that Vice teas tent Vist 44 recreation acreage and services are concentrated in a few areas of the city: Nine of the seventy-four neighborhoods that make up the city contain fifty-three percent of total park and recreation acreage, while forty- five of the seventy-four neighborhoods have only ten percent of total recreation acreage. . .There is one full-time center for every fourteen thou- sand people in Manhattan compared to only one center for every fifty-five thousand peOple in Queens. Often, cities cite impressive statistics on the amount of recreation acreage available, as if their value was directly proportional to their area,54 but fail to state 55 that these areas may be inaccessible or unused. Underutilization of recreation facilities and ser- vices occurs for a variety of reasons. Some of these reasons are: they do not meet needs and preferences of po- tential users, they are poorly maintained, and they are visually dull and unstimulating. As a result, residents 53"Research Briefs: Behind the Times”, Recreation, 56:324, Sept. 1963, p. 324. 54Lewis Mumford, “The Philosophy of Urban Open Space", Small Urban Spaces, Whitney North Seymour Jr., ed., pp, cit., p. 14. 55Thomas P. F. Hoving, "Think Big About Small Parks", Whitney Nerth Seymour Jr., ed., Small Urban Spaces, pp, cit., p. 82. 45 gather in streets and on porches while parks and play— grounds lie vacant. A discussion of each of these reasons follows. A. Facilities Do Not Meet Needs and Preferences of Potential Users Since an in-depth treatment of this topic appears in Chapter VIII, it will only be noted here that public recreation often does not meet the needs of potential users because these users seek recreational activities and faci- lities which municipal recreation agencies do not provide. Users goals and values may be in conflict with those repre- sented by municipal recreation administrators and leaders. B. Poor Maintenance There is a direct relationship between the use of recreation facilities and the condition of these facilities. Poorly maintained, run-down recreation facilities which are characteristic of inner cities receive little use, and fur— ther, they encourage additional vandalism. Use of park and recreation facilities is directly related to the condition in which these facilities are maintained. Littered parks, poorly lit recrea- tion centers, and broken park and recreation equip- ment have a negative recreational value. Conditions such as these discourage use of parks and recreation Often becau not k tear subur occur and m true tiona U 4; (I) 46 centers, and contribute to further littering and vandalism. Often, inner city recreation facilities are not maintained because municipal recreation officials believe users do not know'how to take care of facilities and thus will only tear them up again. However, when facilities in fringe or suburban areas break or wear out, the reason cited for this occurrence is heavy use, and thus facilities are repaired and maintained. Although sometimes these beliefs may hold true in some instances, they cannot be accepted as opera- tional policies for the maintenance of recreation facilities. C. Dull Design Any recreation area which is visually unattractive and poorly designed will not be in great demand by users. Such recreation areas are common in the inner city. Designs are dull because everything looks the same--there is no dif- ferentiation within the area or between it and the rest of the parks and playgrounds.57 Tupper states: ". . .play- grounds [1ooil more like prison exercise yards than places 56National League of Cities, pp, cit., p. 8. 57 Jane Jacobs, "The Uses of Neighborhood Parks“, Whitney Seymour Nerth Jr.,.ed., Small Urban Spaces, pp. gi;,, p. 48. for gray and slid mini Many has 47 for children to play."58 Further, they all look the same-— gravel, dirt or occasionally asphalt-covered: wire fence; and maybe a few pieces of play equipment such as swings, slides, monkey bars, or basketball hooPs. It appears then that conditions which began at a minimal level have been allowed to only further deteriorate. Many explanations have been advanced as to why and how this has happened, but perhaps the most accurate and the most inclusive explanation is that the emphasis of recreational development has been on middle-class suburban areas. Reasons for the emphasis reflect both practical and precon- ceived considerations. Practical considerations involve the cost and availability of land, while preconceived considera- tions involve the prejudicial beliefs of municipal recrea- tion officials concerning, (1) the nature of inner city residents and their need for recreation, and (2) why priority should be given to serving middle class areas. Practical Considerations As previously indicated, cost and availability of land in inner city areas can be considered practical limita- 58Tupper, pp, cit., p. 51. tion not side for ace of} 051 Q zen: 48 tions to providing recreational facilities. Here, land is not only costly, but largely unavailable in parcels con- sidered ample for a recreational facility. Thus, the focus for acquisition of recreation land has been and still re- mains on peripheral, suburban and rural areas. Cities who have made studies on variations in public recreation within a community have generally found that the largest proportion of park and recreation acreage is found in the outlying areas of the city. In these newer areas, land is less costly, densities are lower and income levels are highest.59 Docu- menting the fact that more monies are spent in these fringe areas, an August 1969 report of the President's Citizens Advisory Committee on Environmental Quality stated that, even though the Federal Open Space Program has channeled all of its grants to metropolitan areas, little of this money has 60 The report also in— found its way to central city areas. dicated that a similar occurrence was taking place with the Land and Conservation Fund (LWCF) allocations. It stated 59Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp, cit. p. 71. 60August 1969 report of President's Citizens Advisory ICommittee on Environmental Quality, cited in Conservation Foundation Letter, Oct., 1969, Conservation Foundation, ‘Washington D. C., p. 7. 35 l” 49 that this emphasis on suburban rather than central city areas was understandable in view of the fact that: “The LWCF funds are generally channeled through state recreation agencies, and their historic bias has been towards projects in fringe and rural areas where land costs are lower."61 Herbert Gans supports these facts also: In allocating relatively limited resources for recreation areas, planners are often caught in a dilemma. In many communities, relatively in- expensive land is available for acquisition in the outskirts of the city, where demand for rec- reation may be high, and where more land than needed immediately may sometimes be available. Concurrently, the inner belts of such cities where population density is highest usually have little or no Open space and recreation facilities, but are thought to need them badly. However, land is extremely expensive here, and usually requires redevelopment.6 as do Miller and Robinson: Although the pattern varies considerably from city to city, in general there are relatively better services and facilities offered to the relatively more favored groups in the newer areas of the city than are offered to the more needy groups in the older and less well-off areas. 61Conservation Foundation Letteg, Oct., 1959: pp. 7-8. 62Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp, cit., p. 442. 63Miller and Robinson, pp, cit., pp. 237-238. ET oi as ti fn fa; ~10] 50 Preconceived Cbnsiderations Unlike considerations which do have some practical basis, preconceived considerations reflect only the preju- dices of municipal recreation agencies and officials. How- ever, policies are formed on the basis of these prejudices which affect the provision of recreation facilities in inner city areas. For example, the most obvious biases involve racial prejudice and contempt for the poor and lower class. Miller and Robinson state: . . .patterns of discrimination and unequal treatment of groups sometimes carry over into rec— reation services. Segregated facilities of an inferior quality sometimes are constructed. . . . the tendency is to follow a pattern of neglect and minimal services.64 Many other beliefs are rooted in this same prejudice, such as the belief that minority or poverty groups abuse recrea- tion facilities, they don't want recreation, and further, no amount of recreation will prevent members of these groups from becoming delinquents, and eventually criminals or wel- fare recipients. (The prevention of juvenile delinquency being one of the chief social goals of public recreation). Other preconceived notions which recreation officials hold, center around the belief that inner city residents have 64Ibid., p. 238. 51 too many problems, and thus, it's too much of a hassle to try to provide recreation for them. However, what has hap- pened is that administrators have transformed this belief into a policy for planning recreation. Because officials believe it is too difficult to plan for the groups who live in the inner city, they devote much less time and fewer resources in planning facilities and programs for them. Many recreation professionals have noted this very same fact. James A. Madison states: Recreation programs for the inner city--because of the awesomeness of the problems--are frequently listed last in the planning priorities.6 Similarly, Miller and Robinson assert that: . . . gency administrators and personnel, not able or willing to undertake the more difficult tasks of building programs in underprivileged neighborhoods with fewer leadership resources of their own, often chooge instead to Operate "where the going is easier“. 6 Anthony Downs describes this tendency as "creaming" potential clientele.67 That is, focusing on those people who are likely 65James A. Madison, "Urban Recreation Problems". Parks and Recreation, 3:14-16, December, 1968, p. 16. 66Miller and Robinson, pp, cit., p. 238. 67Downs, pp, cit., p. 48. 52 to attend facilities and programs regularly, thus giving the recreation department the attendance figures they need to prove they have been successful in providing recreational opportunities for city residents. Sidney Lutzin sums it up this way: "we would rather point to our successes with those who come to us wanting our help, than to labor for those who need us even more."68 One last factor which also helps to explain the bias of recreation officials toward its middle class clientele is that this income group can afford to pay for the recreation services it receives. Lutzin comments on this idea, and the effect it is having on recreation policies. He asserts that recreation, where the community shares the cost of pro- viding services they want via fees or other methods, is: . . .easy to administer because it is needed and wanted--no hard selling required to develop the program and the participation--and the municipal fathers are a pushover for activities for which the citizens are willing to pay even a portion of the cost. So public recreation, like many of the voluntary recreation services, is fast moving up the lines with services for a fee, geared to the needs of our great middle class. Public or vol- untary, the recreation agency at this moment is headed toward solidly serving the solid middle class. There is no question that this is a clear and fast developing trend. Such policies squeeze 68Sidney G. Lutzin, "The Squeeze Outi", Recreation, 55:390-391, October, 1962, p. 391. (n 53 out of our programs an important group in our community either because its members cannot or are unwilling to pay even minimal fees, or be- cause our preoccupation with special services results in failure to provide suitable, attrac- tive programs for those who should, but 8° not now, come to our recreation activities.6 This statement sums up the situation very accurately. Inner city residents are not unaware of the bias toward serving middle income groups and areas. They realize that the quantity and quality of their recreation services are far less than those in more prosperous areas--areas which are out of reach for them both in terms of a lack of transportation and in terms of economic and/or other types of discrimination. In the previously cited study by the National League of Cities, one of their major conclusions stated that: Residents of urban slum neighborhoods fre- quently charge that too much effort is directed toward park and recreation facilities for the middle and upper income groups, and that rec- reation planning is being performed by persons having no real knowledge of the needs or desires of the deprived. One very important difference must be distinguished then. That is, there is not just a need for more recreation 691bid., p. 391. 70National League of Cities, pp, cit., p. 2. ~'. ta i.- 54 Space in the inner city-~the need is for more usable and attractive recreation space: there is not dust a need for more recreation facilities and programs-~the need is for more facilities and programs which the residents desire and want. SUMMARY - PART I Before moving into Part II of this thesis, let us briefly review and summarize what has been presented. The intent of Part I was to establish a framework in which the critique of the recreation planning process as relevant for meeting the needs of inner city residents—- the central purpose of this thesis--is to be discussed. Be- fore presenting the critique, it was first necessary to establish what the condition of public recreation in inner city areas is, thus illustrating the fact that the rec- reation planning process currently used has not been ade- quate in providing suitable recreation facilities in inner cities. In addition, background material was also included in the discussion of the elements which are present in inner city environments, and the relationship of these elements to the recreation needs of inner city residents. A brief 55 history of public recreation was also included in Part I. This historical background will be useful in understanding much of what will be presented in Part II. PART II THE RECREATION PLANNII‘B PROCESS: A CRITIQUE 56 INTRODUCTION It has been stated as the central premise of this thesis that current recreation planning methodologies and conceptions have not been effective in terms of providing meaningful recreation programs and facilities for inner city areas. Part II of this thesis will be devoted to substantiating and illustrating this premise. The three main topics are (1) goals, (2) standards, and (3) assessing needs and interests. The emphasis is on standards and goals because they are the two elements on which plans and the provision of recreation are most heavily based: and on needs and interests because although this element should play an important part in the planning process, heretofore it has been the most neglected. It is necessary to make two points here. The first point is that sections of this critique draw heavily on material presented in Gan's Ph. D. dissertation, which was 71 previously cited. There are three reasons for this: 71 See particularly Chapter VIII, "A Critical .Analysis of Current Recreation Standards and Goals". 57 58 (l) The limited amount of information on recreation plan- ning, (2) most of the other literature was written by people in or closely connected with the recreation profession, and is thus of limited objective value, and (3) Gans, on the other hand, presents a more analytical and critical view'of municipal recreation. The second point is that a substantial number of criticisms made of the recreation planning process, not only apply to recreation facilities and users in the inner city, but apply to recreation facilities and users in other areas of the city, and many fringe and suburban areas as well. t6 ti '(7 CHAPTER V THE RECREATION PLANNING PROCESS Recreation planning was defined in the introduction as the "systematic gathering, organizing, and processing of technical information related to the provision of recrea- tion, on which decisions regarding the provision of recrea- tion facilities and programs for a community are based.“ A review of recreation plans and planning literature reveals that while several different recreation planning procedures are used, there are only slight variations between the different methods. Thus, it is possible to identify a basic recreation planning process which is used by municipal rec- reation agencies in determining the nature and allocation of recreation facilities and programs. As such, this does not include the process by which a recreational area is designed after it has been selected for acquisition. The focus deals only with the process through which selection of the site occurs. Likewise, planning of programs after the types of programs to be provided are selected will not be considered here. 59 F300 olanr faci] hing peopj Ralpl Putt of 1 come are; plar Phil 60 Purpose of Recreation Planning It is generally believed by municipal recreation planners and administrators that planning for recreation facilities and programs is important. First of all, plane ning permits the coordination of the needs and wishes of people with available recreation resources. Ralph Andrews states: Out of good planning comes data as to the needs and wishes of people, of resources which are available or which can be brought to bear, or created, for the satisfaction of needs. A good plan must be based upon intelligently related facts.72 Further, recreation planning permits the wisest allocation of land which is rapidly disappearing. Every year it be- comes more difficult to obtain needed land for recreation areas, both in urban and rural areas. However the need for planning is most critical in urban areas: Planning is particularly important with regard to land acquisition and the designation of open spaces within a metropolitan area. There is little available land for parks and recreation in most cities, and what land is available is rapidly being developed. A park and recreation plan indicating the future needs of the city for land and facilities can be a valuable tqpfl to city officials in meeting city recreation needs. 72Ralph Andrews, "Planning is Basic to Recreation Philosophy", Recreation, 58:59, Feb. 1965, p. 59. 73National League of Cities, pp, cit., p. 45. .114 I .- ml»: @w d ~ C.EEr..l-]Illvlln‘ 1'. P 61 Planning is thus essential to the provision of an adequate recreation system. One point which should be made here however, is that recreation planning in and of itself does not assure a successful program.of municipal recreation. It is the attitudes with which planning is undertaken as well as a full understanding of what the process represents and what it can achieve that determines whether planning will result in an adequate system of recreational facilities and programs. The following discussion identifies only the elements of the basic recreation planning process. The critique of the planning process elaborates on the more subjective implications of recreation planning. THE RECREATION pLANNING PROCESS74 The basic recreation planning process can be broken down into six fundamental elements or categories: (1) Back- 74Adapted from: (1) J. Lee Brown, Planningfor Rec- creation Areas and Facilities in Small wans and Cities, Federal Security Agency, Office of Community War Services, ‘Recreation Division, 1945: (2) California Cbmmittee on Plan— ning for Recreation Park Areas and Facilities, Guide for Planning Recreation Parks in California, Sacramento, Calif., 1956; (3) Reynold E. Carlson, Theodore R. Deppe, and Janet R. MacLean, Recreation in Amegican Life, Belmont. Calif., Wadsworth Publishing Cb., Inc., 1963, pp. 375-385: (4) George Hjelte, Jay S. Shivers, Public Administration of Recreational Services, Philadelphia, Lea and Febiger, 1972,pp. 380—400: (5) Roger D. Murray, Louis P. Twardzik, Planning community- 62 ground descriptive data and evaluation of physical charac- teristics: (2) Population analysis: (3) Inventory of exist- ing recreation areas and facilities: (4) Identification and analysis of the recreation tastes and preferences of the public: (5) Application of principles and standards: and (6) Formulation of goals and objectives. The order in which each of these elements will be discussed does not necessar- ily indicate the chronological sequence in which they occur in the actual planning process. (1) Background Descriptive Data and Egaluation of Physical Characteristics This element is essential in that it is in this phase in which the collection of important background infor- mation is completed. From this information it is possible to ascertain a general overview of conditions and limita- tions within the community, as well as knowledge pertaining to its recreation potential. Included in this element are data concerning: (1) Location of the community. (2) Historical and cultural background. wide Recreation, Michigan State Univ. Cboperative Extension Service, Bulletin e-684, May, 1970: (6) Gloria G. Wbodard, A Recreation Plan For An Island Community: (gosse Ile wanship,Michigan, 6.1. Planning Comm., September, 1972. fac of (2‘ as ti< ch; qr: 63 (3) Natural resources (bodies of water, forests, etc.). (4) Climate. (S) prography. (6) Land use survey (including transportation factors). (7) Housing (single and multi-family, condition of housing). (8) Economic base. (2) Population Analysis When planning recreation, it is imperative to know as much about potential users as possible. This informa- tion is vital in determining the nature of potential users, where they are located, and future trends. Such population characteristics include: (1) Existing population, population trends and growth rates. (2) Age. (3) Sex. (4) Race or ethnic group. (5) Education. (6) Income levels and trends. 64 (7) Social characteristics. (8) Population densities. (3) Inventogy of Existing Recreation Areas and Facilities The third work element listed here is an inventory of existing recreation areas and facilities. From this inven- tory, existing facilities and areas can be evaluated in terms of their condition and their adequacy in meeting the commu- nity's recreation needs. Such an inventory should include: (1) Types of recreational facilities (park, playground, pool, etc.). (2) Location of facilities. (3) Physical condition of areas and facilities. (4) Use of facilities (nature and frequency). (5) net only public facilities, but private, commercial, and those of voluntary agencies as well. (4) Identification and Analysig_g§. Recreation Tastes and Preferences of the Public An identification and analysis of the tastes and preferences of potential users is an indispensable part of recreation planning. However, it is also the part which is 64 (7) Social characteristics. (8) P0pulation densities. (3) Inventogy of Existing Recreation Areas and Facilities The third work element listed here is an inventory of existing recreation areas and facilities. From this inven- tory, existing facilities and areas can be evaluated in terms of their condition and their adequacy in meeting the commu— nity's recreation needs. Such an inventory should include: (1) Types of recreational facilities (park, playground, pool, etc. ) . (2) Location of facilities. (3) Physical condition of areas and facilities. (4) Use of facilities (nature and frequency). (5) net only public facilities, but private. commercial, and those of voluntary agencies as well. (4) Identification and Analysis of Recreation Tastes and Preferences of the Public An identification and analysis of the tastes and preferences of potential users is an indispensable part of recreation planning. However, it is also the part which is ) 3 of I‘ll- II- uP‘J . t‘p‘. :1. MA pl.‘ P: re 64 (7) Social characteristics. (8) Population densities. (3) Inventogy of Existing Recreation Areas and Facilities The third work element listed here is an inventory of existing recreation areas and facilities. From this inven- tory, existing facilities and areas can be evaluated in terms of their condition and their adequacy in meeting the commu- nity's recreation needs. Such an inventory should include: (1) Types of recreational facilities (park, playground, pool, etc.). (2) Location of facilities. (3) Physical condition of areas and facilities. (4) Use of facilities (nature and frequency). (5) NOt only public facilities, but private. commercial, and those of voluntary agencies as well. (4) Identification and Analysis of Recreation Tastes and Prefegences of the Public An identification and analysis of the tastes and preferences of potential users is an indispensable part of recreation planning. However, it is also the part which is 65 most frequently overlooked and neglected.75 Disregard of this work element increases the possibility that recreation programs and facilities may not be used, as a result of the fact that they do not interest community residents. Methods most often used to obtain information pertaining to people's leisure tastes and preferences are questionnaires, public hearings, and citizen participation. Pertinent information includes: (1) Recreation needs and goals. (2) Personal attitudes and values. (3) Recreation patterns. (5) Application of Principles and Standards The application of principles and standards is per- haps considered the most important phase of the recreation planning process. In fact, it has been stated that: "Prin- ciples and standards together constitute the basic tools required for planning a public recreation system."76 Only a 5Further discussion of this idea is presented in Chapter VIII which discusses and critiques the assessment of_the interests and preferences of public recreation users. 76California Cbmmittee, pp, cit., p. 22. 'L'l ’Ll' I'- L... i re. f0: 1:? ti a9 66 brief definition and discussion of principles and standards will be presented here, as a more detailed analysis follows in Chapter VII. Essentially, principles are necessary in order: (1) to determine the general approach to the selection and location of various types of recrea- tion parks and facilities. . .: (2) to establish the relationship of one site to another in the total com- plex of recreation areas: and (3) to establish the relationship of the entire recreation system7yo other physical elements of the city or urban area. Thus, principles are guidelines by which a system of public recreation is developed. Basic planning principles exist for planning areas and facilities as well as programs. Examples of both types follow. Principles for Planning Areas and Facilities 1. A recreation park system should provide recrea- tion opportunities for all, regardless of race, creed, color, age, or economic status. 2. Recreation parks and facilities for a city, county, special district or metrOpolitan district should be [planned as related parts of a unified, well-balanced system to serve the entire area of jurisdiction. 77Ibid., p. 22. L I Ill—"- -l be c1 shou resi met sour deve held sion ina; :7 P *1 the 67 3. Each recreation center or recreation park should be centrally located within the area it is to serve and should be provided with safe and convenient access for all residents of the area. 4. Space standards for recreation parks should be met and the land acquired even if the limited financial re- sources of a recreation agency oblige it to delay complete development. 5. Recreation parks should be lands dedicated and held inviolate in perpetuity, protected by law against divi- sion to non-recreation purposes and against invasion by inappropriate uses.78 inciples for Program Planning l. The recreation program should attempt to meet the individual and group needs and desires of the people. 2. The program should be diversified. 3. The program should provide equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, creed, social status, economic _ need, sex, age, interest, or mental or physical capacity. 4. Programs should be offered at a wide variety of times to meet diverse living schedules of the population. 78mide' pp. 25-32. bone of able 51 light I Wnile reatio makers aPPrOp all, P served has be reatic Proces &e p‘ detai: Servi. \ 68 5. Quality leadership must be employed as the back- bone of successful recreation offerings. 6. Program planning should adhere to the best avail- able standards as evolved by national leaders. 7. Programs should be constantly re-evaluated in light of objectives and public acceptance.79 While guidelines are important, standards for planning rec- reation areas and facilities are virtually worshipped as the makers of plans. One simply takes the standards, plugs in appropriate population figures, and the result is a serve- all, please-all recreation plan. Everyone will be equally served and equally pleased. The dependence upon standards has become so pervasive and so firmly entrenched in the rec- reation planning process that Herbert Gans refers to the process as "standard-planning".8 Whereas principles regulate the general character of the public recreation system, standards dictate the specific details of facilities-~such as the type, size, location and service radius. In addition, standards are also used to 9 7 Cerlson, Deppe and MacLean, gp. cit., pp. 375-378. 80Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp. cit., p. 448. mea are of It of tie ula sho qui of (6) 1'88 908 Obj min 69 measure the quality and adequacy of particular recreation areas and of the entire recreational system. The most commonly used standard relates the acreage of recreational area a public recreation system should have. It is expressed both in acres/population and as a percentage of the total acreage of land in the community. Thus recrea- tional lands should be equivalent to 10 acres per 1000 pop- ulation, or ten percent of the total community acreage should be the goal to achieve. Other standards give re- quirements for types of facilities to be provided, acreage of these facilities and where they should be located. (6) Formulation of Goals and.ijectives The final phase or work element noted here is the formulation of goals and objectives. This is an important step in the planning process in that it is this phase where- in the particular aims and goals to be achieved by the rec- reation system are set. An analysis of public recreation goals follows in Chapter VI. Some examples of goals and objectives are: seals: (1) Maintain and improve the quality of the com- munity environment. 70 (2) Encourage the expansion of recreational oppor- tunities and the preservation of open Space. (3) Encourage wise use of land, water and human resources. Obj ect ives : p (1) Develop neighborhood playgrounds in each neighborhood. (2) Increase programming for adult women. ; _ (3) Hire professionally trained Park and Recreation managers. (4) Increase appropriated budget. (5) Preserve more open-space lands.81 How and why such goals are developed will also be discussed in Chapter VI. A typical planning methodology might thus be: Formulation 2 Collection of Background 3 Population of Goals and » Data and Evaluation of Analysis + Objectives Physical Characteristics Inventory of 5 Identification and ‘ Application Existing Rec- ’ Analysis of Public Rec- of Princi- , reation Areas reation Tastes and Pre- ples and é and Facilities ferences Standards (Oont.) 81 Hurray and Twardzik, pp. cit., p. 8. 71 7 Formulation 3 Implementation of Plan (Provision of é Facilities and Programs) The effectiveness of such a planning methodology varies by community. For example, using the above process to plan recreation for a small, homogeneous, middle class community, which has a low density and an abundance of natural re- sources as well as undeveloped sites suitable for recreation facilities, might provide an adequate and successful rec— reation program.82 However, for the inner cities of large urban areas, such a planning methodology has proven inade- quate. 82Such a community might be Grosse Ile, Michigan, for which a recreation plan was developed by this author using a method similar to the one identified above. CHAPTER VI GOALS OF PUBLIC RECREATION The goals of public recreation are the ends to be attained as a result of the provision of public recreation facilities. As illustrated in Chapter v, goals and objec— tives appear to be relatively simple and straightforward. For example, the goal which states that neighborhood play- grounds should be developed in every neighborhood appears to be an acceptable goal of municipal recreation. However, what seems a simple goal is in reality an expressed goal statement which also states other more latent goals of public recreation. Thus, the expressed goal of providing playgrounds in every neighborhood represents other latent goals involving beliefs about phy_playgrounds should be pro— vided, and the values which are implicit in such beliefs. The problem occurs when recreation officials fail to ack- nowledge or evaluate the latent goals which are being set forth in addition to expressed goals. It is suspected that recreation departments develop goals and objectives which 72 iew 5e. I...‘-i—-‘ .. .J E. :1 Si hi 73 are based upon predetermined standards, without assessing the applicability of such standards to each situation: or recreation departments merely repeat goals which have been developed by someone else without actually committing them- selves to achieving these goals. It thus becomes necessary to investigate the nature of both expressed and latent municipal recreation goals-- something which is done by few recreation planners or admin- istrators. Instead they have been content to reiterate goals which may be irrelevant in terms of the end conditions which are necessary to serve the needs of their varying clientele--particularly inner city residents. In addition, since policy-making and planning decisions are ultimately a choice between goals,83 it is imperative to identify the nature of the goals which recreation planning decisions have expressed. It will then be possible to determine the relevancy of these goals for meeting the recreational needs of inner city residents. It is the author's contention that public recreation goals are oriented toward serving a middle class clientele, and since it has been established that 83Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp. cit., p. LXIX. 74 residents of inner city areas are not members of the middle 84 public recreation goals have been somewhat ineffec— class, tive in expressing the recreation aims of this non-middle class group. For the purposes of the following discussion, it is necessary to first distinguish the nature of the goals to be discussed. There are essentially two types of goals-—user goals and supplier goals. User goals are those of the people who use the recreation facilities, and supplier goals are the goals of the municipal recreation department, its planners and administrators. Supplier goals can be further divided into expressed and latent goals.85 Latent goals are not necessarily ever expressed, but are implied in the expressed goals. The following discussion of goals centers around two main arguments: (1) that expressed goals and the latent goals which are implicit in the expressed goals 84Edward Higbee states that 40 percent of the popu- lation are economically, socially and racially excluded from a middle-class lifestyle. An extremely large portion of this 40 percent are inner city residents. Higbee, pp, pip., p. 194. 85Herbert Gans makes a similar distinction between what he terms practiced and professed goals. He bases this distinction on the mode of implementation. Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp, pip,, p. 14. are r bet“ city for 1 mvi tory Will Lay the hi tic 3&1 th 75 are not necessarily related: and (2) that a conflict exists between supplier goals and user goals (users being inner city residents). The importance of each of these arguments for planning recreation will soon become apparent. Before moving into the first argument, a definition and brief his- tory of the origin of supplier (municipal recreation) goals will be presented. DEFINITION AND CONTENT OF EXPRESSED AND LATENT SUPPLIER GOALS Latent Goals: Latent goals can be identified primarily through their content. They are social and developmental goals for which leisure time is to be used. An outgrowth of recrea- tion in its missionary reform stage, most of these goals seek to transform users of public recreation facilities from their present state to some higher level of social and per— 86 Examples of latent recreation goals sonal development. are: (1) Physical and mental health. (2) Happiness. 86See discussion of user—transforming goals, social-psychological goals and programmatic goals, Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp, cip., p. 14. 76 (3) Personality growth and development. (4) Social and personal adjustment. Charles Cranford definitively sums these goals up: The primary function of recreation is the enrichment of living by enabling individuals to find outlets for self-expression and thereby to develop their inherent potential and achieve desired satisfactions. These satisfactions in- clude adventure, fellowship, a sense of accom- plishment, the enjoyment of beauty, and the joy of creating--all of which contribute to human happiness. Through recreation programs people are helped to develop interests and skills which enable them to make constructive use of leisure and which contribute to physical and mental health, safety, good citizenship, confidence, and charac- ter development. Expressed Goals: Expressed goals are those which are cited in rec- reation plans and reports as being the goals of municipal recreation. Such goals usually deal with the provision of programs and facilities. Expressed goals are related to latent goals in that it is assumed latent goals are achieved through expressed goals. That is, social and personal dev- elopment goals can be achieved through the provision of 88 certain recreation facilities and programs. (The accuracy 87Cited in Guggenheimer, pp, cit., p. 26. 88 . . Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp, cit., p. 14. 77 of this assumption will be discussed later in the chapter.) Further, these expressed goals are built into recreation planning standards. Origin of Supplrer Goals As noted in Chapter II, the public recreation move- ment began as a missionary reform effort by private commu- nity groups and agencies. The goals of public recreation thus have their roots in the same beginning. When recreation was the responsibility of private missionary groups and community agencies, goals were actually value statements against certain urban environ- mental conditions as well as the social behavior of certain immigrant groups. Essentially, these goals were statements against rapid urbanization and industrialization, the immi- gration of European peasants into the cities, and deplorable living conditions in urban areas. Thus, goals reflected: (l) a desire to return to the simple rural life of the early 19th century: (2) a desire to mold European immigrants to .fit the reformers' views of the Puritan middle-class: (3) the notion that "the ideal city can be developed by providing an Ibid., p. 15. 78 ideal physical environment":90 and (4) the assumption that the above three beliefs couli be achieved through a social- ization program which included not only recreation, but education, human development, curbing juvenile delinquence, cultural enrichment, health improvement, and the ameliora- tion of poor working conditions.91 Hence, as the provision of recreation became a municipal responsibility, these same goals of social and personal development, which were not necessarily assumed to be achievable solely through recrea— tion, were accepted without question as recreation goals. Recreation professionals thus advanced the idea that recrea- tion could and should be used to achieve constructive ends-- social development, good citizenship, character-building, etc. These social goals, however, are not inherently leisure goals, (especially as determined by users) so that any jus- tification of the use of leisure time to achieve these social goals must occur as a result of the substantiation that rec- reation facilities and programs actually achieve such social goals. The existence of evidence to support this relation- ‘ship is discussed below. 90Kraus, Recreation and Leisure, pp, cit., PP. 440-441. 91 _ Gray, pp, cit., p. 23. 79 The Relationship Between Latent and grpressed Goals It has been stated that there is an assumed means- ends relationship between expressed and latent goals. That is, it is believed by recreationists that the provision of certain recreation programs, facilities, and leadership will result in the achievement of desirable social develop- ment goals. The evidence of the belief in such a relation- ship is overwhelming. A task force report of a National Recreation and Park Association forum states that: Recreation is more than diversion. It is an opportunity for satisfaction and a means of ful- filling needs. The health, educational and civic potential of recreation experiences far outweigh the importance of its ”activity" quality. Pro- grams should reflect the use of recreation as a means to personal fulfillment and growth.9 Dr. Jay E. Nash feels that meaningful recreational activi- ties can be used to achieve "integration and normality"93 of life, as does wayne Williams who states: “Recreation can be on the front line of defense against the spread of personal 9 and social maladjustments. . ." 4 2 National Recreation and Park Association, Forum Repprt, lfififl, p. 24. 93Nash, pp, cit., p. 200. 94wayne R. Williams, Recreation Places, New York, Reinhold Publishing Corp., N. Y., 1958, p. 39. .‘III Rel 3}ka as e ii state Re funct. Umit Not 0 profc effo: force rest: stre li£< l£ bel Emblem :eatior future Kevid 12.5- i? it m r r r- f) (D LII 'f‘ I 80 Recreation is also seen as a means to make democracy work, as evidenced in statements by Nash and Walter Stone. Nash states: Recreation may be utilized to make democracy function. In a democracy there must be an oppor- tunity for each man to acquire a number of skills. Not only the genius but the average man requires profound stimulation and incentive toward creative effort and the nature of great hopes. What other force in the community can be depended upon except recreation? And likewise Stone asserts: The recreative use of leisure could also strengthen democracy as an idea and as a way of life. . .9 The belief that recreation can be used to help solve the problems of urban society is expressed by the National Rec- reation and Park Association, which predicts a rather gloomy future for society if no "relevant“ leisure activities are provided: If park and recreation cannot assume their reasonable share in stemming the causes of present urban problems--the inadequacies, depletions and corruptions--through relevant leisure-time programs, the result will be a population of 'leisure illiter- 95Nash, pp, cit., pp. 204-205. 96Walter L. Stone, "A Sociologist Discusses the New'Meaning of Recreative Use of Leisure", Parks and Rec- reation, 2:22, April 1967, p. 58. at ch elopml appea. Stant means prov the oi c The ach nes qu of Mcc 81 ates', gnable to occupy their unobligated time: chaos.9 However, while the list of social and personal dev- elopment goals claimed to be achievable through recreation appears overwhelming, there is little or no evidence to sub- stantiate such claims. Few studies exist that verify a means-ends relationship between expressed and latent goals, and even in studies which have been done, it has not been proven conclusively that results were an effect solely of the recreation facility or program, rather than as an effect of other, unidentified factors or a combination of factors. The only goal that has been substantially proven to be achievable through recreation is the goal of physical fit- ness. 98 Probably the most common claim recreationists have made is that recreation can prevent or cure juvenile delin- quency; Arnold Green states: ". . .recreation as a means «of arresting delinquency still remains one of the most 99 popular panaceas.” He further contends that in order to 97National Recreation and Park Assoc., Forum Repprt. 1969, p. 6. 98 Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp, cit., p. 496. 99Arnold Green, Recreation, Leisure, and Politics, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1964, p. 98. 82 assert that recreation programs cures juvenile delinquency, it is necessary to state or imply that there is an intrinsic relationship between physical activity and character. Howe ever, in one of the most extensive and well carried out in- vestigations made of juvenile delinquency (Gluenck, Sheldon and Eleanor, Unraveling Juvenile Delipguenpy, New York, The commonwealth Fund, 1950), it was found that the delinquents were more athletic, physically stronger, and more skilled 100 at playing games than non-delinquents. Green makes one final point regarding the claim that recreation can prevent or cure delinquency, which can be applied as well to the other goals which recreation is purported to achieve. He states that: Actually, any attempt to prove either that rec- reation prevents or cures delinquency, or fails to accomplish either end, falls into the error of crude environmentalism. It is the meaning which any given situation has for an individual which ultimately 'determines' what his reaction to an action within that situation is going to be . . . Thus a playground in a middle-class neighborhood is likely to 'produce' no delinquents, while one in a high-delinquency area is likely to provide a handy place for predatory acti- vity and a hangout where gangs can plan their rumbles. In neither instance could the playground be properly held accountable.101 1°°Ibid., p. 105. lolrpid., p. 100. 83 However, one point that might be made in such a case as this, is that the condition of the playgrounds and facilities on the site could be influential factors. That is, if the playground in the middle-class neighborhood had more and a better quality of recreation equipment, there would be alternatives available to fighting or other predatory acti- vity, whereas such may be the activities most readily avail- able in high delinquency neighborhoods where the chance is great that the playground is in poor condition and ill- equipped. Another goal which recreation is purported to achieve is making democracy function. However, evidence exists to the contrary. In a study conducted by Richard Kraus in 1967, it was found that: Despite frequent citations in textbooks, as to the 'democratizing' effects of recreation, it appeared that these public recreation programs were doing little to achieve integrated participation or better relations among ethnic groups in the commu- nity. In sports, particularly, there was considerable team segregation, and hostility which appeared to be evoked by inter-district or interracial competition.102 And in view of present racial, class and other societal conflicts, the clabm that recreation makes democracy work appears even more ludicrous. 102Richard Kraus, "Recreation and Civil Disorder", parks and Recreatipp, 3:38-39, July 1968, p. 49. 84 The belief that recreation builds moral character r imputes moral values to users is a somewhat more elusive oal, since no definition is available of what exactly is eant by “moral". However, Green cites a study conducted by arren Bartholomew'which suggests that no causal relation- hip exists between recreation and the goal of building oral character or moral and spiritual values. The study, onducted in 1952, was titled ”An Investigation of the Rela- ionship Between the Range and Intensity of Interest in ecreational Activities and Certain Environmental, Educa- ional, and Personality Adjustment Factors of college Fresh- en Men”. Bartholomew'made several conclusions as a result 6 the study, one of which was that, differences in person- lity adjustment between the lower and upper recreational iterest groups, as measured by three different personality 103 Green :ales, were not statistically significant. :ates that while such a conclusion may have limited appli- 1tion, it serves to balance such claims that recreation 103Warren M. Bartholomew, doctoral dissertation, 1 Investigapion of the Relarionship Between the Range and Ltensity of Interest in Recreational Activities and Cerpain Lvironmental, EducationalI and Personality.Adjustment actors of collpge Freshmen Men, Pennsylvania State vniv., ’53, p. 498. 85 104 He further contends auilds moral and spiritual values. :hat: 'flhere is no intrinsic relationship between a given >hysical activity and a moral purpose, except what is :upplied‘by the mind-~and such meanings can change." Similarly, claims that recreation can cure or pre- ent mental illness are also disputed. Gans asserts that hile leisure and recreation are component parts of mental ealth, they alone cannot, "bring about mental health, cure ental illness--or prevent it."106 Further, Lowdon Wingo, r. states that: I am not really convinced that the absence of recreation leads to pathologies mental and physical. . . The facts are not persuasive. . . Recreation need [not] enhance in an instrumental way the physical or mental capacities of its participants. . O The only study which actually studied the contribu- .on recreation activities make to the achievement of the tale of recreation agencies was conducted by Edith L. Ball. 104Green, pp, cit., p. 97. 105mm. , p. 104. 106Herbert Gans, People and Plans, New YOrk, Basic oks, Inc., 1968, p. 112. 107Lowdon'Wingo, Jr., "Recreation and Urban Dev- )pment", The Annals of the American Academy, Vol. 352 rch 1964, pp. 130-140. 86 he found that the 13 athletic, social and cultural activi- ies which she studied contributed "relatively little to 'our major suppliers' goals." In addition, the majority of ctivities fell into the category of low to medium contri- ution to objectives. Thus, there appears to be little or no evidence to upport the claims that recreation activities can be used 3 a means to achieve social and personal development goals. or this reason, justification of the use of leisure time o achieve social and personal development goals appears to e on shaky grounds. However, faith in the validity of uch claims has and continues to have an overwhelming in- luence on public recreation programs. Only those recrea- ion facilities and programs which are believed to achieve atent, social and personal development goals are deemed constructive uses" for leisure time, and as such are the nly facilities and programs justifiable for the expenditure 6 public funds. 108Edith Ball, A Study of Recreation Activity Func- ions and Personnel in Selected Private Agencies, Unpublished 3.D. Dissertation, New’York University, 1953, cited in Gans sisure Behavior, pp, 223,, p. 495. 87 {he Substitution of Means for Ends While social and personal development goals are 'eferred to here as latent goals, in the early stages of ,he recreation they were, in fact, the expressed goals to 1e achieved by municipal recreation. However, over the ears they were transformed from expressed goals to latent oals. The emphasis shifted from.pppp ends recreation was 0 achieve to pp! these ends were to be achieved, resulting n the eventual substitution of means goals (now expressed oals) for ends goals (now latent goals). Thus, ends goals ave become latent and means goals have become the expressed ltimate goals for recreation. Specifically, where once we achievement of social goals was the purpose of municipal acreation, and the provision of facilities and programs as the means to attain the social goals, today, social >als are no longer acknowledged as the ends of recreation, It rather the facilities and programs themselves have be- une the ends to be achieved. Gans describes this pheno- :non: "If the means are treated as the only ones to ihieve a higher goal, they themselves become goals."109 we implications of this occurrence for recreation planning 109Gans, Leisure Behavior, pp, cit.. pp. 114-115. 88 'e clear. This substitution of recreation program goals pr social development goals has resulted in a planning nocess which is facility-oriented. Recreation planners Id officials now plan for the provision of facilities, and >t for the achievement of social development goals. Taking this argument one step further, even if it are conclusive beyond a doubt that expressed, recreation :ogram goals were the means to achieve social and personal yvelopment goals, it becomes necessary to ask whose goals re these and are they valid goals. The fact that these >cial goals are in reality goals of municipal recreation :encies will become apparent in the second main premise E this chapter. 110 USER VERSUS SUPPLIER GOALS It has previously been alluded to that the goals of we suppliers (public recreation agencies and personnel) re not necessarily those of the people who use or desire > use public recreation facilities and programs. Further, :‘has been shown that the goals of suppliers had their 110Only social and personal development goals of ippliers will be discussed here. Recreation facility and rogram goals will be considered in Chapter VII which deals ith standards. _L_A 89 >rigins in the settlement house movement which preceded :he recreation movement, changing over the years from a racial and personal development focus to an emphasis on :he provision of facilities, programs and leadership. This :ection will show that the goals of public recreation sup- .liers differ from those of potential recreation users, and »articularly those users who are residents of the inner 'ity. The central argument, though perhaps somewhat over- implified, is that public recreation agencies and personnel elieve leisure time should be used for engaging in “con- tructive" recreation activities, while the users of public ecreation (inner city residents in particular) feel that heir leisure time is better spent on relaxation, sociali- ing, entertainment, or other activities which bring them atisfaction and enjoyment. In the development of this remise, such things will be considered as the origins and ature of supplier goals, supplier accusations against user >als, and the use of leisure time for “constructive" rec- aation as a user versus supplier goal conflict. The mplications of this conflict for recreation planning will Lso be considered. 1 Egplgnation of User and Supplier Goals Reflecting a belief in the socializing capacities 90. .f recreation, supplier goals essentially are reform .riented. Furthermore, this belief extends beyond the fact :hat recreation can improve individuals, to include the be- .ief that indeed, recreation is the best and perhaps the pnly method to elevate one's social and moral position. >aniel Chappelle speaks of the: . . .seemingly inherent conviction that many recreation professionals exhibit regarding the 'goodness' of recreation relative to other acti- vities.111 :xamples of major municipal recreation goals are:112 1. Physical fitness (perhaps the most valid goal pased on available evidence). 2. Family and social adjustment. 3. Mental and moral improvement. 4. Supplement formal education and provide informal =ducation. 5. Development of creative skills and abilities. On the other hand, user goals in inner city areas ‘ocus more on enjoyment, relaxation, diversion, and even 111Daniel E. Chappelle, A Resource Economist Looks t Recreation Research, Michigan State university, Depart- lents of Resource Development and Forestry, n.d., pp. 9-10. 112Guggenheimer, pp, cit., pp. 51-54. 91 escape from reality.113 Such goals result from recreation being viewed as activity which is desirable because of the inherent value one finds in doing the activity, rather than from any "constructive” benefits it brings. A discussion of the sources of supplier goals may help clarify the T. difference between user and supplier goals. Source of Supplier Goals Aside from the missionary reform movement cited u, earlier, supplier goals reflect other past conceptions of recreation. These notions include: (1) recreation as out- door, rural-oriented activity: (2) recreation as a reward for work: and (3) the nature of the users of public recrea- tion. zecreat ion as Outdoor , Rural-Oriented Activity One of the beliefs of 19th century reform groups ras that most of the wretched conditions of the cities were . result of urban-industrial society. Out of this belief rew the conviction that if society were to return to the 113There is an apparent lack of information regard- ng user goals, as most recreation literature is written by ecreation professionals who consider only their goals as sing acceptable. 92 simple rural life, urban evils would disappear. Or, if society could not return to this earlier state, at least it 3hould.try to maintain a part of it--namely outdoor forms 3f recreation such as fishing, hunting, etc.114 suggenheimer expresses this belief thusly: We are convinced that the true celestial city, the EL. Shangri-Lapolis in which all is well-ordered, will man- ’ age to incorporate in its boundaries the imagined rural delights which we associate with wholesomeness.115 Moreover, the benefits which derive from outdoor H recreation are limitless. Recreation literature abounds vith such statements, even though little evidence exists to support them. Gans states: The advocates of outdoor recreation have written voluminously and passionately about the joys of being outdoors, the gratifications that come with camping, hiking, the enjoyment of greenery, fresh air, and the communication with nature. They suggest that such activities produce something close to a religious experience. 15 Iany illustrations are available which indicate the extent pf the thoughts and feelings Gans describes. For example, :he Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC) stated that : A. _A_. 114Gans, Peeple and Plans, pp, cit., p. 109. 115Guggenheimer, pp, cit., p. 23. 116 Gans, People and Plans, pp, cit., pp. 119-120. 93 In the outdoors, we find opportunities and often the necessity for enlarging our awareness and refocusing our perceptions, developing skills, and.evoking our often unsuspected capacities. There- by we may discover ourselves and frequently can re- cover, if previously lost, or further develop, our self-confidence and autonomy, while respecting the need and rights of others.1 7 The commission further contends that the outdoors contri- butes to three basic human needs: 1. A sense of reality that serves to integrate the physical and abstract. Outdoor life is a healthy return to a life all mankind once knew, 2. A sense of oneness with nature that leads to "reverence for life”. 3. A sense of belonging--of being wanted as a person. . . It is a preventive of maladjustment. Parks and streets are inadequate for nature study or play-~we must "reach out to faraway fields”.1 8 The problem of this rural-outdoors orientation to recreation is that it is not characteristic of all classes 3f users. Specifically, inner city residents do not share flhis culturally-induced reverence for, or identification with the rural outdoors, or many outdoor recreational acti- rities. Suppliers do not consider the fact that there may 117Outdoor Recreation Resources Review commission, 'rends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation, Study Leport No. 22, Washington D. C., 1962, p. 230. 1131b1d., p. 33. 94 be a good many people in the city "who are not interested in outlying recreation areas or the traditional rural con- cepts of what constitutes recreation."l19 They do not want facilities and programs which try to educate them to the values and virtues of outdoor, rural-oriented recreational activity. Coming from a culture which does not prepare them for becoming imlnersed in nature, they may be bored trying to comune with nature, preferring their own surround- ings for recreational activity, 120 even though outdoor rec- reationists do not feel urban areas are suitable places for recreation. Certainly outdoor recreation can be a source of great satisfaction if the user is predisposed to seek such recreational activity. However, for inhabitants of :he inner city who do not have such a predisposition, sup- »lier concepts of recreation as rural-oriented outdoor ctivity only means that the recreational needs of inner ity residents remain unmet. ecreation As a Reward For Work The notion that recreation is a reward for work is »oted in the Puritan belief that idleness is a sin, and the 119Robert C. Weaver, "Housing and Urban Development :3 Recreation in the Inner City”, Nesbitt, Brown and Murphy, . (315., p. 272. lzoGans, People and Plans, pp, cit., p. 120. 95 Protestant work ethic. That is, since idleness is a sin, recreation and leisure time are justifiable only when they occur in connection with work. They cannot be undertaken simply for p1easure--but only in the pursuit of some “higher" benefit, or as a reward for work. Such phrases as ”wholesome recreation”, ”productive leisure”, and "con- structive leisure”, indicate that recreation and leisure, while perhaps enjoyable, should be primarily productive. The ORRRC states : It is recognized that implicit in the word rec- reation itself as well as in American attitudes toward leisure there is the sense of obligation and duty to have worked in the past or to be preparing for work or health in the future, then it becomes understandable that recreation should do something for you--for your health, or your mind, or your mood, or your spirit, or your character, or your work, or your family relation- ship. . .recreation must be more than mere relaxation, mere pleasure, mere delight. Having previously determined that due to unemloy- lent, under-employment, and retirement (for the elderly). a arge segment of the inner city population has considerable noccupied time, the significance of the above discussion ecomes apparent. Since these peOple's free time is un- Lrned, they have no leisure time--merely idle time (which, ’ course, is a sin). Further, society attaches a stigma 121ORRRC, Study Report 22, pp. cit. p. 9. 96 to one who plays without working. Such a person is labeled as immoral,122 or described in other terms which imply 123 and his unearned leisure activi- 124 derision and cynicism, ties are thought of as coming under the heading of vice. These beliefs have probably also motivated suppliers of pu- blic recreation to become even more convinced that recrea- tion should be spiritually and morally uplifting for the unemployed. That is, since these people have only idle time, it is essential that this time be used for construc- tive activities, with the result that these people may be saved from the corruption and vice which await hands and ninds not hard at work, preparing for work, or relaxing ufter work. he Nature of the Users of Public Recreation Suming up all of the beliefs about recreation mat suppliers have, it is possible to develop an image of as type of people the suppliers believe their users should 122Mgaret Mead, "The Pattern of Leisure in Contem- rary American Culture", Mass Leisure, Eric Larrabee and 1f Meyersohn, eds., Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 58, p. 12. 12381avson, 92. cit., p. 20. 124Margaret Head, 93. cit., p. 10. 97 be. Gans refers to this image as the “utopian user-image of the suppliers": The image which underlies these goals pic- tures creative, active, healthy, cheerful and democratic human beings, living together in peaceful cOOperation and small town homogeneity and solidarity. 'lhey suffer from socially, cul- turally and psychologically pathological conse- quences of the modern industrial work day, but seem to be unconcerned with these consequences, especially after hours, and strive instead in their leisure-time activities toward completeness and ful- fillment, while at the same time expressing the creative and appreciative emotions and skills that are so higgéy valued in the culture of western civi- lizat ion. This image of the users of public recreation does not at all resemble the description advanced in earlier chapters of the inner city resident, his environment, or his life- style. It is thus inevitable that conflicts should occur. (at, when such conflicts do occur, suppliers interpret the [i ssensions as unavoidable outcomes of trying to deal with eOple with low recreational goals and aspirations (which ust be ameliorated), rather than as simply a conflict stween goals and values which the disagreements really :8. 1256ans, Leisure Behavior, 92. cit., p. 124. 98 Supplier Accusations Against gnner City User Goals Among other allegations, municipal recreation sup- pliers charge that the recreation goals of lower class groups are static, non-productive, and spectator-oriented. They are especially fervent in their condemnation of com- mercial recreation facilities. However, as will soon be- come clear, their charges against user goals are a result of the criteria by which they are evaluated, rather than any inherent value or non-value of the goals. In the previous discussion, it was noted that traditional beliefs regarding the goodness of work were carried over into concepts of recreation. Thus, recreation, if it was to be of vallue, had to be "constructive" or "productive", and leisure time had to be "used" or "employ- ed" in doing something worthwhile. The diagram following on page 100 illustrates a rating scale for the use of leisure time, which reflects such concepts. Consequently, because most user goals of non-middle class groups do not fit this conception, their recreation goals are not only .bnappropriate but harmful to the users as well. Whereas productive leisure leads to self-deveIOpment, acquisition of skills, deve10pment of creativity, etc., unproductive leisure time is filled with meaningless activity which 99 leaves people stagnant and unfulfilled. Developing the concept even further, not only do the suppliers dictate what the goals of recreation must be, but they also set forth the means through which these goals must be achieved. Those means are public (or occasionally private) recreation facilities and programs. However, as Gans points out, the problem‘with supplier goals of productive leisure is that they are middle class goals, and further, there is no evidence to substantiate the belief that these middle class goals are any more productive, improving, or self-developing for the well educated middle class than the recreational goals and activities of the uneducated poor are for them. But because non-supplier goals are being evaluated from a middle-class perspective, they appear to be unproductive.126 Take for example the often-observed leisure time activity of the lower class of hanging out on the street corner. To the recreation agency or leader, such inactivity is non- productive because it accomplishes none of the goals of the agency. HOwever, to those individuals engaging in the acti- vity of hanging-out, they may not only be expressing their personal desires, but may also be accomplishing such goals 126Gans, Peogle and Plans, 22. cit., p. 116. Infinity Zero Sub-Z4- to 100 Figure la Mun's Use of Leisure Time Participation Broadly Interpreted A little of uch shove Zero. depending on work patterns. "my be good. but ton many activities low on the scale are dulllng. and in the end progress and development of The Maker of the Model The Inventor The l’alnter the individual Creative The Con-poser and the group ' . are retarded. Partklpntnon Copying the Active ”Odfl--l’laying Participation the Part A Person Mun-d t‘JII-otmnnl in Apprrciution I’arttcmatinn Entertainment Antulute Amusement to Escape [mm .‘l-motony lturectnm Killmu Time ,— Injury or Detrimrnt to Self ““T‘W‘ I H'linqurm'y Arts realm-med Again“! Soviet; a Nash, 92, "ma Do You Hate? In F. e p. 89. lOl . 127 as self-realization, group cohesion, and maximizing opportunities for socializing. Just as needs develop out of the environment in which one lives, so do recreation goals. Green states: Human beings in fact differ markedly in intelligence, insight, sensitivity, aesthetic appreciation. . . To any act or argument or program of entertainment, each of them brings what he already is. This variety of background, experience, and judgement ensures differentiation in selection and reaction.128 ”H “ii, The most widely criticized recreation activities of the lower class are those offered by commercial recreation establishments: . . .in and outside the professional ranks of recreation, a near unanimous attitude of dis- trust and dislike for commercialized recreation is freely expressed. . .Television, automobiles, juvenile hangouts, bowling alleys, poolroomsé and the movies are the particular targets. . 2 Spectator activities and entertainment are especially dis- paraged. Nash speaks not only of the "true gods of truth, beauty, virtue, or. . .common good“, and the "false god of entertainment", but refers to radio, television, movies, 127Ibid.. p. 116. 128Green, 22, cit., p. 95. 12 91bids. PP. 65-660 102 reading cheap literature, and viewing "gladiatorial sport contests" as "the principal 'mental flop‘houses'".13o Such activities achieve only ”fantasy—oriented goals“.131 Howb ever, one point public recreation suppliers have failed to note about commercial recreation is that because of its 1 profit orientation, suppliers of commercial recreation have 1 been more responsive in changing to meet user needs and 132 l interests than have suppliers of public recreation. U This may account for the relative success of commercial rec- reation in areas, such as the inner city, where public rec- reation appears to have failed in motivating people to respond to its programs. Instead of attempting to re-orient their facilities and programs to meet user needs and inter- ests, public recreation officials have tried to reform users to seek the goals of public recreation. They have failed to realize that it is a myth that "people are indefinitely conditionable to a desired condition",133especially when the means through which they seek to condition these users 130Nash, 92, cit., p. 27, p. 29. 131Gans, Leisure Behavigr, 92, cit., p. 134. 1321bid., p. 522. 133Green, 92, cit., p. 93. 103 are public recreation facilities developed on the basis of supplier goals. Summing up, there appears to be no such thing as "good" or "bad" recreation per se. Such connotations re- flect only values assigned to the recreational activity by recreation professionals or other moralists whose values and interests are those of the middle class. Gans states: Current research has not yet offered sufficient proof that user goals are either pathological or socially undesirable. It would seem that many of the negative evaluations of user goals by suppliers and planners are based on differences in taste lev- els, and on the position from‘which suppliers measure common goals. These differences are, in turn, based on the differential position of the suppliers and users in the social structure. Urban life and inner city residents have changed since the beginning of the recreation movement, but supplier goals and values have not. The essential issue which must be resolved then is, whether recreation can be used to achieve non-leisure goals of suppliers, while at the same time meeting user goals of satisfaction and enjoyment. And further, can users be expected to use their leisure time to pursue non-leisure goals? The answer to both queries appears to be no. 134Gans, Leisure Behavior, 92. cit., p. 531. 104 Judging from the non-use of public recreation facilities in areas where user and supplier goals conflict significantly, it seems that public recreation cannot achieve both user and supplier goals. The insistence on the part of suppliers that recreation is something differ- ent and better than the pursuit of personal enjoyment may be the reason why “public recreation programs have failed to attract‘widespread loyalty and attention."135 As to the question of whether it is reasonable to expect people to pursue non-leisure goals in their leisure time, it seems reasonable to conclude that people generally prefer to spend their leisure time in pursuit of those goals which bring them satisfaction. They engage in recreation because they enjoy it, not because they are told it is good for them or it is what they should do. In fact, they resent the authoritarian attitude of those recreation officials who see their jdbs as changing goals and values, and telling people what their true interests are. .As would be expected, these people are rarely every affected by such recreation personnel.136 135Green, 22, cit., p. 98. 136Harold White, Recreation, Nov. 1961, pp. 460-61, 485, cited in Green, pp, cit., p. 59. 105 However, it should not be misconstrued that there are not lower class people who desire to develop middle class leisure skills, or that all middle class people do desire to pursue "constructive" leisure activities. The point is simply being made that the choice of whether or not to use one's leisure time fer “constructive" leisure activities should.be made on the basis of personal pref- erence--not because suppliers feel that "constructive" activities are important. Thus, suppliers must not only provide those activities and facilities they believe will accomplish their goals, but activities and facilities to meet user goals as well. It is important that the question of user versus supplier goals be understood because of the implications for recreation planning. If the conflict is due, as public recreation suppliers would have us believe, to the low quality and unacceptability of user goals, then the goal of public recreation must be to induce these users to elevate their goals to the level of the public recreation officials. However, if the conflict is really due to only a difference between supplier and user goals, then as part of the rec- reation planning process, public recreation planners must 106 seek to identify and understand user goals, and accept them as being valid criteria for policy-making. CHAPTER VII RECREATION STANDARDS It has been pointed out that recreation standards have become an integral part of recreation planning--so much so that some planners have come to regard planning as the application of pre-formulated standards according to popu- lation and other characteristics of the community. Once used as the means of providing public recreation for the achievement of social-development goals, standards have now become ends in themselves. That is, the goal of municipal recreation is the provision of facilities, programs and leadership, without consideration as to whether they achieve such goals as physical and mental health, self-improvement, etc. Recreation planners, have for the most part, without question, accepted this expressed goal of providing recrea- tional facilities as an end in itself. The purpose of this Chapter is to critically evaluate standards and their appli- cation to planning. 107 108 TYPES AND USES OF RECREATION STANDARDS Types of Recreation Standards Used as early as 1890 during the playground move- ment,137 recreation standards describe the location, use and size requirements of park and recreation facilities. They also set forth the types of facilities to be provided, the number of each type of facility, and where applicable, the facilities which should be available in various types of recreation areas. A brief description of each type of standard follows. Location standards. Location standards tell where, in relation to the size of the community or population fig- ures, facilities of each type should be located and the service radius of each. Example: There should be a play— ground within a quarter to a half mile of every home. In densely built-up neighborhoods a playground is needed‘within a quarter mile of every home: under the most favorable neighborhood conditions, no person should be obliged to walk more than one-half mile to reach a playground.138 137Gans, People and Plans, 92. cit., p. 59. 138National Recreation Association, Standards for Neighborhood Recreation Areas and Facilities, New'York, National Recreation Association, 1943, p. 4. 109 Use standappp, Use standards relate what particular facilities and recreation areas should be used for. Example: A play lot is a small area used for the imagina- tive, creative, and sometimes vigorous outdoor play of pre- school children. It supplements the home by providing experiences not possible at home and is especially important 139 in crowded residential sections. Size standards. Size standards prescribe minimum size specifications for various facilities and areas. Size standards are generally related to population figures. 140 Exppple: Minimum desirable sizes of playgrounds are: Population Size (Acres) 2,000 3.25 3,000 4.00 4,000 5.00 5,000 6.00 Facility rpguirement standards. These standards list, according to population, minimum desirable facilities that should be provided. They are generally described as a facility to population ratio. 139California Committee, pp, cit., p. 23. 140Urban Land Institute, The Community Builders Handbook, Washington, D. C., Urban Land Institute, 1968, p. 169. 110 141 Example: Facility Standardgllooo People Baseball diamonds l per 6,000 Tennis courts 1 per 2,000 Basketball courts 1 per 500 Golf courses 1 per 25,000 Facility standards for specific recreation areas. These standards describe recreation facilities which should be provided within various recreation areas. Example: Fac- ilities which should be provided in a community park include: an athletic field, children's playground, tennis courts, Open game area. and an indoor or outdoor 9001.142 gptal community recreation acreage standards. This standard, perhaps the most common recreation standard, sets forth minimum total acreage requirements for communities. This standard can be expressed in terms of population or as a percentage of the total land area of the community. Example: A community should have ten acres of park and rec- reation space per 1,000 papulation. 0r, ten percent of the 141Robert D. Beauchner, ed., National Park, Recreation and open Space Standards, washington, D. C., National Rec- reation and Park Association, June, 1971, p. 13. 142Urban Land Institute, pp. cit., p. 169. 111 total land area of a community should be devoted to park and recreation space.143 Recreation progpam standards. Recreation program standards set forth the types of programs which municipal agencies should have. Example: Recreation programs should include: arts and crafts, cultural activities, drama, nature study, mental and literary, music, and sports.144 Uses of Recreation Standards Although recreation standards serve a variety of purposes, four main uses can be identified.145 1. To classify and identify recreation areas. By establishing common definitions for the various types of park and recreation facilities, it eliminates the need for constantly defining what is meant when a certain term, such as playground or neighborhood park, is used. This helps to simplify the communication process. 2. To analyze and compare recreation systems. The provision of nationally accepted recreation standards allows 143Buechner, pp, cit., pp. 21-22. 144 , "Introduction", Nesbitt, Brown and Murphy, pp, cit., pp. 13-14. 145Adapted from Charles Doell, Elements of Park and Recreation Administration, Minneapolis, Burgess Publishing Co., 1968, pp. 19-20. 112 a community to easily compare its recreation system with those of other communities, and to evaluate the adequacy of its system according to some type of "ideal" recreation system. 3. To plan future recreation and park areas. The eXistence of standards permits a community to plan, in an orderly faShion, a system of recreation and park facilities. Standards relate information which recreation planners deem essential in providing an adequate park and recreation plan, such as the function, size, and location of various recrea- tional facilities. The most significant characteristic of standards is that they are handy, already developed guide- lines for communities to use in planning their recreation systems. A theoretical application of standards for plan- ning a recreation system follows on page 113. 4. As policy guidelines. Standards give public administrators readily accessible guidelines to making policy decisions, such as where or when future sites should be acquired. Since their inception during the playground move- ment, standards have continued to change. Even today, no one set of standards exists. 113 Figure 2a Mumps Suu Unhealthy Dept n! Rowan o Dev-109m:- Pui Manage-RM Uta" Tenn 1%! A SYSTEM OF PARKS LAID OUT ACCORDING TO STANDARDS Jl< 3 MILES Q 1}] - - i I x x ¢¢- x I A l 4‘3 v mm... as!” POPULATION '°'°°° ' x x . x | AREA - us MILES - 9500 ACRES x», l a ‘u/ . g 3 . ¢¢’ 833$ .21' ' X X X l §5 §m .. g 2 {"51 1' ‘«J’ \2K/J X unease-noon I'M-Its m "I | X X x | ® nav-octoe m a m t 0 t:t:"::::::. :: ‘: ‘V’ {2’ ”’4 m. 2: 2' a X X X n x”; If ._ ._ .. The above diagram Shows a theoretical application of standards to plan a recreation system of parks and recreation areas for a city containing 15 square miles or 9,600 acres and a population of 80,000 persons. This population figure is the assumed maximum potential which the city will reach in about 25 years. a Doell, glements of Park and Recreation Administratigg, QB. Cite ' P. 300 114 AN EVALUATION OF RECREATION STANDARDS AND THEIR USE It would appear from the foregoing discussion of the uses of recreation standards, that they are an extremely beneficial and well-founded part of recreation planning. And to the extent that they accomplish the four identified uses, they are extremely useful. However, upon closer in- vestigation, it becomes apparent that many of the goals and assumptions upon which standards are based have not neces- sarily proven to be valid or accurate. As the discussion of supplier goals in Chapter VI noted, there is no evidence that recreation achieves any of the social-development goals which suppliers claim they can. Standards, however, seek to implement these questionable supplier goals by setting forth as a minimum.requirement of a public recreation system, those recreation activities and facilities which suppliers believe, when provided for public recreation users, will allow them to develop into "ideal" citizens and human beings. This means then, that while these standards implement goals of the suppliers, they do not necessarily provide for the achievement of the goals of 115 users or the general community.146 The implication of this situation for recreation planning has been previously determined. Other assumptions upon which standards are based involve beliefs about the users of recreation and their recreation activity patterns. For example, the amount of facility per population standards assume that if a facility is there, all or at least a certain percentage of the popu- lation will (and should) use the facility--regardless of the type of users in the neighborhood, or the fact that other (and possibly more attractive) recreation facilities may be available to the users.147 These assumptions whiCh are inherent in recreation standards are based upon data gathered through the observation of the recreational be- havior of users during the early years of public recreation. Therefore, a basic criticism would be that these standards 146 Gans, People and Plans, gp, cit., p. 54. 147This same assumption is also built into the stan- dard which states that more of a facility should.be provided in more densely populated areas, and that the service radius for a particular facility should be smaller in more heavily populated areas. Gans, however states that, ”empirical evidence on how density affects the willingness of users to walk is lacking, but there is no a priori reason to suspect a relationship between the two." Gans, Leisure Behavigr, 92, gig,, p. 473, footnote 1. 116 are based only on observations of user behavior, with no analysis of reasons for this behavior, or varying types of behavior for different groups. Thus, use patterns were accepted as standards for accepted behavior. An example of this criticism.may help to clarify the point. Observa- tion of small playgrounds would undoubtedly show that children between the ages of five to ten years old were the primary users, and their activities consisted of games and other forms of play which do not require large areas of space. 0n the basis of this observation, a standard for playgrounds would be formulated which stated that play- grounds should be planned for children between the ages of five and ten, and that a minimum of only a few square feet of space per child is needed. Hewever, this standard would be misleading because the only reason older children and young adults were not observed using the playgrounds for athletic games or other activities, is that the playgrounds were too small to begin with. This does not mean that if the necessary space was available on the playgrounds they would not use them. This example is very similar to what actually occurred when playground standards were formue 148 lated. 148Gans, Leisure Behavior, gp, cit. p. 473. 117 Another assumption upon which standards are based is that, the provision of a system of recreation according to recreation standards will produce the ideal community. (This belief was previously discussed in Chapter VI). The ideal community, according to supplier concepts, is an established, middle class environment, wherein the normal middle class style of life prevails. As Kraus states, this planning approach views the American city as composed of "neat, tidy, and relatively homogeneous neighborhoods and . . u 149 communities . Another criticism which might be made of recreation standards is that they are basically unrealistic. The Community Council of Greater New York reports that: The traditional approach to determining neigh- borhood and community needs for recreation facilities (based on having a network of tot-lots, playgrounds, centers and parks that are geared to population— acreage ratios) is no longer a realistic way of determining priorities.15 Standards are particularly unrealistic when applied to urban areas--especially the inner cities where land available for recreation is at a bare minimum. The fact that few, if any, 149Kraus, Recreation and Leisure. 22; £$£no P- 440- 150Community Council of Greater New Yerk, 92, cit., p. 13. 118 large cities have been able to achieve the standard of ten acres per 1,000 population illustrates how unachievable the standards are (see Table 3). Table 3a Recreation Acreage of Selected Cities City 1960 Population Acres per 1,000 Los Angeles, Calif. 2,479,015 8.0 Baltimore, Md. 939,024 7.5 Cleveland, Ohio 876,050 5.1 HDuston, Texas 938,219 4.9 Philadelphia, Pa. 2,002,512 4.7 New Yerk, N. Y. 7,781,984 4.7 Detroit, Michigan 1,670,144 3.7 Chicago, Illinois 3,550,404 2.1 aLeslie Lynch, "Recreation Area Standards: The City", Recreation, 58:20-21, January, 1965, p. 21. A 1955 study of almost 200 cities concluded that only 27 percent achieved the standard of ten acres per 1,000 popu- lation.151 Moreover, a 1967 study of New'YOrk City by the National Recreation and Park Association (the leading pro- motor of recreation standards) stated that as a goal, the city should have at least one ten acre community park and one eight acre athletic field for every 80,000 persons, 151Kraus, Recreation and Leisure, op, cit., p. 440. 119 plus numerous other facilities. Kraus comments on such a conclusion: Apart from the projected cost of over a billion dollars, to achieve these standards in the crowded borough of Manhattan would mean that all buildings would have to be razed and the borough turned into one large park.152 Standards thus appear to be utopian goals, which are ob- viously unrealistic and unachievable when applied to dense, inner areas of large cities. There are numerous reasons why this is true, but primarily it is because of the unavail— ability of land in these areas. Inner city areas are al- ready built up, and therefore undeveloped land is scarce, and land costs are exorbitant. There is probably not even enough available land in inner city areas, that if it was all used for recreation, it would bring the city up to re- quired standards. Furthermore, when land is cleared, as in the case of urban renewal, little if any space goes for recreation purposes. After all, basketball courts, swings, and park benches bring no profit. Thus, the only value of standards seems to be to show'how deficient our cities are in recreational space in terms of utopian ideals which embody the goals and values of recreation professionals. 1521bid., p. 440. 120 Further it seems senseless to rely on a planning method which assumes one has a free hand to place facilities in some sort of predetermined pattern on the landscape. Standards are also unreal because they fail to take into account differences between communities. Gans asserts: . . .the fact that the standards are national ones means that in essence they propose a municipal recreation system that varies little from community to community, and thus underestimates the differ- ences existing between cities.”3 Such differences include population makeup, availability of open space, recreational needs and interests, financial. capability, topography, and similar factors.154 Arthur Mittelstaedt, Richard ward, and Raymond Lowery criticize recreation standards for this same reason. They conclude that: (1) location standards lack the ability to take into account the variety of conditions that may exist'within a community: (2) size standards do not relate to the types of land or water areas found in different environments: and (3) use standards are dubious because they do not serve variations in the physical, economic, and social environ- 153Gans, Leisure Behavior, 92, cit., p. 478. 154 Kraus, Recreation and Leisure, 92, cit., p. 440. 121 ment of a community.155 Thus: The general lack of consideration of socio- economic and physical data in formulating standards has been particularly detrimental to good recrea- tion planning. It seems then that standards represent the "codi- fied aspirations"157 of recreation professionals seeking to maximize the facilities and services they advocate. Gans sums it up this way: Actually, the public recreation standards, like most of the others, were made up by a single-purpose organization,[NRéI itself des- cended from the reformist recreation movement, whose goal was to maximize the amount of land and public funds to be allocated to its services. 158 Hewever, not even within the profession is there a concensus of opinion of what standards should be. For example, regarding the widely-used standard of ten acres per 1,000 population, there appears to be a wide variation of opinions ranging from the belief that standards are 155Arthur Mittelstaedt, Richard G. ward, and Raymond F. Lowery, "An Appraisal of Recreation Standards”, Parks and Recreation, 4:20-22, July, 1969, pp. 20-22. 156mm. , p. 20. 157Gans, Leisure Behavior, 92, cit., p. 448. 158Gans, Peo2le and Plans, 92, cit., p. 79. 122 inadequate, to that they should be tremendously in- creased.159 Thus, it appears that recreation standards are not as creditable as recreationists would have us believe. Summing up the evaluation of recreation standards thus far, the following criticisms of the standards have been made: 1. Standards are based upon supplier goals and assumptions which have not necessarily proven to be valid. 2. The methods by which the standards were devised were not reliable, nor entirely plausible. 3. Standards are unrealistic because they cannot be applied to urban areas, and because they fail to take into account differences between communities. 159For example: Conrad L. Wirth, director of National Park Services: traditional standard is outmoded and should be doubled immediately: L. Segoe, city planner: standard is excessively high, five acres of park and rec- reation land per 1,000 are sufficient: Marion Clawson, Resources for the Future: by the year 2,000 the demand for user-oriented recreation areas will be four times as great, and thus space standards will require a four-fold increase. Cited in George Butler, "Recent Trends in Space Standards", Planning Recregtion Facilities, New'YOrk, National Recreation Association, 1959, p. 21. 123 Further Evaluation: Recreation Standards The remainder of the evaluation of recreation standards and their application to planning will cover three additional areas: (1) the facility orientation of standards, (2) the perpetuation of traditional facilities and activities, and (3) why standards are so readily accepted. Eggilityporientation of Standards Facility orientation is the suppliers' belief that the most important aspect of a public recreation system is the provision of the physical recreation facilities. It also includes the suppliers' belief that the facilities are the most important determinants of leisure behavior.160 The reality that the facilities are but means to satisfying recreational experiences, has been replaced with the belief that the achievement of recreation facility standards is the primary goal of public recreation. Thus, the physical element is used as the basis for defining goals and stan- dards of achievement. The occurrence of this phenomenon has been noted: 160Gans, Leisure Behavior, 92, cit., p. 484. 124 The planning function is dominated by a total dedication to the physical elements. Aesthetics and function become the guidelines of performance and unfortunately, regimentation usually becomes the end product. What is good for Detroit is good for Cucamonga. 61 Williams also refers to the fact that numbers of facilities and programs are made to be synonymous with the degree of recreational service to the community, terming such an . . . 162 approach, "cafeteria of activities". Further, Kraus states that this is a commonly used approach: Traditionally, most planning efforts have placed the major stress on the acquisition of land and the development of facilities.163 Moreover, this preoccupation with the provision of physical facilities has affected recreation programming as well. Instead of using the needs and desires of the com- munity to determine what recreation programs should be provided, program standards are used. Thus, programming becomes activity-oriented instead of experience-oriented.164 161Ronald F. Paige, "The Problem of Responsibility for Recreation", Parks and Recreation, 4: 27-28, October, 1969, pp. 27-28. 162Williams, 92, cit., p. 68. 163Kraus, Recreation and Leisure, 92, cit., p. 431. 164Paige, 92, cit., p. 58. 125 And while facilities and programs are important, "The needs of people who are being provided recreation services, how- ever, are more important."165 Williams is not alone in realizing this fact. Nanine Clay cites as one of the major failings of public recreation, that too much money is wasted on expensive hardware, and not enough money and attention are given to the programs people want—-which is of extreme importance since, “people respond to programs. . .not to heavy-handed‘hardware".166 M. Paul Friedberg suggests hows ever, that one way to make facilities more meaningful is through good programming which focuses on people-~who they are, and what they consider their own needs to be.167 If facilities and programs do not meet people's needs, they will tend not to use them, and if recreation facilities are not used, it is doubtful that they can bring enjoyment and satisfaction to the community. The implications of the facility-oriented approach to recreation planning are clear. As long as this approach is 165Williams, 92, cit., p. 39. 166Nanine Clay, "Miniparks--Diminishing Returns", gagks and Recreation, 6: 22-26, January, 1971, p. 23. 167M. Paul Friedberg, "Is This Our Utopia?". Univer- sity of Chicago: Center for Policy Study, 92, cit., p. 58. 126 deemed valid, suppliers will continue to assume that use of recreation facilities is a function of the availability of those facilities and nothing else.168 And as a result, public recreation will continue to be meaningless for many people as it has been in the past. User goals and needs will continue to be left out of the planning process. The Perpetuation of Traditional Facilities and.Activities Another result of the continued reliance upon stan- dards for recreation planning, is that the facilities and activities prescribed in the standards have been perpetuated, with little change occurring in the types of facilities and programs communities provide for their residents. It is a "telling indictment" that virtually nothing new in public recreation has been suggested in the past forty or more years which was not mentioned in 1906 when the Playground 169 Thus, not only do standards Association was organized. prescribe the number of playgrounds and other facilities that should be provided, but they confine the selection of 168Gans, Leisure Behavior, 92, cit., p. 484. 169 , Ibid., p. 540. 127 facilities to those listedin the standards.170 Minimum acreage standards can function in the same way, with vest- pocket parks being a case in point. For years it was be- lieved that three acres was the minimum feasible size of a park based on park department conceptions of management efficiency. However, with the increasing unavailability of parcels of this size in the developed, inner cities of urban areas, the concept of the vest-pocket park was developed as a means of using small urban spaces to provide needed rec- reation space.171 Yet, many park and recreation adminis- trators continue to resist the notion of vest-pocket parks because they do not conform to recreation standards of mini- mum size. They criticize the parks as being "difficult to design, unfeasible to supervise, impossible to main- tain. . ."172 Inner city residents recognize this emphasis on traditional activities as one of the major reasons why park and recreation facilities and programs are unrelated to what 17°Ibid.. pp. 538-539. 171Whitney North Seymour, Jr., "An Introduction to Small Urban Spaces", Whitney NOrth Seymour, Jr., ed., Small Urban S2aces, 92, cit., pp. 3-5. 172Hoving, 92, cit., p. 84. 128 they need and really want.173 Therefore, if future recrea- tion programs are to meet their needs, municipal recreation officials and planners must devise new and innovative faci- lities based on people's needs rather than standards. Why Standards Are So §gadily.Accepted George Butler stated that it was obvious from the widespread acceptance of standards that they were both (1) reasonable, and (2) they filled a great need.174 The veracity of the latter is apparent--standards fill recrea- tion planner's needs for readily available guidelines to plan and evaluate their recreation systems without having to take the time and effort to develop their own. Widespread acceptance of the standards because they are reasonable is a much more moot issue. The fact that standards are such a convenient plan- ning tool is evident. Most communities blindly accept standards without even attempting to adapt them to the comp munity's individual needs. In their search for standards to 173National Recreation and Park Association, Urban Crises, Forum Report, 1969, 92, cit., p. 29. 174Butler, "Recent Trends in Space Standards", 22: cit., p. 15. 129 use, many communities end up with outdated standards, stan- dards taken from unreliable sources, and standards based solely on guesswork. Butler cites examples of cities using discarded standards of the 1920's, as well as cities basing plans on inadequate acreage standards.175 Even though standards are presented as guidelines to be adapted and modified: Such warnings are rarely headed. Small cities. . .adopt the NRA standards per se. Large cities may alter them, but frequently the changes are small, and only minor varia- tions on the NRA model. Even when the standards were found to be impossible to apply to high den- sity areas, the big cities have had some diffi- culty in giving them up. 76 Reasons why communities cling to standards include: 1. They are clear and simple. 2. Since they were formulated by a national organi- zation (NRA) which specializes in recreation, they have some degree of authoritativeness, and 3. As previously discussed, they symbolize the good community.177 175Ibid., p. 18. 176 . Gans, Leisure Behavior, 92, c1t., p. 440. 177 Ibidep Pp. 440-441. 130 Thus, recreation planners have accepted standards as laws instead of the guidelines they were intended to be. There have been a few attempts made by communities to devise planning methods which do not rely on standards.178 On the whole, however, recreation agencies continue to accept standards as the basic planning method: and even when attempts are made to revise them, recreation planners still rely on the concept of standards, along with the goals and assumptions which are implicit in them.”9 178See for example: Mittelstaedt, ward and Lowery, 92, cit., pp. 22-49: Buechner, 92, cit., pp. 45-47. 179Gans, Leisure Behavior, 92, cit., p. 542. CHAPTER‘VIII ASSESSING NEEDS AND INTERESTS It has been stated that one of the most important steps in the recreation planning process is determining the needs and interests of the community for which the recreation is being planned. Yet, this has been the step that has re- ceived the least attention, sometimes to the point of being 180 This point is critical to planning totally overlooked. recreation for inner city areas, since, as has been shown, the values and needs of residents of these areas are not embodied in either the goals or standards used by municipal recreation agencies. The suppliers' primary expressed goal is simply to provide the facilities. Rarely is this goal ever accom- 180Several of the recreation plans reviewed by this author made little or no mention of methods to assess citi- zen interests or needs: See for example: Recreation Plan: Knoxville and Knox County, Tenn., MetrOpolitan Planning Commission, March, 1961: Recreation Plan for Toledo, Ohio, The Toledo Council of Social Agencies, Toledo, 1945::9 Re29rt on A Study of Public Recreation in columbus, Ohio, W. C. Batchelor, et. al., 1938. 131 132 panied by the goal of seeking an understanding of exactly what the function of the recreation system in the particular community is, and what exactly that recreation system should be to meet the needs of the residents. Guggenheimer sums up the attitudes of municipal recreation suppliers quite suc- cinctly: ”Most of the time we just put facilities in and say, 'All right, all of you, go and use these facili- ties. If you don't well then, there's something wrong with you.”181 Recreation suppliers fail to realize that people's recreation needs and interests vary according to many factors. The pur- pose of this Chapter then, is to (I) emphasize the importance of assessing the needs of inner city residents in planning recreation for them, (2) identify past methods of assessing needs and interests, (3) discuss preliminary research which has been done in the area of recreation participation patterns, and (4) identify some recent methods devised for assessing recreation needs and interests. THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSESSING NEEDS AND INTERESTS The reasons why planning recreation to meet the needs of inner city residents is so important have been cited pre- 181Guggenheimer, 92, cit., p. 29. 133 viously. Recreation facilities and programs based on the goals and standards of public recreation agencies have not proved adequate for inner city areas. Thus, assessing the needs and interests of the residents of these areas serves a two-fold purpose. First of all, it provides information on which the goals and objectives of recreation programs can be formulated, and secondly, it provides criteria for evaluating the success of such programslBZ--that is, it can answer the question of to what extent recreation programs have been successful in achieving the goals and objectives previously set forth. Past evaluations of the success of recreation programs have considered only figures--that is the number of users, or the number of programs, rather than what benefits these users derive from the programs. Thomas Goodale concurs: Unfortunately, we have developed only our capa- city to provide programs. Much of our literature is devoted to the choice and conduct of programs. This is the easy part. We have more difficulty determining the value of what we are doing, not in terms of visi- bility, numbers, or public relations, but in terms of recreation value for the participant.183 182Allen V. Sapora, "Ascertaining Interests for Rec- reation Program Planning", American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 92, cit., p. 95. 183Thomas L. Goodale, ”The Fallacy of Our Programs", Parks and Recreation, 2: 39-40, November, 1967, p. 39. 134 Thus, planning recreation on the basis of user needs and interests is the only way to assure that the recreation facilities and programs will be a source of satisfaction and enjoyment to users, or will achieve other user goals. Three main reasons can be identified which are responsible, in part, for the lack of recognition of the importance of evaluating the interests of inner city users (and recreation users in general). They are: (l) the reform orientation of the recreation movement out of which public recreation emerged,184 (2) the problems and time in- volved, and, (3) the lack of research on varying leisure time needs of different group and/or individuals. A brief comment on each of these reasons follows. 1. The philosophy of the recreation reformists was that recreation should be employed to mold users into ideal American citizens. Thus, there was no need to assess inter- ests or needs, since it was believed everyone needed the same types of recreation, planned of course on the basis of the reformers goals and values. 2. As mentioned previously, one of the reasons why standards are so heavily relied upon is because they are 184Gans, People and Plans, 92, cit., p. 121. 135 simple to use and readily available, thus cutting down the amount of time and the problems involved with planning rec- reation. It follows then that recreation departments would be unwilling to undertake such an "awesome"185 task as evaluating the interests of the community--especially inner city residents. 3. There has been little research done in the past which focuses on leisure time behavior patterns of different groups or individuals, due in part to the reform orientation 86 Much of the little research discussed in reason (1).1 which has been done has simply been observations of recrea- tional facilities in rural areas (mountains, campgrounds, reservations, national parks, etc.). with the purpose of identifying the characteristics of users attending these facilities. Since inner city residents do not characteris- tically attend such facilities, the only information gained regarding their behavior is that they do not attend these 185This author uses the word "awesome" in quotes to clarify that it is not the task itself which is awesome» but more realistically, the attitudes recreation officials have toward inner city residents, and the methods and approaches they employ in dealing with them, which make the job seem thus. 186Gans, People and Plans, 92, cit., p. 121. 136 facilities. Such conclusions, however, tell us nothing about what these people actually do for recreation. In addition, few, if any, studies exist which describe the differences in the use of various recreation facilities among ethnic or racial groups. Having established then the importance of assessing needs and interests, we move to the identification of the methods which recreation suppliers have used in the past to substitute for actually determining the needs and interests of inner city residents. IDENTIFICATION OF PAST METHODS OF ASSESSING NEEDS AND INTERESTS As might be expected, early recreation reformers did not believe it was necessary to determine what people felt they wanted or needed. The inner city at this time was in- habited primarily by immigrants and blacks whom the reformers desired to "uplift". What these 19th Century reformers did then, was to propose an "assumed harmony of interests", which they sought to expand into an "assumed identity of tastes and inclinations".187 Therefore, everyone wanted the same things, and more importantly, everyone needed the same things. 137 Green goes on to say that while the 19th Century reformers proposed this harmony of interests, their 20th Century counterparts have: . . .hypostatized an entity they call society, and endowed it with a consciousness and a welfare separate and distinct from the individuals and groups which presumably compose it. The worship of this Baal, sometimes called the "public interest" or "social welfare", now takes precedence over all in- terests.188 All interests then are subsumed under the public interest, which is planned for on the basis of recreationists' values and goals, representative of only the middle class. Though more scientific than proposing a harmony of interests, or identifying the public interest, the evaluation of needs and interests via assessing recreation demand has not met with any more notable success. While a full dis- cussion of the subject of predicting recreation demand requires more space than can be devoted to it here,189 188 Ibid., p. 83. 189For a more in-depth discussion, see for example: Jack L. Knetsch, ”Assessing the Demand for Outdoor Recreation", Journal of Leisure Research, val. 1, No. 1, Winter, 1969: F. T. Christy, "Elements of Mass Demand for Outdoor Recreation Resources", Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning, B. L. Driver, ed., University of Michigan, 1970, Ann Arbor: Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Eponomics of Outdoor Recreation, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966. ‘-F .P- H.1fl.‘ r. ad 138 essentially, predicting recreation demand consists of taking recreation activity participation rates, multiplying them.by future population figures, and coming up with a figure called recreation demand. Jack Knetsch asserts: The myth persists that somehow we are able to multiply population figures by recreation activity participation rates and call the product "demand" and that such figures justify doing just about anything we care to in the name of satisfying rec- reation needs.190 He further emphasizes that: There is serious danger that the resulting mag- nitudes are completely meaningless. The participa- tion-rate figures observed are those under prevailing conditions of recreation opportunities. This use of facilities is determined not only by what the popula- tion in question demand, put also by_what has been made available to them. The hazard of short-changing the impoverished by this procedure for determining what they want is real and impending. There is too facile a tendency to beguile oneself with computing ratios and performing arithmetic operations, as a substitute for meaningful recreational-planning activity.191 V 'Hence, by using so-called recreation demand as a determinant of need, two errors are made. First of all, the result is 190Jack L. Knetsch, "Assessing the Demand for Outdoor Recreation", Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning, B. L. Driver, ed., University of Michigan, 1970, Ann Arbor, p. 131. 191John V. Krutilla and Jack L. Knetsch, "Outdoor Recreation Economics“, Annals of American Academy, vo1. 389, May 1970, p. 69. 139 increasing quantities of what has already been provided, and secondly, this method overlooks both those groups who are not represented at observed facilities, and the fact that participation is limited by availability of facilities. Various other leisure trends are frequently cited as components of recreation demand. These trends include: 1. Lengthening life expectancy 2. Earlier retirement 3. Increasing mechanization and automation 4. Shorter work day 5. Rising standard of living (more income) 6. Improved communication and transportation192 While these trends may indicate changing conditions in American society as a whole, certainly not all groups are sharing equally in such prosPerity. For inner city resi- dents, more free time is likely to be due to more unemploy- ment or underemployment rather than a shorter work day or earlier retirement: and even if their standard of living was to rise, it is doubtful whether it would increase to (the point where they would be able to spend money on vaca- tions, private recreation, or recreational equipment such as campers, snowmobiles, boats, etc. 192Miller and Robinson. 22; SEE}: P- 4- 140 RECREATION PARTICIPATION PATTERNS For the most part, public recreation agencies have been unwilling to acknowledge variations in the leisure be- havior of certain groups. Or perhaps verbally acknowledging this fact, they make no effort to express it Operationally or as a planning policy. Sex, age, income, race, occupation and place of residence are some of the more important varia- / / r” bles which influence recreational behavior. Thus, it would seem that, in order to plan recreation facilities and pro- grams which meet the needs of residents, consideration of these and other variables is imperative. However, such is not always the case. A study conducted by the Community Council of Greater New YOrk found that although some cities were attempting to meet the needs of different neighborhoods with residents of varrying socioeconomic classes and ethnic make-up, the bulk of recreation programs continue to consist of sports, outdoor recreation, social and cultural activi- ties, as in the past.193 Similarly, Richard Kraus concluded in a study he conducted, that in black neighborhoods, no effort was made on the part of recreation directors to pro- 193Community Council of Greater New York. 22: cit., 141 vide specially designed recreational facilities and programm which might meet their needs.194 In another survey which stated that, even within recreational spaces, consideration should be given to the desires and social characteristics of people in the com- munity, it was found that such factors were not often regarded by recreation departments as being important to the recreational design of facilities.195 In response to a questionnaire survey designed to evaluate the atti- tudes of various recreation departments regarding the ex- tent to which they considered certain sociological factors in designing recreational facilities, the following results were tabulated, as shown in Tables 4, 5, and 6.196 194Krau8. “Recreation and Civil Disorder", 92, cit.. p. 49. 195 . . Clinton Navarro Hewitt, A Study of Social In- fluences on Recreation Design, Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1965, p. 1. 196Tables 4, S, and 6 adapted from Navarro, 92, cit., pp. 200-202. These tables indicate only partial results. A total of fifteen cities responded to the questionnaire. 142 Table 4 Reaction of Cities on the Question of the Affects of the Class of People Upon Recreational Design Cities Response Population considerable Some NOne Chicago, Ill. 3,550,404 X Cleveland, 0. 876,050 X Detroit, Mich. 1,670,144 X Los Angeles 2,479,015 X Philadelphia 2,002,512 X Table 5 Opinions of Responding Cities on Age Level as a Factor in Recreational Design Response Cities Considerable Some ane Chicago, 111. X Cleveland, 0. X Detroit, Mich. X Los Angeles, Calif. X Philadelphia, Pa. X 143 Table 6 Reaction of Responding Cities on the Affects of Changing Neighborhoods197 Upon Design Response Cities Considerable Some None Chicago, Ill. X :1 Cleveland, 0. X 4 Detroit, Mich. X .J Los Angeles, Calif. X ' Philadelphia, Pa. X Hence, these results indicate that while there is some dis- agreement as to the importance of certain socioeconomic variables in designing recreation areas, none of the commu- nities consider the three variables to be of considerable importance. However, research exists which indicates that socioeconomic variables do indeed have an affect upon people's recreation behavior, and should thus be considered when planning recreation. Reggeation Participation P95terns-- Preliminary Research People's recreational needs and interests are influenced by a number of factors, some of which have been 197Changing Neighborhood means change in economic or ethnic group. 144 experimentally identified. These factors include early childhood experiences and other environmental influences: socioeconomic factors such as class, income and occupa- tion: demographic characteristics: and racial and ethnic characteristics. The remainder of this section will be devoted to a discussion of existing research, and the results and conclusions of such research. A. Environmental Influences Some of the most influential environmental factors upon recreational choices are those which are present in early childhood: Early conditioning by the home, the street, free associations, the church, the school--the innumera— ble influences to which children. . .are exposed in the course of everyday life-~determines [recreatiofi] choice to a very large extent.19 The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission's (ORRRC) report documented this fact, stating that: Recreation preference patterns appear to be rooted in the early life of the adult, perhaps largely fixed during adolescence and in a fashion conditioned by the opportunities and the cultural recreation patterns which one confronts then. 198Slavson, 92, cit., p. 33. 199ORRC, Trends in American Living, Study Report 22, 02. cit., p. 92. 145 And further: If earlier in life, an individual has missed outdoor experiences or has been limited in his choice of recreation, he may find it difficult, if not impossible later to undertake new activi- ties. . . 00 What this means in terms of inner city youth then, is that, because of their lower class and physically oppressive environment, their recreational repertoire does not include such experiences as summer camp, family vacations or even well-equipped, attractive public recreational facilities. Thus, in understanding the recreational needs of inner city people, their environment and particularly their early childhood environment must be considered. If this is done, it should come as no surprise to recreation departments if these people do not readily accept or use facilities rec- reation officials believe they should, because they are 201 not familiar with, nor interested in such facilities. 2°°Ibid., p. 221. 201Net only do participation patterns result from early childhood experiences, but many patterns are also cul- turally transmitted. For example, Gunnar Myrdal documents recreational activities of Southern rural Blacks. Because of discrimination, and a lack of facilities provided es- pecially for them, their recreation consisted primarily of informal, social-oriented activities such as talking, singing, dancing, gambling, and loafing. It has been observed that these same activities still remain prominent in the recrea- tion patterns of Blacks today. See: Myrdal, 92. 91.2., 146 And suppliers cannot stimulate interest with the attitudes and beliefs they now'hold regarding inner city residents. (Paternalistic, negative, and authoritarian best describe these attitudes.) B. Socioeconomic Characteristics There has been considerable research done on the effect of socioeconomic status on recreational behavior, the most notable of which was conducted by the ORRRC.202 The study investigated participation in 11 outdoor recrea- tional activities, as related to several socioeconomic characteristics. These characteristics were: income, education and occupation, length of paid vacation, place of residence and region, sex, age, life cycle, and race. The 11 recreational activities were: outdoor swimming or going to the beach, fishing, horseback riding, camping, pp. 982-985: Forrester B. washington, "Recreational Facili- ties for the Negro", Annals of the American Academy, vol. 140-141, 1928-1929, November, 1928, pp. 272-282: E. Franklin Frazier, "Society: Status Without Substance", Nesbitt, Brown and Murphy, 92, 922,. PP. 104-113. 202Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting, Demand Amogg_Amg§ican Adults, Study Report No. 20, Wash. D. C., 1962, pp. 10-29: Chapter 2, "Outdoor Recreation in Relation to Socioeconomic Characteristics". _x_. 147 hiking, skiing and other winter sports, boating and canoeing, hunting, picnics, automobile riding for sight- seeing and relaxation, and nature or bird walks. Without going into a lot of detailed explanation regarding the method of analysis used, a summary of the results will be presented. First of all, each recreational activity was related to each socioeconomic and demographic characteristic taking one variable at a time. This procedure, however, did not differentiate between the impact of the variable being tested, and the impact of the interrelationship of other variables with that variable. That is, if a difference in recreational activity was found due to income, the result does not indicate how much of that difference is due to in- come, as opposed to other factors related to income such as education or occupation. Thus a multivariate analysis was done in which the impact of each variable was assessed, while holding constant the influence of other variables that may be associated with it. Table 7, located on page 148, summarizes the results of the analysis. Thus,income is related to outdoor recreation, with participation rising as income levels rise, up to the $7,500-$10,000 income group which shows no further increase and even a slight 148 Table 7a Significance of the Relationship Between Outdoor Recreation and Socioeconomic Factors F Ratio Factor Males Females Age of head l4.81** 18.19** 1 Race of respondent 13.65** 3.13* Region 5.88** 3.44** Place of residence 4.75** 4.01** Education of head 4.20** 9.63** Paid vacation 3.31** 0.66 Income 3.05** 6.98** Life Cycle 2.90** 3.21** Occupation of head 2.34** 1.48 a Adapted from Table 23, Ibid., p. 29. ** Significant at the one percent level. * Significant at the five percent level. decrease. Likewise, education, occupation and length of paid vacation affect participation, with greater participa- tion occurring among higher education levels (with the ex- ception that college men participate less than men with high school educations), higher status occupations, and longer paid vacations. Of course, income, education, occupation and length of paid vacation tend to all be interrelated. Participation differences by place of residence is small-- high participation by suburbanites being a result of income, education and occupation. However, certain activities are 149 favored in certain areas, with those in outlying areas pre- ferring camping, fishing, and hunting, while city people preferred sightseeing driving, picnicking and swimming. Age was identified as the variable having the most signi- ficant influence on participation, with expected differ- ences between the sexes also occurring (women having a lower participation rate than men). As far as life cycle is con- cerned (life cycle combines age, marital status and chil- dren's age), there is some relation to participation, with young single people, young married people without children, and couples whose youngest child is older than four and a half years old tending to participate more in outdoor rec- reation than other groups. Finally, race shows a signifi- cant relationship with outdoor recreation participation, with blacks participating relatively infrequently. To some extent this is also a result of other differences between blacks and whites, such as income, education, occupation, and place of residence. Other studies have been conducted which test the ' same kinds of variables as the ORRRC, concluding the same 203 or similar results. Some of the results which have 2038ee in particular: William R. Burch, Jr., "Th6 Social Circles of Leisure: Competing Explanations", Journal A. 150 particular reference to inner city areas and their inhabi- tants are: l. Ninety percent of all families utilizing tax- supported recreation programs and resources fall in the $7,000 to $15,000 family income per year bracket.204 2. Race has a particularly strong effect on rec- J.. reation participation. Black people have notably different recreational behavior patterns than whites, partly as a result of ghetto living, but also as a result of recreation behavior developed in response to living patterns of a rural Southern background.205 Thus, for blacks, recreation takes a more social-oriented form than is possible with the res- trictions, controls, and types of outdoor recreation of Leisure Research, Vbl. 1, No. 2, Spring, 1969, pp. 125- 147: R. Clyde White, "Social Class Differences in the Uses of Leisure", Mass Leisure, Eric Larrabee and Rolf Meyersohn eds., Glencoe, Illinois, The Free Press, 1958, pp. 198-213: Charles R. Wright and Herbert H. Hyman, "Vbluntary Associa- tion Memberships of American Adults", Mass Leisure, pp. 315- 325: Richard Kraus, Public Recregtion and the Neggo: A Study of Participation and.Administrative ngctices, New‘YOrk, Center for Urban Education, 1968. 204 Genevieve W. Carter, "Social Trends and Recreation Planning", Recreation, 58: 378-380, October, 1965, p. 380. 205Myrdal, 92, cit., p. 984. 151 activity characteristic of public recreation agencies.206 For them, the street, the pool hall, the local drugstore or other neighborhood establishments meet their recreational desires more so than the middle class oriented facilities of public recreation. This middle class orientation alienates lower class people as well as blacks residing in the inner city.207 Of course, as previously alluded to, these rec- reational preferences are partly a result of a lack of choice and/or exposure to other types of recreation faci- lities and activities. Quantitatively and qualitatively speaking, research into the recreation needs and interests of various groups, and differences in participation patterns between groups is in its infancy. Such knowledge must be ascertained before recreation planning can attempt to plan facilities and pro- grams to meet pe0ple's needs. And as might be expected, there is a particular lack of information concerning inner city residents, whose needs and desires are the most fre- quently ignored and overlooked. A. A 206Ira J. Hutchison, "Planning Where the Action Is", Parks and Recreation, 3: 22-24, July, 1968, p. 24. 207 Gans, Leisure Behavior, 92, cit., p. 618. 152 RECENT METHODS FOR ASSESSING RECREATION NEEDS AND INTERESTS There has not been a profusion of new ideas and methods in recent years to assess the recreational needs and interests of people for recreation planning purposes. Further, most of the methods proposed have not dealt with the more basic problems of the recreation planning process, but have used traditional supplier values and concepts in their methods. Others have tried to become so mathematical, analytical and systems-approach oriented that in their attempts to evaluate needs they have overlooked an essential factor--what people feel they want and need. This section will present some examples of recent techniques developed to assess recreational need, with a brief comment on each. A. The Need Index in Park Planning208 The method used here is a mathematical computer model. It was developed to arrive at an index of need for neighborhood parks. While perhaps a model suitable for making managerial decisions, it includes no behavioral 208 Parks and Recreation, 2:28, March, 1967. Joel, D. Parks, “The Need Index in Park Planning”, 153 variables, except perhaps walking-distance behavior impli- cit in distance and service radius standards. The author assumes that the Need Index is composed of two elements, a p0pulation element and a distance element. These two elements are then combined by comparing each element separately with a standard and adding the two ratios. The basic formula is: N E+E P d Where N = Need Index EP = P0pu1ation Element Ed = Distance Element Next, a weight is given to each element, according to its importance, and the formula becomes: N - (__2___ + d - 5) x 1,000 3,500 d Where N = Need Index p = pOpulation of service area d = distance to a developed park or beach recreation area However, the formula does not end here. It is expanded to include differences in use by adults and youth (based on attendance records) and weighting for facility standards to compute the percentage of adequacy. There are several drawbacks with this method. As was earlier mentioned, it includes no concrete behavioral 154 variables--walking distance behavior, and attendance varia- tion between youth and adults being the only two mentioned or implied. Secondly, the technique is a mathematical model which is computer-oriented, a piece of hardware few, if any, recreation departments can utilize for such pur- poses. In addition, many of the factors included in the formulas were based on past standards--the deficiency of which has previously been discussed. The Need Index then, seems to have limited value for assessing people's recrea- tional needs, being able to evaluate only the need of the community for additional facilities as stipulated by rec- reation standards. 209 B. The Comparative Need Index This Need Index is an instrument developed at the request of the Los Angeles City Department of Recreation and Parks to provide them with a better method for pro- viding facilities and programs to meet the needs of various neighborhoods. The methodology was as follows: 209Edwin J. Staley, "An Instrument for Determining Comparative Priority of Need for Neighborhood Recreation in the City of Los Angeles", Nesbitt, Brown and Murphy, 92, 932,. pp. 277-287. 155 Staley developed a Resources Index consisting of three variables: 1. Number of full and part-time professional staff hours per year in a neighborhood. 2. Acreage of neighborhood recreation centers per 1,000 population. 3. Number of recreation centers per 10,000 population. And a Need Index which identified four basic factors deemed most relevant in compiling a recreation "need index“: 1. Youth population. This is the group tradition- ally emphasized by recreation agencies and the group felt to be most in need of recreation service. 2. Population density. Areas with greater popula- tion densities per acre require more recreation services. There is inadequate play space at home as a result of dense population. 3. Median family income. Low income families are less able to provide their own recreation. They are also less mobile and have fewer amenities among their own resources. Therefore, they have a greater need for public recreation. _L: 156 4. Juvenile delinquency rate. This is an index of social disorganization. A high delinquency rate is usually associated with a need for expanded services. Although Staley's approach seems more useful than Parker mathematical models, there are some deficiencies in his index as well.210 First of all, he makes the mistake cm of assuming that a relationship exists between the provision of recreation facilities and the solution of the community's - "! problems, the same type of assumption as discussed regarding the assumption that the provision of certain facilities leads to the achievement of certain goals--an assumption for which no evidence exists. As William Hendon acknow- ledges, about all one can say is that more facilities have been provided. However, no statement can be made about what such facilities achieved.211 Secondly, there are some problems with Staley's choice of variables and the reasons he cites for their selection. The first variable, youth population, totally 210For a more in-depth critique see: William S. Hendon, "'Determining Neighborhood Recreation Priorities': 4 A comment", Journal of Leisure Research, 1: 189-191, Spring, 1969. 2111b1d., p. 189. 157 ignores the need of those below five years and over 19--the needs of all age groups should be considered. The assump- tion that the focus of public recreation should be on youth cannot be made. The third variable, median family income is a useful measure only when dealing with small homogeneous neighborhoods. It is true that low income groups are less able to provide their own recreation, but in providing public recreation facilities for them, their needs and goals are not necessarily met either, since no effort is made to deter- mine their needs and goals. The fallacy of the assumptions of the fourth variable, juvenile delinquency rate, has al- ready been discussed. While juvenile delinquency may be a relevant index of social disorganization, there is no con— clusive evidence that recreation prevents or cures juvenile delinquency.212 Thus, Staley's need index can be criticized for the same basic reason as Parks' index. That is, it does not involve an input of community residentf' needs as assessed by the residents--only via the supplier's viewpoint, and thus may be useful for making management and budgeting decisions, leIbidoo PP. 189-191. 158 but not for planning recreation on the basis of meeting people's needs. C. A Systems Approach to Municipal Recreation 213 Myron Weiner, noting the importance of providing recreation programs and facilities which focus on the needs of individuals, proposes what he calls individualized rec- reation and leisure programming. While he does not go into a great deal of depth regarding this method, he defines it as designing programs and activities to enhance or satisfy human needs. These human needs are identified as: growth: maturation--physical and psychological: occupational pur- poses: development of creativity: character building: re- ducing personal, family, group of community tensions: positive channeling of asocietal behavior into community accepted endeavors: and numerous others. Weiner's concept of individualized programming, while it may prove costly and time-consuming, does have merit. Needs and interests are assessed on an individual basis, and the person is then ' provided those activities which suit his needs. However, 213Myron E. Weiner, "A Systems APPTOaCh to Municipal Recreation“, The Munici2al Year Book, Washington D. C., International City Management Association, 1971, pp. 166-170. 159 one fault is very apparent--the human needs which are iden- tified as those to be enhanced or satisfied sound remarkably like those proposed in the goals of recreation reformers and subsequently those of public recreation. Thus the indivi- dual still has no opportunity to identify his own needs and interests. The concept of individualized programming, how- ever, is noteworthy. D. The Area Analysis Technique214 Allen Sapora discusses the area analysis technique as a method for assessing recreation interests, habits and attitudes in an urban setting. A sociological technique, area analysis is the procedure in which census tracts are grouped into social areas for analysis of data. There are two basic items necessary: (1) there must be adequate demo- graphic information for the area being studied, and (2) ac- curate sampling, and proper research design, methods, and procedures must be used to discover necessary facts. The value of this technique is that the precision of prediction is improved because the population is subdivided into several homogeneous subgroups. _L_ 214Sapora, 92, ci ., pp. 94-102. 160 The area analysis technique was tested by Thomas Goodale.215 His area analysis was based on three factors-- socioeconomic status, family status and ethnic status. A written questionnaire was used to collect data about the pOpulation in each census tract. The questionnaire asked specific questions about people's recreation activities and attitudes, as well as their use of recreation facilities. Results were punched on cards and thoroughly analyzed. Sapora states that the area analysis technique is sound because it shows differences in leisure behavior and attitudes in areas with different demographic characteristics, and also because it is useful in estimating the general type and extent of participation. Further, the area analysis technique was combined with other techniques such as obser- vation, and meetings with neighborhood adult and youth groups, voluntary agencies and others interested in recrea- tion. It seems then, that the area analysis technique offers substantially more than previously discussed methods 21 5Thomas Goodale, An Analysis of Leisure Behavior 92d Attitudes in Selected Minneapolis Census Tracts, Unpub- lished Doctoral Thesis, Urbana, University of Illinois, cited in Sapora, 92, cit., pp. 98-99. 161 in terms of assessing recreation needs and interests, and should be further investigated as a viable planning approach. E. Citizen Participation Citizen participation, it would seem, should be an especially effective method of assessing recreation needs and interests since it allows for actual, direct input into the planning process by the citizens who will use the faci- lities. However, such has not been the case, especially in inner city neighborhoods. Coming into prominence with the advent of Federal aid programs which stipulated citizen participation as a requirement for receiving such aid, citizen participation has met with a variety of success. Generally speaking, however, such participation has been of a token nature where minority and low income groups are concerned. The negative and paternalistic attitudes which recreation officials have toward these groups are reflected in the methods by which citizen participation programs are run. Clarence Pendleton asserts: . . .citizen demands for functional involvement have met with opposition from the policy and deci- sion makers who have preferred to substitute token participation to further their individual poli- tical and economic interests. This substitution and often blatant trickery have resulted in a 162 conflict in the values and desired status of the 216 lay community and the professional establishment. The result of this lack of participation in planning recrea- tion facilities is quite frequently non-use of facilities. Richard Kraus found evidence of this lack of contact 'with neighborhood residents in black areas in his study: Few recreation directors had meaningful contacts with anti-poverty organizations, with groups of neighborhood residents or other agencies that would help them serve minority group members more effec- tively. Citizen participation has particular value in assisting recreation planners and officials in planning recreation, when the inability of recreation officials to do so on their own has become such an obvious fact. .Thus, If more park planners knew what city people want in the way of parks and recreation, there might be some slum excuse for shutting potential park users out of the planning process. But by and large they don't know what the public wants. . .There appears to be growing recognition that citizen involvement in planning. . .is. . .more likely to produce what peOple want and use. . . 18 216Clarence M. Pendleton, Jr., "Community Involve- ment in Recreation Programming", Nesbitt, Brown, and Murphy, 92, cit., p. 211. 217Kraus, "Recreation and Civil Disorder", 92, cit. p. 49. 218Conservation Foundation, March 1972 Letter, pp. 8-9. 163 Citizen participation can occur not only in the planning process, but in the implementation and management phases as well. Considerable attention should be given to the development of meaningful citizen participation programs. A particularly viable approach to planning recreation might be a combination of citizen input with management and bud- geting techniques. Recreation officials would have their efficient techniques, with the variables to be included, and the degree to which each is important in the overall determination of recreation need, being determined by the people for whom the facilities are intended. This approach could also be supplemented with a sampling interview, the results of which could be correlated with socioeconomic data such as income, family size and occupation. The results of this analysis could then be used to further analyze and determine recreation needs and wants. PART III THE PROSPECT FOR CHANGE 164 INTRODUCTION The purpose of Part III is to present concluding remarks on why there has been no apparent change in planning methods, in order to bring adequate recreation (in terms of user needs and desires) to inner city residents: nor any change in the desire of recreation suppliers to see that these people receive needed recreation facilities and pro- grams. Historically, the best of facilities and programs, and the largest parts of recreation budgets have gone to middle class fringe and especially suburban areas. Inner city residents have been powerless to correct this bias, and those in the position to do so have, for various reasons, felt it was not the prOper or most advantageous thing to do. However, if the situation is not to further deterharate, action must be taken to give the inner city and its residents needed recreational space and programs. While a few commu- nities have recognized this need for action, fewer still have actually committed themselves to rectifying existing situations. Chapter X concludes with a discussion of recent and future approaches to planning recreation. 165 CHAPTER IX THE NON-RESPONSE OF MUNICIPAL RECREATION The need and desire of certain inner city residents for recreation facilities are not new, Gunnar Myrdal reported in his study, published in 1944, that: Negroes everywhere [are] aware of the great damage done Negro youth by the lack of recreational outlets and of the urgency of providing playgrounds for the children. In almost every community visited during the course of this inquiry, these were among the first demands on the program of local Negro organizations. And, as reported by the Kerner Commission report cited earlier, the same protests and demands are being made today in inner city areas. There seems to be little indication that situa- tions in these areas have changed. A study by the Community Council of Greater New Yerk revealed that almost two-thirds of the cities studied said they had experienced strong de- mands from socially disadvantaged residents or racial minor- 220 ity groups for "fuller participation in policy develop- 219Myrdal, 92, cit., p. 347. 220In addition, some 58 percent of cities stated in- particular that they had received demands for new facilities in inner city neighborhoods. Community Council of Greater New York, 92. _c_i_t_., p. 85. 166 167 ment and decision-making, improved facilities and programs in their neighborhoods, and increased hiring of local resi- 221 dents. In view of the existence of such demands for recreation as early as 1944 and continuing up to the present time, the fact that there has been no considerable response to such needs is even more apparent and even more puzzling. However, some of the major reasons why there has been this lack of change will soon be made clear. There are several important reasons why a change in the pattern of the provision of municipal recreation facili- ties has not been effected. However, these reasons all seem to originate from a common source, and that source is the attitudes of society in general, and municipal recreation officials in particular. Edward Higbee points out some very hard-hitting, yet critical considerations: It is obvious that an intelligent and comprehen- sive public approach to recreation and parks has be- come less probable inasmuch as other matters of far greater urgency have not evoked effective solutions. There is little prospect that adequate attention to parks or other public recreational and cultural needs will be forthcoming until there is a drastic change of social attitudes throughout American society. That is a tall order because the very thinking processes of the majority have been conditioned to resist such trends of thought. 2211bid., p. 7. zzzaigbee, "The Importance of Recreation in The CitY" 22. Cit., p. 196s 168 Higbee further concludes that: A city's commitment to a better public environ- ment does not begin with the establishment of park and recreation facilities, as desirable as these are. The beginning is more fundamental. It is a regard for human life and the well being of all persons living together as a society. . .America's physical environment of parks and playgrounds is not likely to improve significantly until its social institutions are Egglved to create more sociable human beings. . . Thus, there appears to be no serious societal com- mitment to solving the problem of providing recreation for inner city areas. Even much of the talk of doing so is "stale, eXhoratory rhetoric, stemming from sheer habit after the will and intent to act have tired."224 Three problem areas have been identified to be discussed here: (1) attitudes of park and recreation offi- cials: (2) the low societal priority of recreation for the inner city: and (3) the inability of inner city residents to effect change themselves. Attitudes ofgark and Recreation Officials Attitudes of public recreation officials toward inner city residents are sometimes major determining factors influ- 223Ibid., p. 197. 224Green, 92, cit., p. 76. 169 encing the provision of recreation facilities for these people. These attitudes were briefly discussed earlier in Chapter III in the section which dealt with preconceived notions of suppliers. Essentially, they perceive their inner city clientele as being undeserving or unworthy of recreation facilities: or they believe this segment of their clientele do not actually want recreation facilities, and thus will only abuse them. Another attitude of recreation administrators which precludes needed changed from.occurring is that they believe recreation facilities and programs that have been provided in the past are adequate for the inner city. They do not possess programming and administrative skills which are flexible enough to change with the times, prefering instead to rely on that which has gone before. The National Recrea- tion and Park Association concluded in a Task Force Report that: Relevant programming is as necessary as it is scarce. Today's park and recreation professionals no longer meet the needs of the inner-city consumer because of the massive, ambiguous programs. The very obvious differences in virtually all of the life styles are, for the most part, unrecognized, neglected or suppressed by professionals. 225National Recreation and Park Association, Urban CrisesI Forum Report, 1969, 92, cit., p. 36. 170 An editorial in the Detroit Free Press sums up the situation rather accurately in its title: "Dead wood in Parks and Rec". The editorial goes on to say why, in a city with so much potential, relatively little is being accomplished. Mr. John May, Superintendant of Parks and Recreation, is described as a docile bureaucrat who goes along with what- ever he is given, never raises his voice, and never bothers to point out a problem. He has no interest in acquiring new park sites in the inner city because he does not believe he can get sufficient personnel to maintain them, yet he does not bother to fix up and maintain existing recreation areas such as Belle Isle. Likewise, Mr. May is also critical of the vest-pocket park programs, which could bring recrea- tion to areas where kids now play in alleys or on vacant lots strewn with broken glass. The editorial concludes by stating: Imagination and spunk can make up for a lot of budgetary problems, but the city is not likely to find either in Mr. May. It's time he was placed in a quiet corner where he can play with figures, at which he excels.226 226"Dead WOod in Parks and Rec". Editorial, IE2 Detroit Free Press, May 27, 1973, p. 2-B. 171 With administration like this, it is little wonder that our cities are in such poor condition recreationally. .The Low Societal Priority of Recreation for thegnner City Not only does recreation for inner city areas appear to be a low priority of public recreation officials and agencies, but society in general seems to have little com- mitment to seeing that public recreation is provided in these areas. Middle class Americans are able to provide themselves with private recreational facilities, and be- lieving as they do that ours is an open society, and those who are better off have accomplished this through ambition, drive, and capability,they do not want to pay for those in the lower class to enjoy public recreational opportunities. They express this feeling at the polls and via other politi- cal means. Higbee concludes: It is easy to point to the deficiencies of public recreational facilities in the average American city and to the general disregard by municipal governments for environmental cleanliness and beauty. It is harder to explain this neglect and indifference because hardly any citizen would say that he personally is opposed to a public environment that would be cleaner, or one that would offer a greater range of recreational oppor- tunities. The objection comes only as people express themselves collectively through political decisions and tight public budgets. Apparently, the low level of government commitment to the public environment and its recreational facilities lies in the split 172 personality of our society which remains funda- mentally individualist--agrarian $37outlook though the enVironment has become urban. Thus, it appears then that the provision of adequate recrea- tional opportunities in inner city areas is not a priority item, of society in general, and public recreation officials in particular. The Inability of Inner City Residents to Effect Change At the same time society has not committed itself to improving the recreational status of the inner city, resi- dents of these areas are powerless to effect change them- selves. Their desires are subordinated to the "public good" or the goals and wishes of municipal recreation officials. Essentially, two main reasons account for the powerlessness of inner city residents to effect change: (1) their inabi- lity to articulate and evaluate their needs; and (2) as a political group, they have no impact upon decisions or decision-makers. It need not be extensively argued here that, in any situation in which limited resources must be allocated to the public, those groups who can most effectively articulate 22'7Higbee, "The Importance of Recreation in the City". 93s Cite. pp. 189-1910 173 their needs receive the larger portion of the resources. Such conclusions have been well documented in numerous political science studies. It follows then that middle and upper income groups, decidedly more articulate than the lower class groups of the inner city, command a larger por- tion of available public recreation-resources--1and, facili- ties and personnel. Guggenheimer concurs: . . .wealthy families have a higher expectation of what should be available for their recreational use and high initiative in seeking it. The resi- dents of low-income areas frequently are 53gbed by Circumstances of this type of initiative. Further, while inner city residents cannot bring about those changes they desire, neither can they prevent unwanted con- ditions from being imposed upon them. A Task Force Report of the National Recreation and Park Association concluded: "Inner-city residents have limited resources to oppose pro- grams having a negative impact on their living patterns."229 Perhaps the most critical factor which limits the capacity of low income groups to significantly influence decisions and decision-makers is a lack of political power. 228Guggenheimer, 92, cit., p. 43. 229National Recreation and Park Association, Urban Crises, Forum Report, 1969, 92, cit., p. 19. 174 As a political force, they lack the cohesiveness and the political leverage which middle and upper income groups command. Thus, their needs and desires are given last pre- ference, because community officials know they need not fear political reprisal or action from this group. It is not a question of fairness or equality, but of politics. Gans describes this system of allocation as a political benefit-cost accounting scheme: In this scheme, which is mostly latent, the decision-makers compute the interests, pressures and demands various groups in the community make for the spectrum of municipal functions and ser- vices, and make those levels of allocation for each which provide the greatest political benefit without excessive political costs (such as in- curred by displeasing another group).230 Thus, if policies and programs are planned to help low income groups, to be politically viable, they must also pro- vide "simultaneously equal or even larger benefits for 23] middle income and upper income groups". Thus, alloca- tion of recreation facilities is based not on need, but on the severity of the consequences recreation officials feel will occur as a result of that need being ignored. 2 . . . 30Gans, Leisure BehaVior, 02. c1t., p. 322. 231Downs, 92, cit., p. 46. 175 A study by Geoffrey Godbey of recreation advisory councils in Philadelphia revealed that: Poverty area recreation advisory councils are unlikely to successfully function or compete with middle-class councils in a comparatively centra- lized recreation resources allocation system. Tables 8 and 9, located on pages 176 and 177, reveal some of the differences found between the councils of lowbincome Model Cities Area and that of a council outside the Model Cities Area. Generally, results show that recreation advisory councils in the Model Cities Area participate less and at lower levels in decision—making, and are somewhat less effective than the councils of the area outside the Model Cities Area. Those councils outside the Model Cities Area showed more involvement in developing plans and inves- tigating criticism. Summing up, the reasons why the condition of public recreation facilities and programs in inner cities have not improved can be briefly expressed as follows: society is not committed to bringing about such change, and inner city residents are unable, politically and economically, to demand that these changes be brought about. The result, of course, is inaction and stagnation. 232Geoffrey Godbey, "Recreation Advisory Councils and the Poor", Parks and Recreation, 7: 28-31, p. 43. 176 Table 8a Effectiveness of Councils Model Cities Outside Model Council Function Area Cities Area DeveloPing Plans to Less Effective More Effective Improve Facilities Publicizing Opportuni- Less Effective More Effective ties for Participation Fund Raising Less Effective More Effective Investigating Less Effective More Effective Criticism Making Staff Aware More Effective Less Effective of Area Customs and Traditions Recruitment of No Systematic Difference in Volunteers Effectiveness Provision of No Systematic Difference in Recreation Effectiveness Interpretation of No Systematic Difference in Recreation Needs and Effectiveness Desires Evaluation of No Systematic Difference in Program Effectiveness aIbid., p. 30. Table 9a 177 Participation in Decision—Making of Councils Level of Model Cities Outside Model Participation Area Cities Area Information Giving Extensive Extensive and Consulting Participation Participation Negotiation Little Extensive Participation Participation Joint Planning Little Extensive Participation Participation Shared Policy and Little Some Decision-Making Participation Participation Delegated Little Some Responsibility Participation Participation Neighborhood Control No Participation Little Participation 3Ibid., p. 31. CHAPTER X RECENT.AND FUTURE APPROACHES TO PLANNING RECREATEON IN THE INNER CITY Chapter IX concluded that generally, cities have made little progress in the way of improving the recreation- al facilities and services in inner-city areas. Hewever, there are exceptions to this generalization. The purpose of the first section of this Chapter is to present some of the more successful recreation planning techniques, as well as innovative ideas about recreation facilities and programs, which have been tried in urban areas. While these new'plan- ning approaches, facilities and programs are not free from many of the criticisms and problems cited throughout this thesis, they do represent attempts on the part of recreation officials to re-orient their planning methods and ideas to meet the changing times and to respond to people's needs and interests. Part II of this Chapter will then discuss some thoughts and proposals regarding what planning ap- proadhes can be taken in the future that will result in adequate, decent recreational facilities in inner city areas. 178 179 I. RECENT PLANNING APPROACHES There have been several notable developments in recreation planning for inner cities in recent years. Howe ever, it appears that the more outstanding results have been achieved wholly or in part through community involvement. Several cities have developed community participation pro- grams in inner city areas that have achieved considerable success. In addition, facilities and programs have been added which depart from the traditional playground or park idea. One of these ideas has been the vest-pocket park. Vest-Pocketggggkg Vest-pocket parks continue to be a much debated subject-~lauded by some, disparaged by others. However, one significant feature of vest-pocket parks is that their plan- ning, development, and construction have tended to involve community participation more so than such opportunities have been provided by traditional facilities. Another point is that they are an attempt to add much needed recreational Space in dense inner city areas, by utilizing what little available space exists--vacant lots, junkyards, etc. TWO such parks have been deve10ped in the Bedford- Stuyvesant area of Brooklyn, where unemployed local residents 180 were utilized to build the facilities under the supervision of an experienced builder. The benefits of the venture were numerous: 1. Economic feedback into the community via increased buying power of the previously unemployed. 2. Members of the community received training and skills. 3. The benefit of the facilities themselves. 4. The feeling on the part of community members 2 that they had helped to shape their own environment. 33 Here, the community participation element was very strong. Vest-pocket parks have been successfully developed in other areas of New Ybrk City, and across the country as well. Jackson County, Missouri is another example of the successes a vest-pocket park program can achieve.234 New‘Ybrk City has notably taken precedence in creating successful community participation programs—- 233 M. Paul Friedberg, ”Is This Our Utopia2”, University of Chicago: Center for Policy Study, 22, cit., pp. 57-58. 234 'William L. Landshl, "vest-Pocket Parks and a County", arks and Recreation, 7: 20-21, August, 1972. 181 from simply hiring playground and park staff from the sur- rounding neighborhood, to permitting citizens to plan entire facilities. In fact, a $70 million educational park in East New York is the first in the world to be planned, designed and built exactly the way the community wanted. The park, which includes an ice-skating rink, amphitheater, swimming pool, stores and a large community gym, will hopefully trans- form this now'blighted area into an area with renewed life and vitality. Virtually every group in East New'York was involved in the planning, "from white rifle clubs to Black Panthers, from neighborhood children to students from Brooklyn Oollege."235 Philadelphia has developed a Neighborhood Park Pro- gram.which is designed "to meet the needs of each area it serves."236 The program concentrates on low-income residen- tial areas, developing design guidelines and community in— volvement programs to suit the individual needs of each neighborhood. Eve Asner concluded: 5Bernard Bard, "A Park Grows in Brooklyn", New Ybrk Post, March 22, 1973, p. 13. 236Eve Asner, "Philadelphia's Neighborhood Park Program", Whitney North Seymour, Jr., ed., Small Urban Spaces, pp, cit., pp. 169-170. 182 When residents find their ideas seriously solicited and their opinions genuinely respected, they sometimes undergo a change of attitude that in itself may be far more important than any physical improvement of real estate. It seems then, that the positive impact upon inner city communities of the Neighborhood Park Program and similar programs results more from.the secondary benefits of plan- ning and developing the programs and facilities, rather than the actual facility or program itself. Community partici- pation can be a decisive factor in determining whether rec- reation facilities and programs become vital additions to inner city environments, or remain inadequate and unused. In addition to new planning approaches, cities have begun to experiment with new ideas in recreation programs and facilities. Utilizing the concept of multiple use, New'York City has tried several innovative ideas, one of them being the conversion of a community center into a "fun palace". This center includes a variety of facilities and activities young people enjoy, but do not generally find in the usual munici- pal recreation center--such as a juke box, a dance floor, swimming pool, club rooms, game rooms and sport courts.238 237Ibid., p. 183. 238National League of Cities, 92, cit., p. 36. 183 Another example of multiple use of facilities is a swimming pool-recreation complex in Bedford-Stuyvesant that was con- structed‘below'ground to permit its roof to be used as a children's playground. Similarly, Oakland, California has been experimenting with multiple purpose use of land, loca- ting a tot-lot under an existing freeway, and an l8-hole 239 golf course under the flight pattern at the local airport. Atlanta and Chicago have devised methods to utilize available vacant land in slum areas. Atlanta persuaded the owners of some 48 vacant lots, junk heaps, etc. in slum neighborhoods to lease their property for a token sum.for recreation purposes. Net only did this program provide recreational facilities, but it served to beautify these run-down areas as well. Along similar lines, Chicago sponsored the "alley-cop" project which encouraged closing off alleys and adjacent land, and making this space into recreation areas with hopscotch courts on the pavement and games on the walls. During the summer of 1968, 25 of these 240 facilities were created. Thus, it is apparent that many communities are making efforts to re-orient their programs and policies 2391bid., p. 37. 240 Ibide ' PP. 38-39e 184 away from the traditional and the standard, toward meeting the needs and desires of urban and inner city areas. II. FUTURE PLANNING APPROACHES In view of the criticisms set forth in Part II of this thesis, four considerations are important to any plan— ning approach used to plan recreation in inner city areas. They are: (l) a redefinition of goals and roles, (2) de- emphasis of standards, (3) increased citizen participation in determining recreation need, and (4) commitment of rec- reation officials and other administrators to actually bring about the above changes. deefinition of Goals and Roles It has been argued that goals currently used to plan recreation, embody facility and program requirements which are presumed to achieve the social and personal development goals of municipal recreation suppliers. Further, such goals do not necessarily reflect the goals or needs of inner city residents. It has also been stated.that, in the past, recreation suppliers and users have had well-defined roles-- suppliers have formulated where, what and when recreation programs and facilities will be provided, and users have had only the choice of whether they used them or not. 185 Hence, alternative planning approaches must seek to redefine such strict and narrow concepts. Goal formulation must be expanded to focus on the goals of inner city resi- dents, as they define them, not as judged by recreation officials. Roles then must necessarily be redefined also, thus eliminating the concept of the recreation official as the authoritarian expert on people's recreational needs, and the user as someone who must have his needs and inter- ests defined for him. Hopefully, such a re-orientation will also eliminate or at least minimize the possibilities that resources are wasted on unwanted and unused facilities. De-Emphasis of Standards The reliance upon recreation standards has been one of the primary reasons why recreation planning procedures have become rigid and unresponsive. Standards have circum- scribed exactly what a community recreation program should consist of, causing the virtual stagnation of planning con- cepts and procedures. Hence, standards should be de— emphasized and minimized. Each community should attempt to develop its own planning philosophy and procedures related to its own characteristics and the needs of its 186 members. Opportunities should be provided which allow for the maximization of choice. Some of the more recent plan- ning techniques devised have been discussed elsewhere in this paper. In addition, recreation planners and officials must evaluate standards in terms of the goals and assump- tions upon which they are based, noting that these goals and assumptions have not proven to be relevant in planning recreation for the inner city and its inhabitants. There is also need for further experimentation in this area. Increased Citizen Participation With the historic neglect of evaluating the needs and interests of inner city residents, utilizing citizen participation or other citizen input techniques becomes imperative. Of the many methods and formulas created to assess needs and interests that were reviewed by the author, citizen identification of their own needs seems to be at this point, the most effective method utilized. Benefits other than the provision of the facility itself are derived from the participation of inner city residents in planning and developing recreation programs and facilities for their 187 neighborhoods. They feel that they have contributed to the shaping of their environment, and that their ideas are considered important. Public Commitment This consideration is most important, since the achievement of all other changes is contingent upon the willingness of recreation officials to change their beliefs and priorities. If planners and officials continue to think‘ and plan as they have in the past, decisions will continue to reflect a middle class, suburban orientation, and rec- reation facilities and programs in inner city areas will continue to suffer as a result of this middle class orien- tation. Thus, the quality and condition of municipal recreation in the inner city can only be expected to further deteriorate. Positive action in lieu of mere lip service to the idea of change is essential. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summing up, the issues discussed and the views set forth in this Thesis have shown that inner city areas and their residents are currently underserved by municipal rec- reation facilities and programs in terms of the number of facilities available, the quality of those facilities pre- sent, and the availability of facilities and programs to meet their needs. This has occurred as a result of the utilization of inadequate recreation planning methodologies and concepts. Further, while there has been some evidence of change, for the most part, recreation departments continue to employ the same methods as used in the past. Perhaps essentially what the issues presented herein resolve into, is the question of whether public recreation agencies will continue in their social welfare role, or whether they will re-orient their facilities and programs to reflect the needs and desires of inner city residents as the residents themselves view them. 188 189 Facilities provided utilizing the social welfare approach have failed to provide adequate recreational opportunities in inner cities, and at the same time have achieved few, if any, social welfare goals. Such social problems as unemployment, family disorganization, segrega- tion, and racial conflict must be solved through a more direct approach than through recreation. Thus, municipal recreation seems to be achieving little more than dotting the inner city with recreation areas, with little concern for the value of these areas to intended recreation users. It seems then, that municipal recreation agencies must diverge from traditional recreation planning methodo- logies and conceptions, if they desire their facilities and programs to have an impact on inner city areas. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 190 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation. Recreation Research, Collected Papers from the National Conference on Recreation Research, November, 1965, Pennsylvania State University, Wash- ington: American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1966. Brown, J. Lee. glanning_for Recreation Areas and Facilities i9 Small_gpwns and Cities. Washington, D. C.: Federal Security Agency, Office of Community War Services, Recreation Division, 1945. Butler, George D. Introduction to Cbmmunitprecreation. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc., 1949. Carlson, Reynold E., Deppe, Theodore R., and MacLean,Janet R. Recreation in American Life. Belmont, California: wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1963. Clawson, Marion and Knetsch, Jack L. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press, 1966. Doell, Charles E. Elements of Park and Recreation Adminis- tration. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company, 1968. , and Fitzgerald, Gerald B. A Brief Histogy of Parks and Recreation in the United States. Chicago: Athletic Institute, 1954. Downs, Anthony. Who Are the Urban Poo; . New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1970. 191 192 Driver, B. L., ed. Elements of Outdoor Recreation Planning. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1970. Friedberg, M. Paul. Play and Interplay. New YOrk: The Macmillan co., 1970. Gans, Herbert J. People and Plans. New‘York: Basic Books, Inc., 1968. Goodman, William I. Principles and Practice of Urban Planning. washington D. C.: International City Mana- gers Association, 1968. Green, Arnold W. Recreation. Leisure; and Politics. New York: McGrawbHill Book Co., 1964. Guggenheimer, Elinor C. Planning for Parks and Recreation Needs in Urban Areas. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1969. Higbee, Edward. The §gueeze. New York: William Morrow and Co., 1960. Hjelte, George and Shivers, Jay S. gublic Administration of Recreational Services. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1972. Hunter David R. The Slums: Challenge and Response. New York: The Free Press, 1964. Kraus, Richard. ggblic Recreation and the Nggro. A Stugy of Participation and Administrative Practices. New York: Center for urban Education, 1968. . Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society. New Yerk: Meredith Corp., 1971. Larrabee, Eric, and Meyersohn, Rolf, eds. Mass Leisure. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958. Meyer, Harold D. and Brightbill, Charles K. Community Recreation; A Guide to Its Organization and Adminis- tration. Boston: D. C. Heath and Co., 1948. 193 Miller, Norman P. and Robinson, Duane M. ghe Leisure Agg; gts Challenge to Recreation. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1963. Myrdal, Gunnar. An American Dilemma. New'York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1944. Nash, Dr. Jay B. Philosophy of Recreation and Leisure. Dubuque, Iowa: wm. C. Brown Publishers, 1953. National Academy of Sciences. A Program for Outdoor Rec- reation Research. Washington D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1969. National Recreation Association. Planning Recreation Facilities. New YOrk: National Recreation Association, 1959. National Recreation Association. Reggeation and Park Year- bookI 1961. New York: National Recreation Association, 1961. National Recreation Association. Schedule for the Appraisp; of Community Recreation. New'YOrk: National Recreation Association, 1938. National Recreation Association, Standards for Neighborhood Areas and Facilities. New York: National Recreation Association, 1943. Nesbitt, John A., Brown, Paul D., and Murphy, James F.,eds. Recreation and Leisure Sgpyice for the Disadvantaged. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger, 1970. Seymour, Whitney North, Jr., ed. Small Urban Spaces. New York: New York University Press, 1969. Slavson, S. R. Recreation and the Total Personality. New Yerk: New York Association Press, 1946. Tupper, Margo. No Place to Play. Philadelphia: Chilton Books, 1966. University of Chicago: Center for Policy Study. The Social Impact of Urban Design. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971. 194 Urban Land Institute. The Communitnguilders Handbook. Washington, D. C.: Urban Land Institute, 1968. Williams, Wayne R. Recreation Places. New York: Reinhold Publishing Corp., 1958. Yukic, Thomas S. Fundamentals of Recreation. New'York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1963. Articles Andrews, Ralph J. "Department-Only vs. Community Recreation," Recreation, 58: 422, November, 1965. . "Planning Is Basic to Recreation PhilosOphy," Begrgggigp, 58: 59, February, 1965. Brightbill, Charles K. "A Look Into the Future," Recreation, 56: 12-13, January, 1963. Burch, William R., Jr. "The Social Circles of Leisure: Competing Explanations," Journal of Leisure Research, 1: 125-147, Spring, 1969. Carlson, Reynold E., Deppe. Theodore R., and MacLean.Janet R. "Guiding Principles for Program Planning," Recreation, 58: 40-41, January, 1965. Carter, Genevieve W. "Social Trends and Recreation Planning,“ Recreation, 58: 378-380, October, 1965. Clay, Nanine. "Miniparks--Diminishing Returns," Parks and Recreation, 6: 22-26, January, 1971. Davis, Arthur A. "The Open-Space Planning Process,“ Recrea- tion, 58: 400-402, October, 1965. Davis, Hugh C. "Recreation Planning in the Technological Age," Parks and Recreation, 3: 22-24, November, 1968. Dunn, Diana R. "1970 Urban Recreation and Park. . .Data Bench Mark Year," Parks_pnd Recreation, 6: 33-37, February, 1971. 195 Ellis, M. J. “Play and Its Theories Re-Examined," Parks and Recreation, 6: 51-55, August, 1971. Godbey, Geoffrey. "Recreation Advisory Councils and the Poor," Parks and Recreation, 7: 28-31, November, 1972. Goodale, Thomas L. "The Fallacy of Our Programs," Parks and Recreation, 2: 30-40, November, 1967. Gray, David E. ”The Case for Compensatory Recreation," Parks and Recreation, 4: 23-24, April, 1969. Hendon, William S. "'Determining Neighborhood Recreation Priorities': A Comment," Journal of Leisure Research, , 1: 189-191, Spring, 1969. ' Hutchison, Ira J., Jr. "Planning Where the Action 13,” Parks and Recreation, 3: 22-24, July, 1968. Kraus, Richard. "Recreation and Civil Disorder,“ Parks and Recreation, 3: 38-39, July, 1968. Krutilla, John V. and Knetsch, Jack L. "Outdoor Recreation Economics," Annals of the American Acggpgy, 389: 63-70, May, 1970. Landahl, William L. "Vest-Pocket Parks and a County," Parks and Recreation, 7: 20-21, August, 1972. Lutzin, Sidney G. "The Squeeze Outz" Recreation, 55: 390-391, Octdber, 1962. Lynch, Leslie. "Recreation Area Standards: The City," Recreation, 58: 20-21. Madison, James A. ”Urban Recreation Problems,” Parks and Recreation, 3: 14-16, December, 1968. Mittelstaedt, Arthur H., Ward, Richard G., and Lowery, Raymond F. ”An Appraisal of Recreation Standards," Parks and Recreation, 4: 20-22, July, 1969. "The NRPA Urban Plan," Parks and Recreation, 4: 47-49, November, 1969. 196 Pacific Sociological Review, 14: 243-368, July, 1971. Paige, Ronald F. ”The Problem of Responsibility for Recreation," Parks and Recreption, 4: 27-28, October, 1969. Parks, Joel D. "The Need Index in Park Planning," Parks and Recreation, 2: 28, March, 1967. "Parks and Recreation in the urban Crises," Parks and Rec- reation, 4: 35-46, June, 1969. Pendleton, Clarence M., Jr. "Penny's Pavilion," Parks and Recreation, 6: 42, May, 1971. Prendergast, Joseph. "What People Went for Recreation," Recreation, 56: 7-8, January, 1963. Prezioso, Sal J. "The Age of Unrest," Parks and Recreation, 3: 25-26, August, 1968. "Research Briefs: Behind the Times," Recreation, 56: 324, September, 1963. Stone, walter L. "A Sociologist Discusses the New Meaning of Recreative Use of Leisure," Parks and Recreation, 2: 22, April, 1967. Twardzik, Louis F. "Urban-Oriented Outdoor Recreation," Recpgation, 56: 470-473, December, 1963. Washington, Forrester B. "Recreational Facilities for the Negro," Annals of the American Academy, 140-141: 272-282, November, 1928. Weiner, Myron E. “A Systems Approach to Municipal Recreation," The Municipal Year Book, washington D. C.: International City Management Association, 1971, pp. 166-170. Wingo, Lowdon Jr. "Recreation and Urban Development," The Annals of the American Academy, 352: 130-140, March, 1964. 197 Plans, Repprts, Bulletins, Pamphlets; and Newspaper Articles Bard, Bernard. "A Park Grows in Brooklyn," New‘YOrk Post, March 22, 1973, p. 13. Batchelor, W. C. A Repgrt on A Stugy of Public Recreation in Columbus, Ohio, 1938. Buechner, Robert D., ed. National Park, Recreation and gppn Space Standards. washington, D. C.: National Recrea- tion and Park Association, June, 1971. California Committee on Planning for Recreation, Park Areas and Facilities. Guide for Planning Recreation Parks in california. Sacramento, California, 1956. Chappelle, Daniel E. "A Resource Economist Looks at Recrea- tion Research," Departments of Resource Development and Forestry, Michigan State University, n. d. Chicago Recreation Commission. Suggested Goals in Park and Recreation Planning. Chicago: Chicago Park District, September, 1959. Community Council of Greater New York and the New‘York Foundation. Urban Parks and Recreation: Challenge of the 1970's. New York: February, 1972. Conservation Foundation, conservation Foundation Letter, M_a_rch, 1972. Washington, D. C. Conservation Foundation, Conservation Foundation Letter, October, 1969. Washington, D. C. "Dead wood in Parks and Rec," Editorial, The Detroit Free Press, my 27' 1973' p. z-Be Metropolitan Planning Commission. Recreation Plan, Knoxville and Knox County, Tennessee, March, 1961. Mills, Raymond W. and Associates, Inc. Recreation Plan: B‘g Rapids Area. Big Rapids, 1967. 198 Murray, Roger D. and Twardzik, Louis F. Planning Community- Wide Recreation. COOperative Extension Bulletin e-684, Michigan State University, May, 1970. National League of Cities, Department of Urban Studies. Recreation in the Nation's Cities, Problems and Approaches. washington, D. C., December, 1968. National Recreation Association. Recreation Plan for gpledo, Ohio. Toledo: The Toledo Council of Social Agencies, November. 1945. Outdoor Recreation in Illinois. Department of Business and Economic Development, Springfield, Illinois, 1965. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Prepared by Frank, Lawrence K. et. a1. Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation, Study Report No. 22, Washington D. C.: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Prepared by Mueller, Eva, and Gurin, Gerald. Participation in Out- doop_Reg;eation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American Adults, Study Report No. 20, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review'Commission. Prepared by Ferriss, Abbott L. National Recreation Survgy, Study Report No. 19. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962. gppks and Recreation in the Urban Crises. Report from a Forum Convened by the National Recreation and Park Association, March 19-21, 1969. Washington, D. C.: National Recreation and Park Association, 1969. Pelegrino, Donald A. An Annotated Bibliography on Leisure. Council of Planning Libraries, Monticello, Illinois, December, 1972. Spear, Katherine B. Recreation Survey of St. Paul, Minnesota. St. Paul City Planning Board, 1934. 199 Woodard, Gloria G. A Recreation Development Plan for an Island community: Grosse Ile wanship, Michigan. Grosse Ile Planning Commission, 1972. Theses and pissertations Bartholomew, warren M. An Investigation of the Relationship Between the Range and Intensity of Interest in Recreg- tional Activities and Certain Environmental, Educational, and Personality Adjustment Factors of College Freshmen Mpg. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1953. Cited in Abstracts of Doctoral Dissertations, vol. XVI, State College, Pennsylvania, ‘- 1954. Gans, Herbert J. Recreation Planning for Leisure Behavior: A Goal-Oriented Approach. Unpublished Doctoral Disser- tation, University of Pennsylvania, 1957. Hewitt, Clinton Navarro. A Study of Social Influences On Recreation Design. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1965. 1x217. "I71111111111Willis