A Stilt? :DVV {5.3" 563C? Ad. ggLFJENCES GM. NC?“ "‘7! N :‘Zi‘ix’gN WWQN NAVARRO? HEW??? MICHiW HAW UNWERSM I?“ “N m. . LIBRARY WW ///I/// W W WW 9 {Q's/M” MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE SCHOOL OF URBAN PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE Comprehensive Problem A STUDY OF SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON RECREATIONAL DESIGN Submitted by Clinton Navarro Hewitt In Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Master of Landscape Architecture 1965 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to many gracious and generous people for- their assistance in making the final copy of this compre- hensive report possible I am especially grateful to Professor Richard Julin for his direction in setting up the problem and painstaking reading and suggestions throughout the project. Thanks go to Professor William Form of the Sociology Department for initial help with the survey questionnaires, the Department of Parks and Recreation of Lansing, Michi- gan for.information and advice concerning the problems of recreation in the city and to the many Parks and Recre- ation Departments across the country who responded to my- queries about recreation development. Lastly, may I mention my own personal gratitude to my wife for her patience, cooperation and encouragement. -iii- -1v- TABLE or CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................ 111 LIST or TABLES.......................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES......................................... ix INTRODUCTION............................................ 1 cmnm I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEMPORARY DEVEIIOPMENT OFRECRmTIONOOIOOOOOOQOOOCOOOOQOOOOO 8 Development of Recreation ConteMporary Life and Recreation The Landscape Architect and Recreation Characteristics of Facilities II. .THE PROBLEMOOOOOO0......O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 32 Development of Recreation Contemporary Life and Recreation The Landscape Architect and Recreation Characteristics of Facilities III. THE LANSING COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS...... 44 The Community ‘ The Neighborhoods - Recreation Areas and Facilities .v- CHAPTER Page IV. CITIES AND RECREATIONAL DESIGN................. 62 Type and Location of Recreational Facilities Development of New Areas Influence of Class of PeOple (Ethnic and/or Economic) Upon Design Changing Age Levels and Recreation Design Changing Groups and Design Adjustment Public Opinion Summary V. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE LIMITED ATTITUDE SURVEY OF'THREE LANSING NEIGHBORHOODS.......... 77 Ingham Park Neighborhood Pleasantview Park Neighborhood Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood Summary of Total Response Analysis and Evaluation of Occupation - Age and Recreation VI. APPLICATIONWDESIGNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 1-56 I User-Preference Studies Social Principles as Guides toward Design Designer's User-Preference Charts VII. IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIAL DATA IN A PARK DESIGN.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 175 Population Characteristics and Decisions Proposed Facilities The Design of the Site APPENDIESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 191 BIBLIOGRAPIIIY INDEXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0. 207 BIBLIOGRAMOOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.000.00... 208 10. 11, LIST OF TABLES Hobbies Reported by Reapondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Percentage) Question 5............ Ranking of Attractions to Parks by Respondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Percentage) Quescion 7...0.0.0.0...OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0... Percentage of Activity Preference and Non- preference of Respondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Question 12)...................... Opinions of Respondents in Ingham Park Neigh- borhood on Ways to Improve Recreation (Per- centage Response) Question 15................... Hobbies Reported by Respondents in Pleasant- view Park Neighborhood (Percentage) Question 5.. Ranking of Attractions to Parks by Respon- dents in Pleasantview Park Neighborhood (Per- centage) QueStion 7.00.00.00.000000000000.00.... Percentage of Activity Preference and Non- Preference in Pleasantviey Park Neighborhood (QueStion12)....OOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Opinions of Respondents in Pleasantview Park Neighborhood on Ways to Improve Recreation (Percentage Response) Question 15.............. Hobbies Reported by Respondents in Scott Park- Lincoln Center Neighborhood (Percentage) Quesrion 500.0.0.0...0.00.00.00.0000000000000O... Ranking of Attractions to Parks by Respon- dents in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neigh- borhood (Percentage) Question 7................. Percentage of Activity Preference and Non- Preference of Respondents in Scott Park - Lin- coln Center Neighborhood (Question 12).......... -vi- Page 85 89 93 95 100 104 106 109 114 120 122 Table 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. ‘3 Opinions of Respondents in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood on Ways to Im- prove Recreation (Percentage Response) Question 15..................................... Response of Areas on Outing Club Membership (Question A)...0.00.0000.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Hobbies Reported by Respondents for the Three Neighborhoods Studied by Percent (QueStion 5)....00000000000000000.000.000.000... Percentage of Areas Reporting_Method of Travel to Parks (Question 8).................... Percentage of Participation and Non-Partici- pation by Areas (Question 6).................... Ranking of Attractions to Parks by Total Response (Percentage) Question 7................ Percentage of Activity Preference and Non- Preference of Total Group Response (Quest- ion 12)...OOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Opinions of Respondents on the Adequacy of Facilities in Their Neighborhoods (Percentage) QueStion 14.0.000000000....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Total Response on Ways to Improve Recre- ation (Percentage) Question lS.................. Percentage Response of Areas to Taxes for Improving Recreation (Question 16).............. Ranking of Attractions According to Occu- pational Groups (First four preferences) QueStion 7.0.0.000...O.00.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO -vii- Page 123 130 131 134 136 138 139 141 142 144 146 Table 23. 24. 25. 26. -viii- Page Ranking of Preferred Activities According to Occupational Groups (First four preferences) Question IZOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQOOO 146 Ranking of Time of Visit According to Occu- pational Groups (First two preferences) QueSti-onsgand 10.0...O.OOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 148 Ranking of Preferred Activity, Attraction to Parks and Hobbies by Age Groups of the Re- sponding Neighborhoods (First four preferences) Questions 5,7 and 12............................ 151 Ranking of Time of Park Visits by Responding Age Groups (First and second ranking) QueStionsgand 10.O00.9.0.0...00.000.000.900... 153 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 10. 11. 12. City of Lansing Department of Parks and Recreation Map Map of Ingham Park Neighborhood................. Map of Pleasantview Park Neighborhood........... Map of Scott Park - Lincoln Center , NeighborhoodOOOOOOO0.00.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Age Distribution of Respondents and Their Children in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Quest- ion 1)....000000000COOOOOOOOOOOO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Occupational Groups of the Respondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Question 6)........... Distribution of Membership in Organizations of Respondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (QUEStion 7)....00000000000IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Length of Trip to the Park by Time Periods for Respondents of Ingham Park Neighborhood (meetion 8)....0000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Time of Park.Visits by Respondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Question 9).................. Distribution of Park Usage by Number of Visits by Respondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Question 10)....000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.0.00.0 Response of Ingham Park Residents on Reasons for not Participating and/or Visiting Parks (Quescion 11)....00000O.OOOOOOICOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Age Distribution of Respondents and Their Children in Pleasantview Park Neighborhood (Quesrion 1)....0...’00.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO -ix- Page 40 51 55 58 81 82 84 87 88 90 92 96 Figure 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23, Occupational Groups of the Respondents in Pleasantview Park Neighborhood (Question 2)..... Distribution of Membership in Organizations of Respondents in Pleasantview Park Neigh- borhOOd (QueStion 3).eaeeaeeaeeaaeoeeeeeaeeeoooa Length of Trip to the Park by Time Periods for Respondents of Pleasantview Park Neigh- borhood (Question 8)......;..................... Time of Park.Visits by Respondents in Pleasant- View Park NeighborhOOd (queStion 9)aaaeoeaeoooeo Distribution of Park Usage by Number of Visits by Respondents in Pleasantview Park Neighborhood (question 10)....0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO Response of Pleasantview Park Residents on Reasons for not Participating and/or‘Visit- ing Parks (Question 11)......................... Age Distribution of Respondents and Their Children in Scott Park - Lincoln Center NeighborhOOd (Qtlestion1)....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.... Occupational Groups of the Respondent in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood (QueStion 2)...0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0. Distribution of Membership in Organizations of Respondents in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood (Question 3)................ Length of Trip to the Park by Time Periods for the Respondents of Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood (Question 8)................ Time of Park.Visits by Respondents in Scott Park - Lincoln CenterNeighborhood (Quests ion 9)....0000000000OOOOOOOO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Page 98 99 102 103 105 107 110 112 113 116 118 Figure 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 3o. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35, 36. Distribution of Park Usage by Number of Visits by Respondents in Scott Park - Lin- coln Center Neighborhood (Question lO).......... Response of Scott Park - Lincoln Center Residents on Reasons for not Participating and/or Visiting Parks (Question 11)............. Age Distribution of Respondents and Their Children from Three Neighborhoods Under Investigation (Question 1)...................... Distribution of Occupational Groups of Total Response (Question 2)........................... Distribution of Membership in Organizations of Respondents in Three Neighborhoods StUdi-ed (Question 3)....00000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Total Response of Length of Trip to the Park by Time Periods (Question 8).................... Time of Park Visits for the Total Response (Q‘JeStion 9)....00000O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Distribution of Park Usage by Number of Visits by all Respondents (Question 10)......... Total Response of Neighborhoods on Reasons for not Participating and/or Visiting Parks (QueSti-on11)....000000000000000000..0.... User-Preference Charts I and II................. User-Preference Chart III..........-............ User-Preference Chart IV........................ SOCial Data DiagramOOOO.00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO -xi- Page 119 121 126 127 129 133 135 137 140 168 169 170 177 -xii— Figure Page 37. Site Analysis Diagram........................... 188 38. Site Structure Diagram.......................... 189 39. Proposed Development for Ingham Park............ 190 INTRODUCTION One of the most important ingredients of recreational design is people; however, the implications of the relation- ship of human activity to physical design has been given very little attention. Recreational design should begin with the study of man. In theory, the designer has always been concerned with man and the society within which he moves, yet, there are eviden- ces that this responsibility has been somewhat forgotten, cast aside or, merely, paid lip service. The concern of this study is an understanding of the attitudes and desires of people and their relationship to the development of the recre- ational environment. There is need to study man with all of his particular social, personal and political requirements and an affir- mation of the social basis of recreational development. The designer must understand the basic elements of the social life of the people involved, in order that his contribution Will be of value. The social aspect should be a prime mover in physical design deve10pment and should reflect the desires -1- and ideas of the people within the area. There is a great tendency among designers to tell people what they need instead of making an effort to find out what they desire and need. Recognition of the humanistic values of recreational de- sign may not meet with unanimous agreement, but many experts in the field of recreation agree that there is a tremendous need for a more conscientious approach to design from a social standpoint. We are living in an age of science. Developments during the past century have brought about as many changes in the life of man as in all previous centuries. There are few areas of man's knowledge today that are not under scientific obser- vation. However, little effort has been made toward applying the scientific approach to the development of recreational designs. Attempts at discovering peOple's recreational in- terests, attitudes and habits, so essential to meeting their needs intelligently, have been given too little attention. Many recreation agencies have not been concerned with user-behavior research and, consequently, have little evi- dence of the attitudes and interests of the public they serve. Often, studies performed by public agencies are conducted by personnel, tangentially, to their major duties. This situation exist because these agencies apparently are more concerned with how the user ought to behave than how he actually be- haves.1 Statistics on attendance at almost any recreation area indicates that recreation participation is steadily rising, yet research, especially, in the area of design is almost non-existent. There are several reasons for this lack of research into the problems of creating satisfactory designs for the development of recreational spaces. Many profess- ions do not recognize it as a respectable field for scien- tific inquiry. Many decisions, relative to recreation de- signs, are based upon personal experience and are not subject to critical research. Often the practitioner, though he knows a lot about the subject, may generalize too widely and freely. This is an unfortunate situation, because the prac- titioner is conditioned by his own experience. The lack of competition for space to develop recreational facilities dur- ing the early period of this country's history did not focus attention on the necessity for research in recreation. How- ever, the severity of this problem today and in the future 1 Herbert J. Cans, Recreation Planning for Leisure Behavior: A Goal-Oriented Approach, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1957, p. 197 Z 4 demands research into new concepts and philosophies that will gain universal respect.2 More attention must be given to a sociological approach to the design of recreational spaces. The interplay of ge- ography, topography and the manifold aSpects of human behavior with their individualizing effects should condition the per- ceptible form. This approach would result in more meaning- ful designs. The answers to various questions must be found. What numbers and kinds of peOple will use a particular recre- ation facility? What are their means of arrival and depart- ure? What activities will they pursue and their reactions? How can design help or impede these processes? Design must be based upon knowledge of people and developed for their patterns of behavior and not a grandiose vision of a possibly more dignified but only imagined behavior. The design of areas and facilities must be developed with regard to social as well as physical and economic fac- tors. The collection and analysis of essential data con- cerning the locality for which development plans are being made usually includes social characteristics such as, num- 2 Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Outdoor Recreation Research - Some Concepts and Suggested Areas of Study, Resources For the Future, Inc., (Washington: October 1963) p. 251 5 her, distribution, density and composition of its population, their needs and interest. Recreational designs serving the needs of all segments of the population can be achieved only as decisions are based upon findings of such investigations. The designer should become thoroughly acquainted with the needs and interests of the people he is serving. Understand- ing what motivates the interest of people must be carefully considered in developing a design scheme that will provide a wide range of facilities to meet a wide range of human needs. The value and the satisfaction people gain from partici- pating in recreation are influenced by the environment in which they pursue these activities. Knowledgeable evidence of what people desire equips the designer to create an en- vironment that will enrich the individual's life and pro- vide forms of activity that will result in a pleasurable exPerience. The designer must make judgements about how people would behave under different and unknown circumstances. For example, how will people use a new and distinctive facility or an old one in a novel location. Therefore, consideration must be given to user characteristics and use patterns in relation to What is being developed. 6 It must be clearly understood that this thesis does not imply that design should be primarily functional. A good theory of design must give consideration to form as well as function. Therefore, it has both a utilitarian and an aes- thetic aspect. I The Landscape Architect, especially, cannot avoid the problem of producing form. Every development involving the design of the landscape, whether it is done knowingly or un- knowingly, produce an arrangement of forms, colors and text- ures in space. The task of the designer is to organize spaces (in this case, recreational spaces) artistically and practically, in a pleasing relationship that will produce the maximum satis- faction for the greatest number of users. This, also, im- plies that the designer must be socially-conscious of the world about him. The accomplishment of this pleasing arrangement may be acquired through a systematic examination of the social and aesthetic elements and the application of various principles (Unity, balance, scale, emphasis, rhythm and repetition) which governs all of the fine arts. It is hoped that this study will focus attention upon 7 the necessity of gathering social data, scientifically ana- lyzing and interpreting the findings and applying this knowl- edge toward making design decisions. This study might add knowledge to the methods and techniques employed by future researches concerned with making neighborhood studies. It could, also, be the impetus for further studies, of a more complex nature, of neighborhood attitudes and interests and the application of the findings toward creating better designs. The major objectives of this study are to (l) investigate and identify user-preference, relative to recreation, (2) to discuss the difference in attitudes of various groups toward participation, (3) to develop a methodology for utilizing the findings in resolving designs and (4) the application of the findings in creating a development plan. CHAPTER I HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND CONTEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION Many current writers on leisure sometimes imply that leisure and recreation are recent developments. A review of past historical periods and cultures reveal that in all societies recreation appeared sometime during the day in one form or another. RECREATION IN THE PAST Evidences of different forms of recreation have been left by the earliest known races of people. Egyptian reliefs indicate that man, during pro-classic times, engaged in a variety of sports and pastimes; such as, hunting with bow and arrow, spearing fish or knocking down birds with stones. Later the Egyptians participated in wrestling and warolike Spozts such as, fencing and boxing. During the classic period, games, athletics and cultural arts were held in high esteem by the Greeks. The early Olym- g 1 Herbert J. Gans, op: cit., p. 20 -8- pic games, considered the most celebrated of all Grecian festivals, included such activities as boxing, wrestling, foot races, chariot racing and drama. The people of ancient Rome were noted for their extravagant games: The activities at these games included gladiator contests, circuses, fights between beast and humans and equestrian events: The Greeks and the Romans engaged in similar activities such as, cock- fighting, gambling with knucklebones and various board games. The play tradition was maintained during the Middle Ages through the idea of chivalry and the song and story of the minstrel. The recreation of the peasant was related to his occupation. The nobleman's recreational pursuits were in the form of war-like battles engaged in during tournaments. The arts and sports were very popular during the Renaissance peri- ad. The people during this period attended fairs, banquets, operas and the theater? Many adults spent their leisure time hunting and gardening.2 The advancement of recreation was aided, greatly, by many educators and philosophers: They advocated recreation 2 Wayne R. Williams, Recreation Places, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, (New York: I958) pp. 14-22 10 as having social and educational value and this support stifled the attempts of groups wanting to suppress recreation. Recreation during the Colonial Period consisting of quilt- ing and cornhusking parties, knitting bees and similar forms which served the dual purpose of entertainment with practical ends were characteristics of the New England Area. Other colonies had a more liberal attitude toward recreation and the peOple engaged in a variety of sports and amusements. Card games, fishing, hunting, bowling on the green, cockfights and horseracing were very popular:’ Many of these activities were restricted to the wealthy, but occasionally everyone partici- 3 Even in situations where pated in some form of recreation. little distinction was made between.work and leisure periods, some leisure activity was interspersed through the work: The interruptions of work for observation or participation during religious or other sacred occasions served leisure functions.4 The development of recreation followed this same pattern during the early half of the 1800’s, though still looked at 3 Ibid.. pp. 23-26 4 Florence Stumpf and Frederick W. Cozens, "Some Aspects of the Role of Games, Sports and Recreational Activities in the CUIture of Mbdern Primitive PeOples", Research Quarterly, (October, 1947) pp. 207-209. 11 with disapproval by the puritans and frowned upon by many important leadera.5 However, recreation changed considerably 'during the latter half of the nineteenth century. The Indus- trial Age brought about rapid changes in recreation develop- ment. The needs of people for relief from the tensions of everyday life plus the increase in leisure time brought on by the advent of the machine stimulated the growth and devel- opment of recreational facilities. Norman P. Miller and Duane M. Robinson6 summarized the early development of recreation in America: "Recreation in early United States history was influenced by conflict between puritanism and the indigenous pioneer concept of democratic recreation freedom. The result was culturally unsophisticated, informal recreation, ranging from genteel pursuits of the rural and urban wealthy to rustic community activities of rural and pioneer folk.and weekend commercial amusements of urban working classes.“ The recreation movement in the United States is con- 81dered to have had its beginning with the opening of the sand Gardens in Boston in 1885.7 Recreational developments 3_ Charles R. Brightbill and Harold D. Meyer, Recreation Text and Readings,Prentice-Hall, (New York: 1953) p. 95 6 Norman P. Miller and Duane M. Robinson, W Its Challenge to Recreatiog, Wadsworth Publishing Company, In¢., (California, 1963) p. 89 7 Martin H. and Esther s. Neumeyer, Leisure and Recreation, The Ronald Press Company, (New York: 1948) 3rd Edition, p. 77 12 in New York and Chicago during the 1890's furthered the cause of recreation. Neumeyer8 listed the stages of the recreation movement .. * in America developed by Clarence E. Rainwater and Harold D. Meyer and Charles K. Brightbill** as follows: 1. Sand Garden 1885-1895 2, Model Playground 1895-1900 3, Small Park 1900-1905 4, Recreation Center 1905-1912 5, Civic Art and Welfare 1912-1915 6. Neighborhood Organization 1915-1918 7, Community Service 1918-1922 . 8, Decade of Expansion 1920-1930 9. Period of Depression or , "made work” 1930-1941 10, World War II Period 1941-1945 ll.’ After World War II Period 1946 to the Present The‘Twentieth Century was the beginning of the most significant changes in the development of recreation in America. The period 1900 to 1920 was characterized by the 4 development of playgrounds in Chicago, the birth of the PLayground and Recreation Association (This organization contributed significant leadership to community recreation), .. k 8 Ibid,, pp. 77-78. *Rainwater developed the first seven stages. **Meyer and Brightbill develOped the final four stages. 13 the usage of a school building as the first community center in New York, the marked expansion in the camping movement and the influence of World War I. ‘World War I, whidh caused an increase in population in industrial communities and those adjacent to military in- stallations created a necessity for more adequate programs of recreation and better control of commercial amusements. The problem of providing adequate facilities and opportuni- ties became one of national concern and resulted in the development of the War Camp Community Service. The purpose of this organization was to conduct activities in communi- ties adjacent to military camps.. Recreation during the period of 1920 to 1930 was characterized by tremendous expansion and achievements. . Many significant developments took place during this period. Some of these important developments were: (1) Increased mobility giving rise to vacation travel, (2) The growth of broadcasting and motion pictures, (3) Increase participation in sports, (4) The expansion in municipal park acreage, (5) The tremendous growth of commercial forms of amusements, (6) The development of county park systems and (7) The vigorous movement of schools to serve the recreational needs of the 14 community. Along with these changes came changes in the recreational interest and habits of people: The concept of recreation.was expanded during this period and the nation accepted the importance of leisure-time activities to every- day life: The depression of the 1930's and the ultimate unemploy- ment problem affected the recreation movement. The public's interest in recreation turned from the more expensive forms to those facilities provided by local recreation and park departments. This unexpected demand for recreation resulted in rapid changes in the type of facilities and programs for- merly offered.' These departments were forced to reduce their budgets and at the same time attempt to meet the mounting needs of the people.’9 These needs were met largely through the volunteer help of many citizens and the use of emergency funds for recreation Purposes. Many community programs, that would otherwise have been discontinued, were saved by the financial resources made available by emergency relief agencies. The effect of the depression on the home activities of 9 fiHarold D.‘Meyer and Charles K. Brightbill, Community * Recreation, D.C. Heath and Company, (Boston: 1948), pp. 7-21. 15 the public resulted in the selection of activities that did not involve expensive equipment: More emphasis was placed on passive type of recreation, such as reading, listening to the radio and hobbies. During this period, recreation played an important role in sustaining morale and providing enjoy- 4; ment for people and gained more respect as a necessary as- pect of everyday living} The depression.was closely followed by this country's entrance into World War II and this resulted in a decline in the participation of normal recreation pursuits. The Armed Forces took recreation to war with them and local communities made adjustments in the provision of facilities to meet the changing needs of the public. The important role that recreation played in the life of the soldier has heen reported by many writers and recreation became an essen- tial force in the pattern of living of the "citizen at home”. Recreation took on significance after World War II. Returning veterans had a new respect for recreation and its value to everyday life.’ The Armed Forces expanded their recre- ation programs and Federal, State and Local departments planned to expand their programs to meet the continued interest of the PUblic. Hospitals improved their programs to provide necessary 16 facilities for hospitalized veterans. This period saw the construction of many war memorials that, also, had functional use.* Following World War II, the recreation movement con- tinued to grow and during the second half of the Twentieth Century gained its greatest height of development? The movement since 1950 has been characterized by an emphasis on trained personnel, the concentration on research,fithe par- ticipation of Federal, State and Local governments in meeting the needs and continued interest of the public in using recre- ational facilities.o CONTEMPORARY LIFE AND RECREATION The historical review on the previous pages emphasizes the brief but tremendous growth of public recreation in the United States. .It was noted that the beginning of the fac- tDry-system gave rise to the distinction between leisure and Workn Thus the heginning of modern leisure and recreation. Started with the beginning of the urban-industrial society} ;Many of these memorials were the dedication of parks, play- Srounds and recreation buildings honoring the dead, as well 33 Providing opportunities for recreating. 10 ‘Martin‘H. and Esther S. Neumeyer, op,c t3, pp. 89- 97 l7 _ It was not until the economic and political structure of the country offered sufficient non-working hours to the factory and service worker, which they could devote to recreation, did all of the citizens reapthe benefits of recreation. Prior to this time, these workers devoted the majority of their non-working hours to personal maintenance and rest for the next day's work: In these rapidly developing areas, caused by the ex- pansion of the urban-industrial population, officials in positions of authority gave little concern to the allocation of land for recreational activities.‘ Though there were some commercial parks developed to meet the needs of the populace, the number of public outdoor facilities provided were very ll scant. -Commercial recreation suppliers, interested in making a profit, met the demands for out-of-the-house recreational facilities. These commercial agencies, also, met the increas- ing demands of the public for a new form of leisure-behavior ”travel".‘ This new form of recreation resulted from increased- Productivity and incomes and the development of the automobile. if _Charles Doell_and Gerald Fitzgerald, A Short Histo of' Parks and Recreation in the United States, (Chicago: 1954), The Athletic Institute, pp. 12-23. 18 This, along with the improvement and expansion of highways, encouraged more trips for recreational purposes. Herbert Gans described the modern development of pub- lic recreation in America as arising from the demands of two kinds of activities - those where the demand was small and those which.were too costly for commercial suppliers (Those requiring large amounts of expensive land with little prof- it).12 ~ Major economic and social changes in this country in the past twenty years have materially changed the role of recreation in our everyday lives. Probably, the most impor- tant development has-been the increase in life expectancy and the fact that the improved health of people of all ages enable them to live a more full and active life. This in- crease in life expectancy is reflected in the growth of the Papulation in America: From 1950 to 1960 the population of the United States reached almost 180 million, an increase of 19 percent .13 I27 Herbert J. Cans, Recreation Planning for Leisure Behavior; A.GOa1-Oriented Approach, UnpubliShed Doctoral Thesis, Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, 1957, p3 47. 13 'Trt-Count ”Regional-Plannin 'COmmission, ”Outdoor Recre- ation - An Inventory", (Lansing, Michigan: 1962), p. 2. 19 Technological and industrial advancements have resulted in increased productivity and more time left for leisure pursuits. During the period 1920 to 1960, the average hours worked per week decreased from 50 hours to 39 hours.14 Another benefit of these developments has been higher incomes providing the means for the consumption of physical goods and services. A report on leisure spending in the publication, RECRE- ATION, showed that a comparison of expenditures during the period 1955 to 1960 indicated that one-twelfth of the total income was spent on recreation activities and the amount spent for books, foreign travel,-theater§ opera, sports par- ticipation and sports equipment were.considerably higher for the five year period than the increases recorded for radio, television, magazines, movies and spectator sports.15 The American Public is now entering a new era of abun- dant leisure time. Steady advancements in the American in- dustry promises further decreases in the hours of labor and 14 Ibid,, p.2 15 "Leisure Spending", Recreation, (1961), LIV, Number 8, P. 429 20 the mechanization of the urbanized home requires less hours devoted to accomplishing the many duties in the home. Suppliers of recreation face the problem of channeling this increase in leisure time into areas that will be both an asset to the individual as well as to society. The majority of this responsibility must be shouldered by pub- lic recreation agencies who must show the way to wholesome and satisfying uses of this new leisure. The important role recreation plays in the physical, mental, social and spiritual health of people and its con- tribution toward the well-being and happiness of the indi- vidual is generally accepted today. This attitude toward recreation had a tremendous affect upon the concept of the recreation program. The program was expanded to include Opportunities for all ages and sexes. Year-round indoor and outdoor programs were developed. Opportunities for both the urban and the rural communities were offered and the total spectrum of activities ranged from the physical as- pect of games and sports to the creative, aesthetic and cultural aspect. Many community institutions and citizen groups have the responsibility of providing recreation for the modern society. 21 The fact that more people pursue recreational activities around the home than anywhere else makes it the chief recre- ation center in the country. However, the limitations im- posed by the home requires that other agencies such as the church, voluntary youth-serving agencies (Boy and Girl Scouts, YMCA, YWCA, Campfire girls and others), private and commercial agencies and tax supported governmental agencies contribute their services toward meeting the public's demands. Today, recreation is a major concern of the government - Federal, State and Local. A variety of governmental agen- cies are making important contributions. The Agricultural Extension Service, National Park Service, Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and many other agencies and bureaus Provide recreation service for the general public.16 Economic and social developments in this country have §1so created problems for those responsible for providing recreational opportunities. The rapid expansion of housing, industrial and commercial developments have created many pro- blems. The serious losses of much needed park land to ex- Panded highway programs required prompt action to preserve 15 The InterngtionalCity Managers" Association, Municipal Escreation Administration, Fourth Edition, (Chicago: 1960) pp. 13‘21. 22 land suitable for recreation development. A satisfactory solution to this problem has not yet been made. The decisions of the Supreme Court, relative to inte- gration, have influenced the programs of many local agencies, especially, in the South. Some communities have accepted the decisions and are now providing opportunities for all of its citizens, regardless of race, creed or color. Other communities, refusing to make the adjustment, have disposed of recreation areas. This problem, until solved, will seri- ously impair the progress of recreation development in the South. . Recreation is not a stable institution, but a contin- ually changing process. This process is necessary to meet the ever changing needs and interests of people. The chal- lenge and opportunity that it offers for a richer and more satisfying life for every citizen must be met by those charged with the responsibility of providing areas and facilities for recreational pursuits. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND RECREATION Landscape Architects have played an important role in the development of parks and recreation in America. Eckbo 23 considered the beginning of the American Park Movement with the appointment of Frederick Law Olmsted, Senior as Archi- tect-in-Chief for the new Central Park in New York City in 1858.17 Mumford described Olmsted°s contribution as the intro- duction of the cultivated landscape as a means of urban recreation and that in 1870 Olmsted laid the ground work for the development of a complete park program on social and hygienic basis.18 Probably, Olmsted's most important contribution was his ability to relate the form and function of the land to the physical and social needs of its inhabitants. He felt that the physical development of the land should meet the basic social needs of the people and that design should be directly related to the social problems of the city or nation. Regarding completed projects, Olmsted emphasized the necessity of making periodic checks on developments to ascer- tain whether they were effectively meeting the needs of new 17 Garrett Eckbo, Landscape For Living, F.W. Dodge Cor- POration, (1950), p. 26. 13 Lewis Mumford, Brown Decadgs, A Studx of the Arts in A‘merica 1865-1895, Dover Publications, Inc., (New York: 1955), p. 90 24 and changing situations (social and physical).19 Charles Eliot Jr., another Landscape Architect, was main- ly responsible for the development of the fippp,Metropolitan Park Commission in Boston, Massachuetts. His advocacy of the setting aside of parks and open spaces resulted in the devel- opment of National and State Parks and, greatly, expanded the Park Movement.20 The Park Movement and the Recreation Movement are, act- ually, inseparable and their development have been, more or less, parallel. Only the emphasis upon the major elements of each has differed. The Park Movement was concerned with passive relaxation, while the Recreation Movement was con- cerned with organized active pursuits. The demands of the public in the early 1900's for more active play, practically merged the concepts of parks and recreation. This resulted in a change in the design of parks and recreational spaces. I6; Landscapp Architecture, ”Parks in a Democratic Society" by'Albert Fein, American Society of Landscape Architecture, (Washington, D.C.: October, 1964), pp. 24-31. 20 Charles E. Doell and Gerald B. Fitzgerald, A Brief His- togp of Parks and Recreation in the United States, The Athletic Institute, (Chicago: 1954), p. 33. 25 Though Olmsted and Eliot realized that the main function of parks was for the recreation of people, their advocacy of passive and semi-active types of recreation required a change in this concept to satisfy the public°s demands. Landscape Architects involved in design during the early 1900's knew that the concepts of Olmsted and Eliot were fun- damentally sound and were of even greater importance, but they, also, realized that changing times brought about changes in the life needs of people. Therefore, they expanded the con- cept of park development to include a wide range of active forms of recreation. It should be pointed out, however, that much difficulty was incurred in blending the requirements for active recreation into the "country park" of the Olmsted era. Jens Jensen devoted a great deal of his energy during the turn of the Twentieth Century to the development of large Parks. The Cook County Forest Preserve District (Chicago) was largely developed through his leadership. His efforts and others led to the preservation of considerable areas of native landscape for purposes of education, health and recre- 21 8tion. 21 Ibid., p. 38. 26 Other Landscape Architects of note during the early part of the Twentieth Century were Nathan F. Barrett, Harold Hill Blossom, Sid J. Hare, Samuel Parsons Jr., J.C. Olmsted and O.C. Simonds.22 These men were distinguished person in their time. Not only were they highly qualified professionals, but they were very active in civic affairs and, in many cases, were able to establish major park systems in large cities. During the 1930°s, Landscape Architects made tremendous contributions to the development of national parks, state parks and regional recreation systems. However, on a local level only a few contributions were made to park and recre- ation development. The emphasis had shifted toward satis- fying social needs through recreation activities rather than facilities which was more the interest of the Landscape Archi- tect. The 1940's up to the 195093 is characterized by the Landscape Architect retreating, somewhat, from publicly- Oriented type of activity toward working at a smaller scale. NO‘longer did the Landscape Architect dominate the field of Park and recreation development as he did during the first 22 Karl Lohmann, Landscape Architecture in the Modern World, 'rhe Garrard Press, (Champaign, Illinois: 1941), p. 18. 27 quarter of the Twentieth Century.23 Contemporary Landscape Architects play an increasingly important role in the development of recreation areas. The designs for recreational development of most areas today, especially, major projects are prepared by Landscape Archi- tects who collaborates with other specialists (Architects, Recreation Experts, Engineers, Planners, etc.) in making his decisions. These practitioners have not forsaken the broad principles established by the early designers, but have en- larged them to meet the needs of a changing and expanding society. The Directors of some recreation agencies and many park departments, today, are trained Landscape Architects? and their staffs, especially park departments, are usually manned by Landscape Architects. The challenges of recreation in the Twentieth Century, 23 Landscape Architecture, "Recreation and the Landscape Architect - 19650 by Francis Violich, Volume XEVIII, No. 1, (Washington, D.C. October; 1957) American Society of Land- scape Architecture, p. 14-15. *The response of many of the questionnaires sent to Parks and Recreation Departments by the author were prepared by Land- scape Architects serving in the capacity of Heads of Depart- ments. 28 to some degree, are being met by professional Landscape Archi- tects and other Specialists concerned with providing adequate opportunities for all people to recreate. smug: g pugs g: :AQILITIES A variety of recreation facilities have been developed to meet the expanding demands of the varied recreational in- terests, habits and desires of people. Many cities, recog- nizing the importance of a well-balanced recreation system, attempt to meet these demands by providing parks, playgrounds and numerous other facilities. Athletic fields, tennis courts, swimming pools and picnic areas are provided for public use. An attempt will be made in this section to give a brief deb scription of the general character of some of these areas, and facilities as found in the modern society. 5 A Playgrounds Play grounds provide protected outdoor recreation areas for children of pre-school and school age. The requirement of an area for the preaschool age, often re» ferred to as "totlots" or "Block Playgrounds", is a location in the interior of a large city block of approximately 2,500 tO 5,000 square feet. The most appropriate location for play- grounds serving children of school age is adjacent to the pub- 29 lic schools. The size varies according to the population and area served. However, five acres are generally acceptable as a minimum for the playground area and five acres for the school building and related uses. The service radius of this type of facility should not exceed a half mile.24 2555;, There are various classifications of parks de- pending upon size, location and purpose. The Large Parks are designed to serve both the community and environs. Their principal purposes normally are to preserve natural scenery or some outstanding feature and to provide a wholesome environu ment that will enable the citizen to pursue a variety of recre- ation activities. It usually requires the development of 100 or more acres to adequately provide facilities and to create the desired effect. The Neighborhood Park, seldom less than two acres and in some cases as large as fifty acres is gen» erally developed with the intention of providing an area for Quiet, informal type recreational pursuits. They are usually an attractive asset to the neighborhood. In many cases, facila ities for children and young adults are added. Often these Parks are developed in relationship to neighborhood schools 24 The International City Managers' Association, “Municipal Recreation.Administration", Fourth Edition, (Chicago: 1960), P. 63. 30 and playgrounds. This situation is referred to as the Neigh- borhood Park-School Concept. Under this agreement, the Board of Education and the Parks and Recreation Department c00perate9 in the acquisition of land and the development of areas and facilities. The existence of this relationship enables the schools, often reluctant in many cases, to make a contribution to the recreation program.25 The Municipal Park or Local Park is an area of open space with protected lawn areas, shade trees and benches. It is often located to take advantage of some special natural feature or dedicated in honor of some building site or famous person in the city's history. It is generally an area or relaxation and passive recreation with some facili- ties for active recreation, normally, pursued by young chil« dren.26 'Playfields and Athletic Fields Facilities of this nature provide large size active play spaces for diversified activities of young people and adults. They range in size 25 Partici ants in National Facilities Conference "Plannin Facnities for Health, Physical Education and Recreation“, The‘Athletic Institute, Inc., (Chicago: 1956): Revised Edition, p. 4 O 26 Philadelphia City Planning Commission, "The Plan for Recre- ation and Community Facilities from the Comprehensive Plan", (Philadelphia: 1960), p. 20. 31 from 15 to 20 acres or larger and serve a population within a range of l/2 to 1 mile radius. These facilities are often developed adjacent to Junior and Senior High Schools and many times this arrangement is referred to as a CommunityuPark School. When the development is related to a senior high school the functions are quite similar except the service radius covers a larger area.27 Other Facilities Areas devoted to a specific active» type of recreation are sometimes developed in the above men- tioned areas, but the present trend is toward the develop« ment of these special type of facilities in special areas. Such facilities as golf courses, reservations, camps, bath- ing beaches, swimming pools and sports stadiums fall under this classification. Because of the relationship between Space requirements and location, precise standards for these areas are_not practical.28 27 Participants in National Facilities Conference, op. cit., P. 5. ' 28 'The International City Managers' Association, 22;.23Ee» p. 64. CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM STATEMENT QF THE PROBLEM The problem is an investigation of the influences of social factors upon recreational design and the application of the data collected toward a design of one sample area. It includes a study of the recreational interests of the people in three selected neighborhoods in the city of Lan- sing and their opinion of existing recreational facilities. A brief analysis is, also, made of facilities in each of the parks serving the neighborhoods. This was accomplished through a recreation survey in the form of a questionnaire designed to obtain a qualitative analysis of the interest and attitude of the people toward recreation and a field check of the recreation facilities in each of the neigh- borhoods to gain information of both a quantitative and Qualitative nature.* *Certain information about the neighborhoods, relative to park attendance and response to park programs was acquired throughinterviews with several members of the Parks and Recreation Department of Lansing, Michigan. -32.. 33 A questionnaire was, also, mailed to the Parks and Recreation Departments of various cities in the United States to gain insight into the influence of certain social factors upon the design philosophy of these departments: STUDY AREA The study was concerned with an investigation of three neighborhoods in the city of Lansing, Michigan and an analyu sis of a questionnaire mailed to twentymone Parks and Recrea ation Departments of selected cities in the United States. “The value of the results for the entire Lansing community was limited because of the narrow geographical scope of the study. The geographical size and physical nature, the ethnic and religious characteristics, the papulation size, the economic nature of the area and perhaps other factors affected the study of the neighborhoods in some way. The investigation of the design approach of Parks and Recreation Departments of other cities was very general in nature and- selective with respect to certain aspects of the philosophies 0f'these departments. Considerable effort was made to ad- minister the questionnaires in this study as careful as possible, in order that the results would be reasonably 34 reliable. The major limitations were the reliability and validity of the neighborhood recreation survey and the Parks and Recreu ation Department questionnaires, the selective nature of the study imposed by the cost and the author's own analysis and observations. An attempt has been made to consider and com- pensate for every situation and condition in the hope that the study will produce pertinent and useful information for the Landscape Architect, Recreation Officials, Urban Planners and others involved in creating designs for recreational spaces. TERMINOLOGY The terms used throughout this study are as follows: 1. commercial Recreation Recreation provided by a business enterprise for profit. It may include forms of entertainment and amusements. 2.‘ Community A community includes people, geographiu cal territory and a common purpose. The people are held together by a psychological bond and may act together consciously or unconsciously in their chief concerns of life. They create, as a result of their common interest ¥ 1 ‘National Workshop on Recreation, ”Recreation for Community IiVing”;(Chicago: 1952), The Athletic Institute, Inc., PP. 160a164. 35 certain institutions of a legal, protective, educational, economic, recreational and religious character. A com- munity includes factors of interdependence and belonging. and a sense of usefulness through contributing to the common good. The term may refer to a city or town or portions thereof. 3. Leisure The term implies time available which an individual may put to use as he chooses. Rigid rules of conduct, supervision or control do not exist to affect the use of such time. Leisure is the personal property of the individual and is spent in a variety of ways, but chiefly recreation. 4. Municipal Recreation Municipal recreation is pub- lic recreation administered by a town, city or district ' having the power of self-government. 5. Neighborhood This refers to a segment of a com- munity composed of a residential area whose people may have, common ethnic, social and economic characteris» tics. They are generally served by the same elemen~ tary school and recreation center. The neighborhood may be bounded by barriers such as thoroughfares, rail- roads and waterways; and by commercial and industrial developments. 6. Public Recreation Public recreation is governa mental provision of organized recreation. It is avail- able to all people; it is financed primarily by taxa ation and includes the establishment, Operation, cone duct, control and maintenance of programs, services, areas and facilities. 7. Recreation Recreation is the natural expression of certain human interests and needs seeking satis- faction during leisure. It is an individual or a group experience motivated primarily by the pleasure derived therefrom. It takes many forms and may be a planned or a spontaneous activity. It is one of man's principal opportunities for the enriChment of living. 8. Recreation Areas and Facilities These are land 36 spaCes, water spaces and buildings with related devices or features of a fixed nature set aside for recreation. 9. Recreation Facility Any equipment, space or area which is available and may be used for participation in recreatipnal activity. 10. Ingham Park Npighpprhppd* Refers to that area in southwest Lansing, Michigan that is bounded by Holmes Road on the south, Deerfield Avenue on the west, Victor Avenue on the north and Pleasant Grove Road on the east. 11. Pleasantview Park Neighborhood Refers to that area in southwest Lansing, Michigan that is bounded by Jolly Road on the south, Wainwright Road on the west, Holmes Road on the north and Pleasant Grove Road on the east. 12. Scott Park -#Lincoln Center Neighborhood Refers to that area in southwest Lansing, Michigan that is bounded by Birch Street on the west, Main Street on the north, Walker Street on the east and Olds Avenue on the south. METHODOLOGY Sociological Survey ReaSOning Webster°s definition of f survey is to examine with reference to condition, situation, V3196 etC... to view with a scrutinizing eye, inspect. A Critical inspection, often a study of an area with respect to a Certain condition, or its prevalence; as a survey of the *The boundaries of the three neighborhoods studied were set by the author. Street names and locations were taken from the City of Lansing, Ingham County Michigan T4N-R24 Map Prepared by the Office of the City Engineer. 37 schools. Perhaps a general definition would be: "A critical observation of a situation with varying degrees of exactitude and comprehensiveness“. Relative to a definition of sociologicaf survey, Shelby Harrison states:2 "In short, the social survey is a cooperative undertaking which applies scientific method to the study and treatment of current related social prob« lems and conditions having definite geographical limits and bearings, plus such a spreading of its facts, conclusions and recommendations as will make them, as far as possible, the common knowledge of the community and a force for intelligent coordio nated action". Briefly, it is a scientific and orderly analysis of a given social situation or problem. Stress is placed upon the fact that it must be flexible, as there is no fixed and rigid method of acquiring information. The survey as a research instrument aims to arrive at generalizations by making quantitative comparisons of data gathered by uniform questionuanswer procedures. The approa Priateness of the survey for research depends upon the suit» ability’of the method in the light of its underlying assumpta 2 Shelby M. Harrison, A Bibliography of Socigl Surveys, RUSSEII Sage Foundation, (New York: 1930), p. 24. ’38 ions or logic for answering a particular research question.3 Of all the social science methods, the attitude survey is the one most widely employed in conducting research.4 Though this type of survey has its shortcomings, its strengths make it an invaluable instrument to provide a reliable picture of the attitudes, values and interests of peOple of a particular geographic area or population cate» gory. The use of attitude surveys provide a technique pe- culiarly suited to the designer"s task of creating recre» ational areas. Designers of recreational areas must realize that to. produce effective, sound development plans, these plans must relate to the wants and needs of neighborhood resim dents. Therefore, an important first step in an approach to recreation design would be a determination of the interests and attitudes of the people. Successful development plans need recreation surveys and 33 John T. Doby, An Introduction to Social Research, Stacks Pole Company, (Pennsylvania: 1954), p. 205. 4' Mel J. Ravitz, "Use of Attitude Survey in Neighborhood Planning", Journal of American Institute of Planning, (Apri1, 1957), Volume XXIII, Number 4, pp. l79~l83. 39 studies as a fundamental basis for making decisions. In- equalities, deficiencies and gaps in recreation resources in a community may be determined by such studies and surveys. Publication of the results may focus attention upon the serim oneness of the situation and provide the spark for correc- tive solutions. Designs that will benefit the community must use present day eituations as the fundamental criteria for decisions. Those based upon past knowledge of needs and deficiencies will result in unsatisfactory deve10pments. METHOD OF RESEARCH The major research method employed was the Limited Attim tude Survey and the specific techniques were the questionu naire survey and observations made of the neighborhoods. The purpose of this survey was an attempt to discover the recreational habits and attitudes of the residents of the .I_ngham Park, Pleasantview Park and Scott Park a Lincoln 9gp: t_e_1; neighborhoods of the Lansing area (See map on the next Page), The analysis, also, includes both the respondents that 1188 and those that do not use recreational facilities in the respective neighborhoods and elsewhere. Information 6) mm . : LA NSI N t; [or PARKS s. RECREATION Wan-.m,m - u a'.‘ ' \fi e 41 gathered through this method facilitated the possibility of establishing a correlation between various social factors and the use of recreational facilities. The basic structure of the survey questionnaire used re- sulted from a review of several studies on user-preferen- ces.5’6’7’8 There were four major parts to the Home Survey Question- naire (See Appendix A2). The first part of the questionnaire is devoted to obtaining certain social information about the respondent and his family. This includes a series of questu ions on age, family composition, membership in organizations and hobbies of the respondents. The second part contain 5 Ethel 0. Scott, An Analysis of the Relationship of Peru sonality and Selected Conditioning Forces to Participation in Individually Preferred Leisure Activities, Unpublished Master Thesis, University of North Carolina, 1962. 6. Audrey Anderson, A Study of the Recreational Interests and Needs of the Community of Genesco, Illinois, Unpublished Master Thesis, Ohio University, 1959. 7 Detroit Mptropolitan Area Regional Planning Commission, "Home Survey of Regional Recreation Activities, A Report of the'Commission on Recreation in the Detroit Region", Part III, (Detroit: 1960). 8 Arnold Chinkers, A Sociological Analysis of Public Recre- ation in Nia ara Falls N Y , Unpublished Master Thesis, Purdue University, 1949. 42 questions about the park user. Information as to what attracted the user, travel time, means and time of visit was sought. The next part consisted of questions intended to gather information on why the nonauser did not partici- pate and what type of activities would attract them. A list of activities were given and the respondent was allow- ed to compare various recreation interests (For example: swimming, bowling or handball). The last part of the questionnaire sought information about the respondent's attitude toward recreation. Quest» ions on participation, adequacy or inadequacy of facilities, improvement of recreation areas and financial support for better facilities were asked. A Limited Random Sample was taken of 150* households in the three selected neighborhoods of the Lansing Community (See Map on page 40). The neighborhoods were divided into geographical sections on the basis of size and the number of square blocks and samples were taken from each section. The list of names was accomplished by the selection of addresses *This number was based on the suggestion of Professor Form Of the Sociology Department, Michigan State University and the assumption that a 40 percent reply would permit an ade- quate analysis of the interests and needs of the peOple in the selected neighbdrhoods. f, . 43 from the City's Assessors Office, which gives a geographical listing of names and addresses and a check in the local tele» phone directory of addresses for letters returned and stamped “Moved left no forwarding address" and "No such address". Each mailing consisted of a covering letter and expla- nation of the survey, a questionnaire and a stamped addressed envelope for the return response. The letters were mailed first class, in order that they could be forwarded or returned in case the respondent no longer lived at the address or if an incorrect address was used. A ”follow-up" telephone method was used to boost the total response to the question» naires. While families without telephones were eliminated automatically, the number was so small that the chance for errors in the results were practically nil. Each questionnaire was numbered to correspond with the numbered sample list. The names of the people responding were remdved from the list prior to the execution of the ”follow-up” procedures. Two mailings and a number of teleu Phone calls were required to obtain an adequate percentage Of returns. CHAPTER III THE LANSING COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS It is desirable to precede a study of a neighborhood°s recreation interests and habits with a review of the general nature of the community and the neighborhoods. -THE COMMUNITY Lansing, Michigan, the State Capitol, is a thriving industrial community with a population of approximately 1 and is located in the south central part of Michiu 113,000 gan°s lower peninsula. The city is located in the north« west corner of Ingham County with the city of Grand Rapids 63 miles west and Detroit 84 miles east. Transportation facilities in the city are modern and the city is well served by major highways that permit travel in all directions, as well as modern railroads and flying schedules. The climate in the city is healthyand it stands 863 if‘lh£_§£§£2_ggggpgl, ”Our Town Welcomes You to Make Lansing Your Home”, (Lansing: 1960), p. 2. -44... 45 feet above sea level. The city area in 1960 covered twenty- five square miles.2 The Grand River flows through the city - Michigan's longest stretching for 340 miles from its source to flow into Lake Michigan.3 Population studies reveals that in the next twenty years the city of Lansing may experience an increase in population from the present estimate of 113,000 toapproximately 145,000. The presently estimated population of 155,000 to 160,000 in the urbanized area of Lansing may, also, increase to approxié mately 250,000 persons.4 Of the total population, the nonuwhite comprises a little over six percent. In the past, they were heavily concentrated in the center of the city, but in recent years there has been a tendency toward some merging of nationality and racial groups. These groups have been scattering north and west of the former central location.5 _* 2 Ibid,, p. 2. 3 Lansing Civic Activities Leagpe, "Your Home Town”, (Bloomington, Indiana: 1952), p.2. 4' City Planning Board, ”Comprehensive Master Plan Lansing and Environs", (Lansing: 1958), p. 18. 5 School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, "Recreation in Lansing - A Survey”, (Indiana University: Apr11, 1964), p. 11. 46 Lansing has more than 130 industries and approximately one-third of the industries are either directly or indirectly connected with the automotive business. Lansing is predomi- nantly a manufacturing community and an above average (more than 50 percent) amount of the employment in retail trade.6 Also, in comparison with other cities, a high percentage of the populace is engaged in public administration. This una usually high percentage may be due mainly to employment by the State of Michigan and Michigan State University. Manufacturing, in general, and the automotive industry in particular plays an important role in the economy of Lana sing and is expected to continue in the future. Also, due to its central location in the lower peninsula and the vast transportation facilities (expressways, railway and air), the city should develop, favorably, as a distribution center. The anticipated growth in population, expansion through annexation; the fact that the Capitol and other state offices are located in Lansing and the existence and expected growth Of Michigan State University will add tremendous pressure Upon the recreation program and facilities. It, also, focus ‘— 6 Ibid,, p. 10. 47 attention on the necessity for placing more emphasis on meeting the needs of the populace - present and future. The Lansing City Government is non-partisan. The Mayor of the city is elected directly by the voters to a term of four years. Eight Aldermen, four elected from the city at large and one from each of the city's fen; wards make up the city council. This Mayor-City Council form of govern- ment runs the city on an annual budget of some ten and a half million dollars. The median income of its citizens is ‘ estimated at over $6500 and home ownership is high: over two-thirds of the city's dwellings are owned by their occua pants.7 Several factors account for the community's remark- ably stable economy, (1) Many activities on a local, state and federal level takes place in Lansing, (2) The majority of the tourist trade is attracted by the Capitol Building, (3) The adjacent location of Michigan State University and (4) The city's foresight in providing excellent facilities for conventions which has established it as a popular area. This blending of three important ingredients - government, industry and education results in economic prosperity and ¥ 7 Ibid., p. 11. 48 places the city in a favorable position to meet its respon- sibilities for providing the best possible recreation.op- portunities for its citizens, as well as the visitor or law- maker to the city. The Department of Parks and Recreation is charged with the basic administrative responsibility for recreation in the city. The School Board and School Officials cooperate with the Parks and Recreation Department in providing recre- ation opportunities. The following statement describes the extent of the facilities and services provided by the park system:8 "Lansing, with its magnificent trees and beauti- ful park roads, is appreciated by its residents, vis- itors and professional park and recreation personnel. It is hoped that the foresight of citizens, city officials and park personnel which has led to these developments will be a factor in their continuance. Many uncommon but desirable types of park facilities are seen in Lansing. Some examples are the Zoo, arboretum, Grant Woods, riverfront areas and the beautiful gardens. The total park land holdings, exclusive of ceme~ taries is approximately 1,700 acres. Within this ‘acreage, one finds 63 parks, four golf courses, 80 buildings, 10 ice skating areas, 27 park playgrounds, athletic fields, swimming pools, court areas, picnic places and coasting hills, Among the sports facili- ties in the total acreage for parks and recreation 8 Ibid., p. 80. 49 are 74 softball and baseball diamonds, 38 tennis courts, two outdoor pools and 17 basketball courts. ' In terms of national standards regarding park acreage and numbers of playgrounds, Lansing has been highly successful in the acquisition and development of such properties." However, the expected growth in population and the exe pansion of developed areas could lower the figures below the desirable standard. The acquisition and development of more recreational areas would prevent this situation from occuring. The number and distribution of neighborhood and com- munity facilities, as reported in the University of Indiana study, is the most serious problem in the total recreation system . THE NEIGHBORHOOD§ - RECREATION AREAS AND FACILITIES l. The Ingham Park Neighborhood* is located in the southeast one-quarter section 30 of the Third ward, Fourth and'rwelfth precinct of southwest Lansing, Michigan. The boundaries of the study area and the location of the park ngiexplained earlier, the area designated as a neighbor- hood was determined by the author with the advice of Mr. KiRke of the Parks and Recreation Department of Lansing, MiChigan . l 50 is shown in Figure 2-on the next page. The city of Lansing Park Map on page 40 shows the site relationship to the city and other community facilities. This area is an old neighborhood; many of the streets have curb and gutter but are unpaved and some of the homes are in very poor condition. An official of the Parks and Recreation Department stated that the development of the park appears to have awakened a spirit of community pride and re- spect. Old homes have.beenlpainted and many of the residents have made efforts to improve their lawns. This is positive evidence of the value of parks in terms of their influence upon surrounding neighborhoods. According to the 1960 Census of the Lansing Area, there were 736 persons living within the boundaries of this neigh- borhood.9 Ingham Park and Pleasantview Park neighborhoods combine to make up the total area of Tract 36 on the Census Map. Therefore, the discussion of the population characteru istics that follows apply to both neighborhoods. Ninetyunine percent of the total pooulation of this tract is White and one percent is Negro or members of other 9 United States Department of Commerce, U.S, Census of Hous- lflE; 1960I City Blocks, Lansing, Michigan, Government Print- ing Office, (Washington: 1960), pp. 16-18. 51 L -4 I _ __ . figfl . Wining-s.) m W Park Loca ion 0 " III I. noggn l SCALE 1" - 1000'-0" 52 races. Ten percent of the population is made of foreign stock, two percent foreign born and seven percent are native foreign or mixed parentage. The following list shows a break- down of the distribution of the major foreign stock:10 United Kingdom - 71 Germany - 59 0.3.8 R. - 33 Canada - 19 The median school year completed for the residents of this area was 11.4 and three percent of the population 25 years or older finished four years of college or more. The median income of the 698 families in this area was $6410 per year. One-hundred and forty-eight of the families had incomes between $5,000 to $5,999 and one-hundred and twenty-eight families had incomes between $7,000 to $7,999 per year. Only 29 percent of the residents of this tract were listed as being in the same house five years prior to the time of the census. Possibly, indicating constant move- ment of the residents in this area and relatively new to 10 United States Department of Commerce, U,S. Census of Population and Housing: 1960, Census Tracts Lansing, Michi- gan, Government Printing Office, (Washington: 1960), p. 16. . 53 the neighborhood, in terms of residency.11 Ingham Park is located in the northern portion of the neighborhood studied and the Department of Parks and Recre- ation acquired the land through annexation. The heavily wooded portion in the western section of the park provide some opportunities for picnicking and nature study. A playground, facilities for ice skating in the winter time and general neighborhood use occupy the rest of the develop- ment. According to park officials, neighborhood participation is very good and there are no immediate problems of facilities, however; field inspection revealed that existing facilities were inadequate, in terms of the area being served and a, seemingly, lack of imagination in the development of the facility. According to park official, this park has been a real asset to the neighborhood and that with the aid of the Health Department and parental cooperation, a big improve- ment in the over-all appearence of the neighborhood has been made. There are plans for the construction of a service building and a future street will go through the east side of the property. Indoor facilities are provided by the Pleasant Grove school. The land east of the park location is the prop- 11 Ibid,, p. 16. 54 erty of the Catholic Diocese and has been proposed as a site for a future school (See Park Map on page 51). 2. The Pleasantview Park Neighborhood is located in the southwest one-quarter section 31 of the Third Ward, Twelfth, thirteenth and Fourteenth precinct of southwest Lansing, Michigan. Figure 3 on page 55 is a map of the Pleasant- view Park Neighborhood showing the boundary for the study area and the location of the public park. Figure 1 on page 40 shows its relationship to the Lansing community and other public parks and public school sites. This neighborhood is an area that was annexed by the city of Lansing, consequently, there was little opportunity to plan the use ofthe land. The area is characterized by the northern portion being of a higher income group than the rest of the neighborhood. The residents in this section of the neighborhood appears to have more pride in the beauty of their homes and lawns. Many of the homes in the southern section needed painting and lawns were given little care. Information acquired from the 1960 census of population in Lansing indicates that there were 1,114 persons living within the boundaries of this neighborhood.12 12 U¢S.'Cen8us of Housing: 1960, City Block, Lansing, Michigan, op. cit., pp. 16-18. 55 Figure 3“‘ PLEASANTVIEI PARK NEIGHBORHOOD _—J[_J L~I‘J'-""::::'._.__..::::::::::::L "1IIIHIIIF‘ F— " NORTH ‘ f 1-‘ - -—-4~= —--—~-'— SCALE 1'"-1000'-o" U H A I HOLMES ROAD | - | D . :J(— I 70 *3 Lf’ -. E ' 1L--- » 56 The previous discussion of the population characteris- tics (Education, income, nationality lines and residency) of Tract 36, also, applies to this neighborhood. Thg Pleasantview Park is located on a Park-School site (Pleasantview School) east of the study area (See map on previous page). The Board of Education secured the proper- ty through annexation. A portion of the area is covered with trees. The underbrush has been cleared and according to park officials will be developed for picnic use and nature study. The rest of the area is developed into a playground, tennis courts and provisions for ice skating during winter months. A special feature of the park is a camp fire circle for girl and boy scouts. The YMCA supervises a summer play- ground program. Neighborhood participation is very high; however, park officials have experienced difficulty super— vising the children from the lower income group. "The parents in this group appear to have less control of their children", stated a park official. Restrooms, providing facilities for changing clothes and washingoup, are located in buildings owned by the Board of Education. The limitations of the Pleasantview Pppk are not ex» tensive. The major limitation is sufficient parking facili- 57 ties. The Parks and Recreation has, also, experienced diffi- culty in maintaining roads in the area. This area has been suggested as a possible location for a future Comprehensive Community Recreation Center. Pleasant Grove and Pleasantview Schools provide indoor facilities for the residents of this neighborhood. 3. The Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood is located in the northwest and northeast one-quarter section 20 of the Third Ward, First and Second precinct in south- west Lansing, Michigan (See map on next page). This neigh- borhood is gradually disappearing with the constant expans- ion of the Oldsmobile complex. The Oldsmobile Corporation is purchasing the property between Olds Avenue and Main Street west of Logan to Birch Street. The Lincoln playground and school site eventually will be sold to Oldsmobile. The neighborhood is old, predominantly Negro, and the appearence reflects the influence of housing immediately adjacent to an industry. Many of the inhabitants are moving west of Logan near the Michigan School. The 1960 Census Report showed that there were 1,662 per- sons living within the boundaries of the neighborhood. The breakdown of races shows eighty percent Negro, nineteen per- -lL__]L__JL_IL_lLJLJl_ 'ICZIEJUDEH— “—3 . Figure 4 Scott Park - Lincoln Center Ne oooooooooo 59 cent White and one percent other races.13 Of the total population, less than six percent is com- posed of foreign stock, a little over two percent foreign born and three percent native foreign or mixed parentage. A distribution of major foreign stocks shows:14 Canada - 65 Germany - 23 United Kingdom - 31 Mexico - 22 Less than two percent of the population 25 years or older completed four years of college or more and the median school year completed was 9.6. The median income for residents of this area was $5,042, but a considerable number of families had incomes between $2,000 to $2,999 per year. The census, also, showed that 54 percent of the peOple in this area were listed as being in the same house five years prior to the time of the census. This could indicate that the majority of the residents of this neighborhood were less inclined toward movement to other neighborhoods than in 13 U.S. Census of Housing: .1960, City Blocks, Lansing Michigan, op. cit., p. 9. 14 U.S. Census of Population and Housing: 1960, Census Tracts Lansing, Michigan, op. cit., p. 15. 60 the previous areas discussed.15 The area referred to as Scott Park has in the past pro- vided three recreational services - a neighborhood playground, a passive recreation area and a public garden. Residents of the Lansing Community and groups representing interests in gardening and the arts have used the facilities of the Cooley Gardens and the Scott Art and Garden Center for various pur- poses. There is a need for improvement in facilities in the park, as some structures are old and create maintenance prob- lems. Because of the declining neighborhood, playground facilities get only limited use. There is need for a change in park facilities (Perhaps converting the playground to a facility that would have community-wide appeal) redesigning to take advantage of the soft rolling topography and the view of the Grand River. The close proximity to the downtown core, the provision of special uses and the visual advantage makes this area a definite asset to the neighborhood as well as the city. The Lincoln Center and Lincoln Annex do not coincide with the generally accepted idea of a Comprehensive Community Center, but it offers activities for pupils from the third 15 Ibid,, p. 13. _ 61 grade through high school. Such activities as informal singing, dancing, cooking, sewing and talent shows are provided for the girls. Activi- ties that boys may participate in are basketball, boxing, football, swimming and sports tournaments. The Center opens from 3:30 in the afternoon until ten at night; uses the gymnasium and stage in the Lincoln School and meetings are carried on in two small rooms in the Lincoln .annex. The Center offers many opportunities for adults in the neighborhood. Special programs are offered and older, groups get together once a month for singing and talking.16 16 School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 02. Cite, pp. 67-68. , CMHRIV CITIES AND RECREATIONAL DESIGN A Survey questionnaire (See Appendix A4) was mailed to the Department of Parks and Recreation in twenty-one cities in the United States. Population, size and geographical location were considered in determining the areas for the survey. A The Survey Questionnaire was designed to facilitate the collection of information about the extent of consideration given certain factors of a sociological nature in the design decisions on recreational facilities. Each mailing consisted of a cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey. Almost three-fourths (71%) of the twenty-one questionnaires mailed were completed and returned. The following discussion summarizes the respohses of the cities returning the questionnaires. TYPE AND LOCATION OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Analysis of information received in answer to the quest- of "What factors are considered in determining the type and \N -62.. 63 location of recreational facilities in an established neigh- borhood? shows, as expected, a great similarity among the answers; however, there was much variance in the number of factors considered. Considerable emphasis was placed upon population density, inventory of existing facilities and evaluation of their adequacy to serve the recreational needs of the people now and in the future and availability of land for development. It was noted that only four of the fifteen respondents indicated that consideration (To the degree of making a specif- ic study) was given to the desires of the people in the com- . munity. Determination of types of facilities were based, primarily, upon a consideration of the minimum and maximum standard of recreational facilities as established by national authorities and those standards set up by the individual cities as desirable. The following is a summary of the factors, listed by the respondents, given consideration before decisions are made relative to type and location of recreational facilities. These factors are arranged in a possible order of considerat- ion: Location 64 l. Appraisal of existing recreational resources and needs in the established community with the full co- operation of citizens, municipal departments, schools and other agencies along with the planning authorities. 2. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan for Land Use is considered with private consultants (Usually a Landscape Architect) and Recreation Director. 3. Present and future population and population characteristics. 4. Accessibility - location of traffic arteries, physical barriers and other limitations of pedestrian travel. 5. Topography and natural features - space limitations. 22268 1. Determination of the desires and needs of the in- habitants of the community by specially trained per- sonnel. Emphasis on the population composition of the area (Classification of Age Groups). 2. Study existing public and private recreational facil- ities in the area. Determination of deficiencies and recommendation for acquisition. 3. Consideration of Nationally Accepted Standards for size, location and effective service distance. 4. Financial study of the cost of acquiring and im- proving recreational facilities. 5. Consultation with people trained in the are of recre- ation development (Landscape Architects, Recreation Leaders, Urban Planners, etc.). 6. Economy of the city and community in which the de- velopment is proposed. 65 DEVELOPMENT OF NEW AREAS The similarity between the previous question on deter- mining type and location and the question inquiring about the steps or procedures followed before working on development schemes for newly developed areas resulted in many respon- dents stating that procedures were followed in accordance with anticipated factors recorded for the first question. However, additional procedures were suggested by some cities. The most frequently mentioned and indicated as having pri- ority were: 1. Investigative landouse studies and preliminary schematic drawings of proposed recreation development for the new area. 2. Coordinating efforts with members of Planning Commission. 3. Land-use as designated in the Master Plan. 4. Approval for site acquisition either by gift, dedication, condemnation or purchase. The general procedures suggested by the respondents for developing new areas (Not necessarily in this order) were: 1. Inventory of areas of suitable natural resources desirable for preservation and development (Con- sultation with Professional Designers). 66 *2. Consideration of areas designated by the Master Plan. 3. Preliminary determination of approximate location for sites of classified areas. 4. Consultation with Planning Commission and Recre- ation Director giving notification of selected pre- liminary.sites. 5. Study of needs and desires of people locating in the new areas. 6. Consider Nationally Recommended Standards and de- termine exact size and location at time of subdividing. 7. Acquisition of desirable sites. 8. Establish cycles of development. (The following statement made by the Landscape Architect with the City of Pasadena Park Department is typical of state- ments made on the development of recreational spaces and indicates the importance of this step: "The extent of development depends on the need and to an appreciable degree on funds available. None ”Cities like Grand Rapids, Michigan and Pasadena, California have a unique arrangement with the Parks Deparment, Recre- ation Department and the Board of Education. This arrange- ment called the Park-School Concept provides for the develo- ment of playgrounds at each new school as part of the Park- School agreement. Master planning of future Park~Schools is done with the cooperation of the previouslytnamed depart- ments and the Planning Department. The City appropriates a portion of the funds annually, the Parks Department de- signs and provides facilities in the parks and the Recre- ation Department schedules and supervises the Recreation Pro- gram. These cities report that they have had much success with this type of arrangement, especially matters concerning the acquisition of land and sufficient funds for acquiring the services of professional personnel and developing the designed facility. 67 of the seven parks developed in the past decade has been completely developed in one stage, but as funds and labor force become available; two are still in- complete". 9. Complete survey including topography, improvements, utilities and determination of easements and restrictions in effect. INFLUENCE OF grass OF PEOPLE (ETHNIC AND/OR ECONOMIC) UPON DESIGN Examination of Table 82, Appendix 32, shows considerable disagreement among the cities on whether the class of people in an area has any affect upon the design proposals for the area. Further examination reveals that affirmative or nega— tive responses could not be related to certain sections of the country. Those cities indicating this factor affected design decisions on recreational facilities, replied that consid- eration is given to the extent that attempts are made to deveIOp facilities that are popular among certain ethnic groups. The development of Specific facilities depended upon the level of "Old Country” interest. These respondents in- dicated that more emphasis is placed upon the economic classia fication of people in an area. However, there was consider- able difference among the respondents on how these different 68 economic groups affected design. Some of the responding cities stated that in lower economic groups vandalism was usually quite prevalent. Con- sequently, their efforts were concerned with designing for security. This meant that many of the facilities provided in the higher income group area were not considered for those living in the lower income area. This was very evi- dent in a visit to two of the cities responding to the questionnaire. The author observed that the parks in the lower class neighborhoods had a minimum of facilities. Other cities reported that facilities requiring special personal equipment for participation are located in areas of higher income groups. Others indicated that in areas where the economic level is such that play-Space and equipment were owned by the residents, such areas would not have a high rat- ing on needs for recreational spaces. One city replied that all recreation center buildings were located in high density - low income areas. The major reason given by cities stating ethnic or eco- nomic characteristics in neighborhoods had little or no affect upon design was that attempts are made to serve all communities egually and only programs are modified to suit 69 individual and group needs; according to their traditions and customs. Other reasons were that there could be no distinction in type of design for any group since there is an overlapping of population groups and design proposal are based upon standards that apply to all groups. These re- spondents did add that if enough demand is expressed for a special facility, consideration is given for possibly meet- ing the demand. An examplepas given where the department provided special facilities for affluent residents of a par-- ticular section of the city. I CHANGING AGE LEVELS AND RECREATION DESIGN A vast majority of the respondents (See Table B3, Appen- dix B) indiCated that their Departments paid special attent- ion tO age levels in the community and when there was a con- siderable shift in age groups they made design adjustments to conform with the new age groups. The ideal philosophy is to design suitable areas at each park or playground for all age groups, but stress the predominant age level of the par» ticular neighborhood. Changing population age group charac- teristics may require the addition or Subtraction of certain facilities, as dictated by use pressures, in which case these 7O ‘.. changes are made upon the review by the Commission. Those cities indicating that changing age groups had little or no affect upon design stated that they endeavored to design areas that would present opportunities for the two extremes - preuschool youngsters to the golden agers. Some felt that the span of time between generations is too"short and an area that has a predominance of senior citizens to- day may have a major number of young people tomorrow. There- fore, consideration of changes in such an area would be to provide larger and more varied programs to meet the changing needs, but pp; to make design adjustments. Others felt that shifts in age levels of population are usually so slight that it doesn‘t warrant altering the design of facilities in an area. _ Again, most of those responding in the negative indicated that there were ocassions when they renovated or up-graded facilities or removed and replaced certain pieces of playm ground equipment to meet immediate needs and desires. CHANGING GROUPS AND DESIGN ADJUSTMENT Examination of Table B4, Appendix B, shows that the ma- jority of the cities reaponding did not consider a change in 71 either ethnic or economic groups in a neighborhood a require- ment for adjusting the designs of recreation in the area. Justification of this attitude was defended by such state- ments as, ”Our motto is recreation for everyone“, ”We attempt to make equal provisions for everyone regardless of age, color, creed, economic or political status" and ”We try to use the same standards throughout the city”. Most of these respondents expressed the Opinion that in public recreation changes in ethnic or economic groups are not important enough to warrant changes in design facilities. Adjustment to meet the needs of ch;nging ethnic or economic groups can be accomplished ' through changing programs and services on the same faCilities. The few cities responding to this question in the affir- mative stated that usually changes in ethnic or economic groups resulted in a change in the active and passive recre- ational habits of the group. Therefore, whenever a change was noted, efforts were made to adjust the design of facili- ties and areas to meet the needs of the various groups. It was noted, however, that these cities indicated that changes in programs were more frequent than changes in designs. One department stated that they had observed that people of less- er economic status, generally, had less respect for exten- 72 sive playground development, lighting and landscaping. There- fore, their decisions on adjustments were based upon this con- clusion. PUBLIC OPINION The most Obvious example of the influence of people upon the philosophies of Parks and Recreation Departments is found in the answer to the question, "What part does public opinion play in the decisions and management policies the Department makes regarding provisions for recreation?” (See Table B5, Appendix B). All of the responding cities indicated that since the public is the backbone of municipal service, consideratiOn must always be given to their opinions and suggestions. How- ever, they replied that caution must be taken as often the most vocal group have a special interest, usually personal, political or otherwise and not the interest of the majority. Often special interest groups will hamper the progress of development. One city reported that in some cases they devel— oped more facilities, due to pressure from organized leagues, than good planning would dictate for the size of a neighbor- hood park and in other cases, they curtailed developments due to complaints from nearby irate taxpayers about the noise that 73 would result from the planned activities. It was suggested that the public should be fully informed of departmental pol- icies and decisions and then an analysis of the public's re- sponse would be more meaningful. Various cities Commented on how public opinion exerted its influence. Among the methods recorded were: 1. Study groups are composed of both lay and profess- ional people - usually quite civic minded and very vocal. 2. City-Wide Advisory Boards (Composed of people in the community, as well as public officials) help plan and determine policies and interpret needs. 3. Expressions of public opinion concerning Park Commission plans, either pro or con, are sought by the County District Supervisor concerned. These opinions are presented to the Administrative Staff. 4. All major recreational events are handled through Citizen Committees and their opinions weigh heavily upon the Department's decisions. SUMMARY The primary objective of the Questionnaire Survey was to obtain information relative to the consideration of cer- tain social factors by Parks and Recreation Departments in making decisions on the design and management of recreation sPaces. No attempt was made to compare the responses of one city with another, because of the dangers of misinterpretat- 74 ion. ‘Individual cities have their own unique characteris- tics and physical design is based upon these special feat- ures and needs of people in the particular city. The information obtained in this survey, clearly, shows that certain social factors do exert influence upon the de- cisions of Parks and Recreation Departments relating to de- sign and management policies. However, there was consider» able difference of Opinion relative to the degree of impor- tance of various factors. Only four of the responding cities indicated that a study of the needs and interests of the people is made prior to making a determination of facilities and design phiIOSOphy. All of the cities, however, expressed a concern for meeting the needs and desires of the people in the neighborhood. The majority of the responding cities reported that they did not consider a change in ethnic or economic groups in an established neighborhood important enough to change the design of the facilities in the neighborhood. More consideration was given to areas experiencing a change in economic groups. It was felt that adjustment of programs would satisfy the needs of changing groups. However, on the question of the affect of these groups on new development, responding cities were in 75 complete disagreement. Some considered the class of people in an area a fundamental basis for determining facilities and develOpment. Others replied that emphasis was placed upon Nationally Accepted Standards in determining facilities and the responsibility for meeting the needs of specific groups placed upon the recreation program offered. Analysis of the Opinions expressed on the affects of changing age levels upon design revealed that most of the responding cities considered age-levels paramount in deter- mining facilities and activities and that adjustment in the type of design is often required. Others replied that they developed areas to serve all age groups and that adjustments are made 2511 when there is a radical change in the ages of citizens in a neighborhood. There was almost unanimous agreement among responding cities as to the importance of public Opinion. The general consent was that the public°s expressions of approval or dis- approval on matters of development or management greatly in- fluenced departmental dbcisiona. Emphasis was placed upon making the prOper use of public opinion as misinterpretation could result in unsuccessful developments. Thissurvey revealed a wholesome attitude of Parks and 76 Recreation Departments toward meeting the needs and interest of the general public. However, this attitude must be streng- thened and improved in some areas, particularly, the require- ments of citizens in changing neighborhoods and the necessity of specific studies to determine needs and desires.* *The Head of the Planning and Construction Division of the City Of Philadelphia stated, "We are Conscious of the social characteristics of the area surrounding each recreation cen- ter, but we don't analyze and classify on a scientific basis". This typifies the attitude of many agencies and one that re- quires change if the public's demands are to be met. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE HOME SURVEY OF THREE LANSING, MICHIGAN NEIGHBORHOODS The collection and analysis of data related to the attitudes and interests of people within the three neigh- borhoods under investigation in the Lansing area forms a significant part of this overall study. A general descript- ion of the methods employed in collecting the data has al- ready been presented. This particular section is devoted to an analysis of information gathered from the Home Sur- vey of the recreational interests of the neighborhood resi- dents. The questions were designed to obtain information that would allow an interpretation of the inter-relations between various uses by specific areas, social characteris- tics Of the user, activity-preference, user opinion on pres- ent facilities and support of recreational development. The Objective of the analysis is to interpret and or- ganize the findings in order that it may serve as compli- mentary information toward making design decisions. The correlation of the facts obtained from the analysis pro- -77- 78 vides the basis for developing a frame of reference from which a user-preference approach to design might be for- mulated. Certain information about the respondents filling out the questionnaires and the family unit represented served as the basis for determining the characteristics of user groups. Interpretation of answers to questions relating to age, sex, hobbies, occupations, organizations and family composition provided the information for making such determinations. An analysis of the frequency of visit and length of visit gave insight into how far the user would travel for recreational facilities. Of major importance is an analysis of the type of ac- tivities preferred by the individual user within a particu- lar area. Activities least preferred are also outlined. An attempt will be made to relate activity preference to area and establish a correlation between preference and non-pref- erence Of these groups. Also, the relationship between par- ticipation and age is considered in the analysis. The major attraction to recreational areas were sought to give direction toward park develOpment in terms of the appeal of specific facilities. 79 IIHAnswers to questions dealing with the adequacy or inade- quacy of facilities, types of improvement and tax support for the improvements were sought to determine why recreational areas were or were not used and to get an indication of the public's support for new or improved developments. To justify the usage of information acquired in this survey, it was desirable to obtain a sample that would con- tain, at least, five percent of the total population in each of the neighborhoods. The selection of this figure is based upon suggestions in social research textbooks and the review of studies of a similar nature (See footnotes on page 41). Almost one-half (48.6%) of the questionnaires mailed were completed and returned. The response by individual neigh- borhoods were: Ingham Park Neighborhood (58%), Pleasant- view Park Neighborhood (50%) and Scott Park - Lincoln Cen- ter Neighborhood (38%). A further breakdown of the returns shows that the percentage Of response per total population for each area investigated was as follows: Ingham Park Neighborhood 6 151 Pleasantview Park Neighborhood - 9.3% Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood - 5.21 1. INGRAM PARK NEIGHBORHOOD 80 Each respondent was asked to list the sex and age of each member of the family. Figure 5 on the following page shows that 34.6 percent of the adults in this area fell between the range of 30-39 years old and 61.5 percent of the adults between 20-39 years of age. The graph, also, shows that over 80 percent of the children recorded for this area were 15 years old or younger with the highest percentage (29.5) ranging between 6 to 10 years of age. The occupations of the respondents, as shown in Figure 6, were listed under eight categories. The basis for this classification was derived from the Dictionary of Occupat- ional Titles1 and the United States Census of POpulation 1960.2 Examination of this graph reveals.that the greatest percent (43.1) of the respondents in this area were classi- fied as skilled, followed closely by the unskilled. Over oneathird of the respondents (37.01) in this neigh- borhood did not list membership in organizations (See Figure 1 United States Government Printing Office, "Dictionary of Occupational Titles, Volume I Definition of Titles”, (Washington: 1949), Second Edition, p. XIX. 2 .United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, "U. S. Census of Population 1960, Michigan, General Social and Economic Characteristics", p. XXI. P E R C E N T Figure 5 1-5 Age Distribution of Respondents and Their Children in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Question 1) 6-10 11-15 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 ¥ AGE GROUPS 81 82 n i s t) “2 .M n . n o 3:325 001 pt... n u 2:; R H 9 cm. , no 3:25 :15 4.— 0 3 o 8 SM 5533 . D...” .0, MM. , & . . .— MM. 2:; So , 0. Mk 333m . n r 0 o a .IDI t .- . no. N.“ 22.33395 0 “h II. c g G H 3 01 ragga—7.322,. o. 6 l e r u g .1 F . F b . — . . . _ q - u E - q _ _ _ 5 0 5 0 5 O 5 0 5 AU 4 4 3 3 2 2 .I. .I. ._. z m u a m ._ OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS 83 7 on the next page). The most popular organization recorded for this group was the Parent-Teacher Association. Church Organizations, also, ranked very high with the respondents in this area. To the question of membership in outing clubs, 89.6 percent of the respondents indicated they weren't mem- bers of any type of outing club. A small percentage (3.4) reported membership in Boating and Camping Clubs that were related to their source of employment (For example, the Olds- mobile Outing Club). Seven percent of the respondents did not answer this question. Table 1 (See page 85) listing the hobbies of the re- spondents, shows a great variety of leisure-time interest among the residents of this neighborhood. In fact, a greater variety of hobbies were recorded for this area than in the other two neighborhoodsstudied. Active Sports (Baseball, basketball, football, volleyball) ranked number one, closely followed by huntingofishing and bowling. A rather high per» centage (17.2) indicated they had no hobbies. Over threeufourths (86.21) of the respondents in the Ingham Park neighborhood indicated they visited and/or par- ticipated in park activities. This figure is considered un- usually high, however, it might be assumed that the park-user P E R G E N T 45-- 40-P 35+- ao‘r 254- a 23.oza.o ,3 '3 E E: 204- .: s O < w s .2- «n .= .:.~~ 2? 3 :3 15'4” m s». 5 a: g 3 :3 Z .. .a .. 8 = o o a a so E I ‘8 £: :1 :2 2 I: 2 A: E H H 01-. O O G O 33 o u I m m a. z 10'- 1,6 I 7 o 5.... 3,7 I C Figure 7‘ Distribution of leabersbip in Organizations of Respondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Question 3) .Ahal 84 ORGANIZATIONS 85 Table l Hobbies Reported by Respondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Percentage) Question 5 Hobbies Response Active Sports 41.2 Baseball Basketball Football Volleyball Hunting and Fishing 24.1 Bowling 24.1 Knitting and Sewing 17.2 Dancing - Music 17.2 Swimming 17.2 Golf 13.8 Skiing and Skating 11.0 Nature Study ' 10.3 Art 10.3 Coin-Gun Collecting 6.8 Reading 6.8 Woodcraft 6.8 Camping 6.8 Photography 3.4 Horseback Riding 3.4 Gardening 3.4 None 17.2 was more apt to answer the questionnaire and that a majority of the persons failing to return the questionnaire were non- park users. -Respondents were asked to indicate how long it took the family to get to the park. Examination of the time periods 86 shown in the graph on the following page reveals that al- most one-half of the respondents took from 15-20 minutes to reach park facilities. A high percentage of these respon- dents, however, did not answer this question. Information gathered on the mode of travel revealed that 65.5 percent of the respondents used their cars to reach the park (This could be interpreted to mean that many of the respondents in this area traveled to parks in other sections of the city for recreation), but a significant number (31.01) in- dicated they walked to the park. As the data reported in Figure 9 on page 88 shows, most of the respondents (84.02) visited the park during the sum- mer months, followed by spring and fall with 32.0 percent. The most popular day for visiting the park.was Sundays. Holidays received the lowest rating in this category. Over eighty percent of the respondents in this neighborhood attended the parks during the afternoon and, as expected, the lowest rating recorded for morning attendance. A review of the answers to the question on frequency of park visits revealed that many of the respondents attempt- ed to qualify their answers-, thus indicating confusion on how the question should be answered and apparently causing Figure 8 Length of Trip to the Park by fine Periods for Respondent: oi Inghel Perk Neighborhood (Question 8) P E R C E N T Under 15 15-20 30-40 60-over No Response I I N U T E S 87 88 Figure 9 fine of Park Visits by Respondents in Inghal Park Day of leek Tile of Day Neighborhood (Question 9) Tile of Year P E R C E N T A G E Spring | 82.0 Suller - J 84.0 Fall I 32.0 ' linter I 28.0 leekday I 52.0 Saturday I 36.0 3 Sunday J 60.0 Holiday J 32.0 Afternoon 88.0 Evening 28.0 All Day 28.0 + e t : r : t : .L a 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 89 an unusually high percentage not.to answer. Figure 10 (See graph on the next page) shows that almost one-fourth (24.1%) of the respondents in this neighborhood visited the parks less than once a month. In order of ranking, the five major attractions listed by the respondents of Ingham Park neighborhood (See Table 2 below) were picnicking, children's play area, swimming, hik- ing and nature study and winter activities. Table 2 Ranking of Attractions to Parks by Re- spondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Percentage) Question 7 Activity Rank Response Picnicking 1 72.0 Children's Play Area 2 64.0 Swimming 3 52.0 Hiking and Nature Study 4 40,0 Winter Activities 5 32.0 Fishing 6 28.0 Sports 7 24.0 Boating 7 24.0 Golf 8 20.0 Rest and Scenery 9 16.0 Camping 10 12.0 Other 11 8.0 It should be clearly understood that these attractions 90 Figure 10 Distribution of Park Usage by Nulber of Visits by Frequency of Visit Respondents in Inghaa Park Neighborhood (Question 10) More than once a week I 17.2 Every neck I 17.2 Every th rocks I 13.7 Every south I 10.3 Less than once a south (I 24.1 No response I 17.5 L .l : s s 0 5 10 15 20 25 P E R C E N T A G E 91 refer to parks in general and all of them are not offered by the particular park under discussion. As noted in this tabulation, the total percentage of attractions do not add up to 100 percent. The fact that each user is attracted by more than one activity and was asked to select one or more on the questionnaire accounts for this situation. Respondents were asked to indicate their reasons for not participating in recreational activities. The tabulation of the answers is shown in Figure 11 on the next page. As can be seen, "Have no desire" and ”Lack of time” were the reasons most often indicated for not visiting or partici- pating in park activities. Of particular significance is the fact that none of the respondents in this area indi- cated that cost would prevent them from attending parks or that heavy traffic was a deterrent. Table 3 on page 93 shows the response of the residents of this area to the question of what activities their families would participate in, if such activities were provided. The respondents in this neighborhood ranked swimming, bowling, baseball and boating as the most preferred activity and hav- ing the least interest in square dancing and painting and 92 Figure 11 Response of Inghal Park Residents on Reasons for not Participating and.or Visiting Parks (Question 11) -+ Too Far Away '0.0 ‘P .L "Reavy Traffic 0.0 *— Crolded A Park 1205 Lack of fine I 31.2 Cost 0.0 Dissatis- fied I 12.5 Have no Desire I 37.5 R E A S 0 N S ther' 6.3 L I I l 5 50 L .l 1, 1 I 1 1 p l I 1 I T I I i T 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4 P E R C E N T A G E Table 3 Percentage of Activity Preference and Non- Preference of Respondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood (Question 12) Response Activity No Yes Badminton 41.3 Boating 55.1 Baseball 55.1 Bowling 62.0 Football . . 48.2 Handball 51.7 , Golf 48.2 ‘Painting and Sketching 41.3 Square Dancing 44.8 Swimming . 68.8 94 sketching. A review of Table 2 on page 89 reveals that there is little correlation between major attractions and what the respondents in this area prefers. This illustrated the ne- cessity of researching and considering the interests of people in developing facilities for them. Tabulation of the results to the question on the ade- quacy of recreational facilities in the neighborhood revealed‘ that the respondents in Ingham Park neighborhood were almost equally divided in their opinions of the adequacy or inade- quacy of facilities. Over forty-four percent considered the present facilities sufficient, while 47.2 percent stated the recreation facilities were quite inadequate. Only nine per- cent of the respondents failed to answer this question. The majority of the respondents in this neighborhood indicated “Adding and improving sports facilities“ would im- prove recreation in this area (See Table 4 on the next page). However, a little over one-fifth of these respondents failed to list ways in which they felt recreation could be improved. This should not be interpreted to mean they were satisfied with present facilities. Almost three-fourths (72.4%) of the respondents in this area gave an affirmative answer to the question of additio- 95 Table 4 Opinions of Respondents in Ingham Park Neighborhood on.Ways to Improve Recreation (Percentage Response) Question 15. Opinions Response Additional Parks 4.7 Improved and Additional Swimming Facilities 11.6 Improved and Additional Sports Facilities 16.6 Improved and Additional Children's Play Area 9.5 Improved and Additional Supervision and Control 11.6 Improved Maintenance of Area and Facilities 7.1 Improved and Additional Other Facilities 9.5 Improvement of Natural Scenery 4.7 Closer Location 2.3 No Answer 22.4 nal taxes to improve recreation in the area. A little over twenty percent indicated they would not pay additional taxes; in most cases, stating that there are already too many taxes. Also, those in favor of paying taxes stated that they would only support improvement of specific types of facilities. 2. PLEASANTVIEW PARK NEIGHBORHOOD The graphic presentation in Figure 12 (See next page) . shows that 51.0 percent of the,adu1ts responding in this neighborhood were between the ages of 30-39 and further ex- amination reveals that over 80 percent of the adults ranged 96 Figure 12 Age Distribution of Respondents and Their Children in Pleasantview Park Neighborhood (Question 1) [- :25 III-J U K Ln) .120 15 10 5 0 I M“) O In 0‘ 0* O‘ 0* O‘ | —a —-4 ——a N 93 v If) * "I I I I é I I é ~D —-a ‘0 O O O -—-t u—t N 6".) « I15 *0 ACE GROUPS 97 between 20-39 years of age. Fifty-one percent of the chil- dren recorded for this group were between the ages of 1-5 and 96.5 percent were 15 years of age or younger. Only 3.5 percent of the children reported for this neighborhood were 16 years of age or older. Examination of Figure 13 on the following page reveals that over one-third of the respondents in Pleasantview Park neighborhood were employed in jobs classified as "skilled”. The unskilled and the professional ranked as the next highest occupational groups. The graph of the Distribution of Membership in Organi- zations (See page 99) shows that a high percentage (63.6) listed membership in the ParentuTeacher Association and a small number were members of Business or Social Organi- zations. This figure, also, shows that a large percentage of the children of the responding adults were members of the girl or boy scouts. None of the respondents in this area indicated membership in an outing club. Over threenfourths of the respondents in Pleasantview Park neighborhood indicated they visited and/or participated in park activities. Only 12.5 percent stated they did not participate and 8.4 percent of the responding adults did not P E R C E N T Figure 35-— 304* 25" 20" 15"b 10" N I... o 13 Occupational Groups of the Respondents in Pleasant- vies Park Neighborhood (Question 2) OCCUPATIONAL GROUPS 98 99 ' Figure 14 Distribution of lesbership in Organizations of Respondents in Pleasantview Park Neighborhood (Question 3) P E R C E N T 65“ 60" 55" 50"' 40'1— 35‘F’ 30%? 25-1 P 205* 151 10‘ Church h— on h—i Business Civic ‘1: Iilitary Scouts (Boys 8 Girls) sh 5’ O .Parent Teacher Association Social 0* on O 7 Non-lelbership E ORGANIZATIONS 100 answer. Again, it is assumed that the high rating of par- ticipation is attributed to the likelihood that the majority of the non-participants in this neighborhood did not return the questionnaire. The table below shows that hunting and fishing was the most popular hobby followed by swimming, bowling and knitt- ing and sewing. As was found in the Ingham Park neighbor- hood, a high percentage of the respondents in the Pleasant- view Park neighborhood indicated they did not have hobbies. Table 5 Hobbies Reported by Respondents in Pleasant- view Park Neighborhood (Percentage) Question 5. Hobbies “ Response Hunting and Fishing 62.5 Swimming 25.0 Knitting and Sewing 20.8 Bowling 20.8 Skiing and Skating 16.6 Dancing - Music 12.8 Coin - Gun Collecting 12.8 Model Building 12.8 Golf 8.3 Photography 4.1 Nature Study 4.1 Art 4.1 Reading 4.1 Camping 4.1 Horseback Riding 4.1 None 16.6 101 The largest percentage of the respondents in this area (See Graph on the next page) indicated they took from 15 to 20 minutes to reach park facilities and the usual mode of transportation (95.8 percent) was by car. Of particular significance is the fact that none of the respondents in- dicated they walked to the park. Insight into this pattern may be obtained by looking at Figure 18 on page 107 This graph shows that 21.1 percent of the respondents in Pleasant- view Park neighborhood not participating in park activities indicated their reasons were because the park was "too far away”. Figure 16 on page 103 shows that 90 percent of the re- spondents visited the park during the summer months. Sunday was the most popular day of the week followed by holidays and Saturdays. As was found in Ingham Park neighborhood, the most popular time of day for park visits was during the afternoon and the least attendance during the morning. The high percentage not responding to the question on frequency of visit is, apparently, due to what appears to be confusion as to how the question should be answered. Many of the answers had to be listed as no response, because of the respondents attempts to explain the frequency of their P E R C E N T Figure 15 Length of Trip to the Park by Time Periods for Respondents of Pleasantvies Park Neighborhood (Question 8) 3 8 Under .15 15-20 30-'4o 60-0ver No Response I 1 N u r E s 102 103 Figure 16 Tile of Park Visits by Respondents in Pleasantvies Park Neighborhood (Question 9) Day of leek Tine of Year Time Of Day Spring Suaser Fall linter I 25.0 leekday 20.0 Saturday I 40.0 Sunday 80.0 Holiday I 45.0 IorI— 10 0 ”fl . Afternoon I 80.0 'Evening I 45.0 All Day I 30.0 1 J L, 1 L J, l i can I I I I I T I I F I 1 10 20 3O 4O 50 60 7O 80 90 100 P E R C E N T A G E 104 visits. Such answers as, ISometimes I go more in the summer than in the winter" and “It varies" could not be tabulated. The visitation pattern shown in Figure 17 (See next page), however, reveals that 29.1 percent of these respondents visited the park less than once a month, but 20.8 percent attended every two weeks and a similar percentage attending every month. Table 6 depicting major attractions of parks (As ex- plained before, the listing of attractions does not mean that all of these activities are found in the neighborhood under discussion) shows that the respondents in this area Table 6 Ranking of Attraction to Parks by Respon- dents in Pleasantview Park Neighborhood Question 7. Activity Rank Response Picnicking 1 81.8 Children°s Play Area 2 77.3 Hiking and Nature Study 3 50.0 Rest and Scenery 4 40.9 Winter Activities 5 27.2 Swimming 6 19.1 Fishing 7 13.6 Sports 8 9.1 Other .8 9.1 Boating 9 4.5 Golf 9 4,5 Camping 9 4.5 105 Figure 17 Distribution of Park Usage by Nusber of Visits by resonancr or VISIT Respondents in Pleasantvies Park Neighborhood (Question 10) —‘ 4.2 lore than once a seek Every seek 8.3 Every tso seeks I 20.8 Every south I 20.8 Less than once a south _ 29.1 No response ’ - I 16.8 I I I l l L I , l I I l ' I 5 10 15 20 25 30 P E R C E N T A G E 106 were attracted to parks with facilities for picnics, chil- dren°s play areas and hiking and nature study. Rest and scenery, also, ranked high with the respondents. Boating, golf and camping ranked low with this group. "Crowded Parks” and "Too Far Away” (See Figure 18 on the next page) were listed as the major reasons for not participating and/or visiting parks. Again, cost was given a low rating as a reason for not attending and none of the respondents indicated heavy traffic prevented them from attending park activities. In order of preference, swimming, bowling and badmin- ton were the most popular activities listed by the respon- dents (See Table 7 below). Handball (37.5%) and painting‘ Table 7 Percentage of Activity Preference and Non- Preference of Respondents in Pleasantview Park Neighborhood. Question 12 Response Activity Yes No ~ Badminton 4le6 Boating 37.5 Bowling ‘50.0 Croquet 37.5 Handball . 37.5 Painting and Sketching 33.3 Swimming 62.5 Figure 18 Response of Pleasantviea Park Residents on Reasons R E A S O N S for not Participating and/or Visiting Parks (Question 11) Too Far Alay 21.1 0.0 Heavy Traffic Crowded Park 26.3 Lack of A Tile (I 10.5 Cos 5.2 Dissatisfied I 15.7 Have no Desire I 15'? Othe] 515 I l I l I l I I I I I I T I I O 5 10 15 20 25 3O 35 4O 45 50 P E R C E N T A G E L I L 107 108 and sketching (33.3%) were recorded as the least popular of all of the activities. Only 16.6 percent of the respondents in this neighbor- hood considered the recreation facilities in the area ade- quate. An overwhelming percentage (75.0) indicated that the facilities for recreation were inadequate and the city should employ corrective measures now to improve the situation.* Table 8 Opinions of Respondents in Pleasantview Park Neighborhood on Ways to Improve Recreation (Percentage Response) Question 15 Opinion Response Additional Parks Improved and Additional Swimming Facilities Improved and Additional Sports Facilities Improved and Additional Children's Play Area Improved and Additional Supervision and Control Improved Maintenance of Area and Facilities Improved and Additional Other Facilities Improvement of Natural Scenery Closer Location No Answer 0 O F'FH‘ oxc>hJGJCIUIa>asonuI tacn~4haxrkw~rorutn lard O *During an interview with a staff member of the Landscape Division of the Department of Parks and Recreation it was learned that the Department has prepared plans for the develOpment of park facilities in this area. Work is scheduled to start as soon as the weather permits. 109 Improved and additional swimming facilities and improved and additional sports facilities (See Table 8 on the previous page) were given the highest rating in answer to the question on ways to improve recreation in the neighborhood. A small percentage (10.8) listed ”Closer Location" as an improvement. Over two-thirds (66.6%) of the respondents in this neighborhood indicated they would agree to a tax to improve recreation in their area. Also, as was reported in the Ingham Park neighborhood, these respondents would agree to additional taxes for specific improvements. The high per- centage of respondents not answering is attributed to the fact that such statements as "Not sure” and "Maybe" were classified as “No Response“. An unusually high percentage (20.9), however, failed to answer this question. 3. SCOTT PARK - LINCOLN CENTER NEIGHBORHOOD Figure 19 on the next page shows that only 3.5 percent of the adults responding in this neighborhood fell within the range of 20:29 years of age. Approximately two-thirds (64.2%) of the respondents in this area fell between the age range 30a49 and 86.5 percent were 30 years of age or older. Over threeufourths of the children tabulated for 110 Figure 19 Age Distribution of Respondents and their Children in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood (Question 1) P E R C E N T ‘1’ l-fi 6-10 11-15 16-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 % Age Groups 111 this neighborhood were 15 years old or younger. The high- est group percentage (34.1) was recorded for those falling within the age range of 1=5. As shown in Figure 20 on the next page, over one-half of the respondents in this neighborhood were employed in jobs classified as 'unskilled'.* The highest percentage of retirees were found in this area; paralleling the highest percentage (17.5) of respondents 60 years of age or older (See Figure 19 on the previous page) being recorded for this neighborhood. Tabulation of the answers to the question on member- ship in organizations, shown in Figure 21 on page 113, re- veals that over two-thirds of the respondents indicated they were members of the ParentaTeacher Association. Mem- bership in Church Organizations received the next highest rating. Churches play an important role in the social life of this particular group (Negro), especially those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder. Over thirtyaeight per- cent of the respondents in the Scott Park a Lincoln Center *Over fifty percent of the respondents whose occupation fell under this classification indicated they worked in the factory. 112 Figure 20 Occupational Groups of the Respondents in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood (Question 2) co-axm== 0 1h 5 - 7 co~_wxm em 822553 M..— l 0 .3523 0. O _moaao~o Am 3 oufi>aom .m— Zefimmfio: M 5 2232272233 0. . _ p _ no _ [p .7 p _ _ _ u 1 d 4 - d d d a u — - 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 6 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 Z l. I z u a m 3 Occupational Groups 113 ' Figure 21 Distribution of Iesbersbip in Organizations of Respondents in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood (Question 3) Io-L- 22a 65-L 60‘5 55..- 50“ 45 d- 5 Church O C» I 40““ E3 Non—lesbersbip —.b asse 30-r P E R C E N T 25+L 20‘:— Parent Teacher Association E3 Scouts (Boy and Girl) E5 Social I5-P Civic 10*? .7 Ito Organizations Business OI lilitary O O neighborhood stated they did ganization. 114 not hold membership in any or- Tabulation revealed that 64.7 percent of these respondents gave a negative answer, when asked if they held membership in outing clubs. did not answer the question. Many of the respondents (29.41) Table 9 Hobbies Reported by Respondents in Scott Park- Lincoln Center Question 5. Neighborhood (Percentage) Hobbies Response Hunting and Fishing 35.2 Baseball 23.8 Basketball 17.6 Football 17.6 Swimming 17.6 Knitting and Sewing 11.7 Volleyball 11.7 Bowling 5.8 Skiing and Skating 5.8 Dancing - Music 5.8 'Reading 5.8 Photography 5.8 Coin - Gun Collecting 5.8 None 29.4 Of the total number of hobbies tabulated, the smallest variety of hobbies were recorded for the respondents in this neighborhood. The Table above shows that the most pOpular hobbies recorded for this area were active sports (Baseball, f 115 basketball, football and volleyball) and hunting and fish- ing. The low rating of dancing and music was surprising, as it often rates high with the leisure-time pursuits of this group. Over three-fourths of the respondents in this neighbor- hood indicated they visited and/or participated in park ac- tivities. The explanation for this high rate of visitation is the same as was explained for the other two neighborhoods under investigation. The majority of the respondents (64.71) in this neighborhood listed their mode of travel was by car and a small percentage (5.9) indicated they walked. Because of the close proximity of facilities, this figure suggest that the respondents in this neighborhood journeyed to other areas in pursuit of leisure-time activities. Examination of the time periods in Figure 22 (See next page) shows that the majority of the respondents took only 15 minutes to reach park facilities. Though this figure shows that 11.1 percent of the respondents traveled one hour or more to reach recreational facilities, the tabulation of answers under this classification is of little value, because many of the respondents failed to answer the question on length of trip. Only 5.9 percent of the responding adults 116 Figure 22 Length of Trip to the Park by Tile Periods for Respondents of Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood (Question 8) ‘b 55 50 45 4O 35 30 P E R C E N T 25 20 15 IO Dnde 15 15-20 . 30-40 60-over No Response I I N O T E S 117 indicatedthey walked to the park. As was discussed in the Pleasantview Park neighborhood section, a look at Figure 25 on pageélZl would give an explanation of this pattern. The graph showing the reasons for not participating reveals that over one-third of these respondents listed "Too Far Away" as the reason for not participating in park activities. This suggest that neighborhood facilities were inadequate and re- quired that the residents must travel to areas in other neighborhoods or section of the city to find the type of ac- tivities they prefer. The information depicted graphically in Figure 23 on the following page reveals that most of the respondents visited the parks during the summer months. Spring and fall ranked as the next highest periods of visitation.. Though most of the respondents in the other two neighborhoods studied attended parks on Sundays, tabulation of answers for this neighborhood revealed that these respondents attended mostly (751) on holi- days. Three-fourths of the respondents indicated they visited parks during the afternoon, followed by evening visits. Examination of Figure 24 on page 119 shows that 52.9 per- cent of the respondents in this neighborhood visited the parks less than once a month. The high rating of this visitation I . Figure 23 Tile of Park Visits by Respondents in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood (Question 9) Day of leek Tile of Tear Tile of Day Spring I 33.3 Susser ‘ I83.3 Fall I 33.3 linterI 16.6 I leekday I 25.0 Percentage Saturday I I 33.3 - Sunday I I 58.3 A Holiday 5 I 75.0 lorninq 16.6 Afternoon I 75.0 Evening I 25.0 i All DayI 16.6 I + : : I I : I 4. I 10 20 3O 4O 50 6O 7O 80 90 100 118 119 Figure 24 Distribution of Park Usage by Nusber of Visits by Respondents in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood (Question 10) Frequency of Visit More than once a seek I 17.6 Every seek Every tso seeks I 11.7 Every sonth Less than once a south 52.9 i] 1.3 No response I I I I l J . I I , . I I I I O 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percentage 120 pattern may be explained by the large percentage indicating OToo Far Away“ as reasons for not participating (See Figure 25 on the next page). Picnicking, fishing and children's play areas were the facilities that attracted the respondents of this neighbor- hood to the parks. (See Table below) Attractions with the Table 10 Ranking of Attractions to Parks by Respon- dents in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neigh- borhood (Percentage) Question 7. Activity ' Rank Response Picnicking 1 73.3 Fishing 2 53.3 Children's Play Areas 3 46.6 Swimming 4 40.0 Rest and Scenery 4 40.0 Sports 5 33.3 Winter Activities ' 6 26.6 Hiking and Nature Study 7 6.6 Boating 7 6.6 least appeal were golf, camping, boating and hiking and nature study. I As can be seen in Figure 25 on the next page, one-third of the responding residents of this neighborhood indicated “Too Far Away" as the reason for not participating in park Figure 25 R E A S O N S LILILI Visiting Parks (Question 11) I 13.3 Grosded Park Lack of Ties I 26.6 Cost 6.7 6.7 Dissatisfied 6.7 Have no Desire Too Far Asay —“I 33.3 I 6.7 Heavy Traffic Response of Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood Residents on Reasons for not Participating and/or Percentage 0.0 Other .J I 1 1 J 1 1 1 1 l I I I *I I r* I *r I r I O 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 4O 45 50 121 122 activities. The high rating of *Lackof Time“ is possibly related to the above mentioned reason. As was found in the Ingham Park and Pleasantview Park neighborhoods, cost did not appear to be much of a factor in determining park visits. _ The respondents ranked swimming, football and social dancing as the activities in which they would most likely participate (See Table below). This table shows that square Table 11 Percentage of Activity Preference and Non Preference of Respondents in Scott Park - Lincoln Center Neighborhood (Question 12) Response Activity Yes No Football 47.0 Golf 41.1 Horseshoes 41.1 Social Dancing ' 47.0 Square Dancing 47.0 Swimming 47.0 Tennis -35.2 dancing and golf were very unpopular. A review of the major occupations of the respondegts of this area would explain the low rating of golf - the time and expense involved in pursuing this sport restricts the pfirticipation of a small number among this group. Square dancing is not, usually, 123 popular with the predominant racial group in this neighbor- hood. Tabulation of the results of the question on adequacy of recreational facilities in the neighborhood revealed that al- most one-half of the respondents in the Scott Park - Lincoln Center neighborhood indicated that present facilities were in very poor condition and required immediate attention. Table 12 Opinions of Respondents in Scott Park - Lin- coln Center Neighborhood on ways to Improve Recreation (Percentage Response) Question 15 Opinion Reaponse N Additional Parks Improved and Additional Swimming Facilities Improved and Additional Sports Facilities Improved and Additional Children's Play Area Improved and Additional Supervision and Control Improved Maintenance of Area and Facilities Improved and Additional Other Facilities Improvement of Natural Scenery Closer Location No Answer 0 O H e s e e s UWQOU’ONONH O N I" waowHNbO-P Table 12 shows that twenty-four percent of the respon- dents in this area listed "Additional Parks" as the way they ‘would like to see recreation improved in the neighborhood. 124 The fact that none of the respondents in this area listed swimming as an improvement does not necessarily indicate a lack of interest in swimming. A review of Table 10 shows that forty percent of the respondents indicated that swimming attracted them to the park. The reason "Closer Location" received such a low rating might be explained by the possi- bility they assumed that additional parks (Which they rated highest) would result in a closer location. Over forty-one percent of the respondents in the Scott Park - Lincoln Center neighborhood were willing to pay ad- dition taxes to have recreation in the area improved. As was the case in the other two neighborhood, these respondents, also, indicated that the tax money should only go for the improvement of specific facilities. A rather high percentage (23.5) did not answer the question. SUMMARY An analytical comparison of the responses from the three neighborhoods demonstrates how people living within relatively close proximity of each other differ with respect to recreational interests and attitudes. A discussion of the total response gives direction toward recreational de- fi , 125 velopment of a larger scope (Community-wide study) providing opportunities for residents from various neighborhoods (For exampleswimming, golf, zoological gardens, etc.). Age .ggmposgtion. p': Figure 26 (See next page) re- veals graphically that 40 percent of the total number of re- spondents ranged between the ages of 30-39. Approximately three-fourths were thirty years of age or older. Further examination of the graph shows that almost two-thirds (65.1%) of the adults were between 20-39 years of age. It, also, shows that 35.4 percent of the children listed by the adult respondents ranged between the ages of 1-5 years old and 65.9 percent of the total recorded were 10 years old or younger. Review of the graphs depicting the age distribution of them children in each neighborhood shows that Ingham Park and Pleasantview Park neighborhoods had the highest recording of the age group between 1-5 years old while the 6-10 years of age group was highest for Scott Park - Lincoln Center neighborhood . Occupations The total occupation distribution graph (See Figure 27 on page 127) shows that 40.4 percent of the occupations recorded were classified as "unskilled“. As re- ‘ported in the Scott Park - Lincoln Center neighborhood, fac- 126 ‘ Figure 26 Age Distribution of Respondents and Children froa the Three Neighborhoods under Investigation (Question 1) rcncsnr I an an 0 Ge .O~ O o , ’ -4 s; 4‘5 :5 :5 é e Age Groups 127 : Figure 27 Distribution of Occupational Groups of the Total Response (Question 2 4 I 4 a.__m.».= no.3 co—_daml 5 rumom «Adfiaqsafi- .o s& gouamgum _.oano_u “m— c& .ouqramm 6 9, e l l ~uaaammouea. nJ. -unoaaaca 8 Asset? Occupational 40 I- 35 a- 201k 15<-b h z m u a m m 101w 5f1F Groups 128 tory employees make up the largest percentage of the number of occupations falling under this classification. Examination of the distribution of occupations for each neighborhood re- veals that the highest percentage of "unskilled" are found in Scott Park - Lincoln Center neighborhood (This neighborhood is located adjacent to the Oldsmobile Complex). The highest percentage of occupations classified as "professional“ were found in Pleasantview Park neighborhood and the highest per- centage of the ”skilled" in Ingham Park neighborhood. Memberghip in Organization - Hobbies Over 85 percent of the respondents answered the question concerning member- ship in organizations by the family unit (See Figure 28 on the next page). This graph shows that over one-half of all of the respondents reported membership in the Parent-Teacher Association. Comparison of this graph with those of the in- dividual areas reveals that several of the categories for the individual areas exhibit a marked departure from the distri» bution reported for all of the areas. This example illu- strates how ineffective reliance on 0standard planning' would be if applied to these neighborhoods. The total distribution of membership in Social Organi- zations was 14.6 percent; however, by area distribution the 129 Figure 28 Distribution of leabersbip in Organizations of Respondents in the Three Neighborhoods Studied (Question 3) 60" 151-.2 55.- ._ qua A .- so-L f: 2 s a 45-- ' '3 :8 ” A 5 >6 6 4o“- : :3 g z z 35.. o :3 .2. 34.2 ‘” 2. 3’”'7" U u an ' a 30+— ” w a m 26. I; =- 25» '— _. g 20+ 5% 2 m 5 15-- g 0 g. 11:2! 5 10-- E E 55 ‘9 a: 5+ lii’. , 3.1 28 0 , Organizations 130 results were: 23.0 percent for Ingham Park neighborhood, 15.3 percent for Scott Park - Lincoln Center neighborhood and only 4.5 percent for Pleasantview Park neighborhood. This tabulation, also, shows the relative importance of or- ganizations involving total family-group participation. Along with the Parent-Teacher Association, Boy and Girl Scouts and Church Organizations were the top ranking organi- zations. Over one-third of the respondents did not list member- ship in any organizations. Non-membership in each of the individual areas compared similarly with the total distri- bution. Table 13 Response of Areas on Outing Club Member- ship. Question 4 Response Ingham Pleasantview Scott-Lincoln Total No 89.6% 79.1% 64.7% 77.8% ‘Yes 3.4 0.0 5.9 3.1 No Response _ 7.0 20.9 29.4 19.1 Table 13 shows that 77.8 percent of the respondents answered "no” to the question on membership in outing clubs. 131 Only 3.1 percent of the 80 percent answering this particular question indicated "yes". Cost probably accounts for the lack of membership among these neighborhoods, as often special equipment is required for participation (Camping and boating are two examples). Time, also, influences par- ticipation in such clubs. Table 14 Hobbies Reported by Respondents for the Three Neigh-- borhoods studied by Percent. (Question 5) Hobbies Response Hunting and Fishing 40.6 Active Sports 37.5 Baseball 4 basketball Football - Volleyball Swimming 19.9 Bowling . ‘ . 16.9 Knitting and Sewing 16.5 Dancing - Music 11.9 Skiing and Skating 9.2 Coin - Gun Collecting 8.4 Reading 5.5 Nature Study 4.6 Art 4.6 Photography 4.4 Model Building 4.2 Golf 4.0 Camping 3.6 HOrseback.Riding 2.7 ‘Woodcraft 2.2 Gardening 1.1 None 21.0 132 The hobbies of the respondents shown in Table 14 on the previous page indicates the great variety of leisure time interest among the respondents in the three neighborhoods investigated. Hunting and Fishing ranked number one, closely followed by active sports (Baseball, basketball, football and volleyball), swimming and bowling. Twentynone percent of the total number responding indi- cated they did not have hobbies. The greatest variety of, hobbies were recorded for Ingham Park neighborhood and the least variety for Scott Park - Lincoln Center neighborhood. Length of Travel - Hede of Travel Examination of Figure 29 on the next page shows that 36.7 percent of the respondents reached their destination in less than 15 minutes and 69.4 percent of.the total response took 20 minutes or less to make the trip. Most of the respondents in Ingham Park and Pleasantview Park neighborhoods indicated they took 15 to 20 minutes to reach park facilities, but the majority of the respondents in Scott Park a Lincoln Center neighborhood indicated they took under 15 minutes. Table 15 on page 134 shows that over threeafourths of the respondents' method of travel was by car and a similar result was recorded for each of the responding neighborhoods. 133 Figure 29 Total Response of Length of Trip to the Park by Time Periods (Question 8) 40 -L 35 «— 30 -r- 25 l 1 20 5.. 15 P E R C E N T 1 I a 0.0a eeeeee 00‘ . O ....... ....... Under 15 15-20 30-40 60-over No Response ‘N I N U T,E S 134 Table 15 Percentage of Areas Reporting Method of gTravel to Parks (Question 8) _7 Mode of Transportation Ingham Pleasantview Scott-Lincoln Total Car 65.5 95.8 64.7 75.3 Bus 3.5 0.0 0.0 1.2 Walk 31.0 0.0 5.9 12.3 No Answer 0.0 4.2 29.4 11.2 A weakness encountered in the tabulation of transportation was the inability to determine whether the respondents did not use public transportation because it was too expensive or because the bus lines did not travel the routes to the parks. Time and Freguencz of Visit The data reported in Figure 30 (See next page) shows that most of the respondents (85.7%) visited the park during the summer months and 44.5 percent during the spring months. Sunday was the most pop~ ular weekday for visits. Surprisingly, more respondents_ (50.7%) visited the parks on holidays than Saturdays (36.4%); especially, since holidays occur only a few times during the year. Afternoon visits were the most popular time of day, followed by evenings and all day. Less than one-fourth of the 135 ' Figure 30 Time of Park Visits for the Total Response (Question 9) Day of leek Tine of Year Tine of Day Spring I 44.5 Sumner 85.7 Fall I4o.9 linter I 23.0 leekday I 32.0 Saturday I36.4 Sunday I 66.0 .Holiday I 50.7 NOTD-’ 16.0 ing Afternoon, 80.5 Evening _ I 33.0 All Day I 25.1 I I I I I I I I, I I 10 20 3O 4O 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percentage 136 respondents attended during the morning hours. A comparison of the total response of the groups with the response in the individual areas reveals a high degree of similarity. Exception is noted in the deviation of the response in Scott Park - Lincoln Center neighborhood under the classification of the most favorable day of the week. Figure 31 on the next page shows that almost 89 percent of the respondents answered the question on frequency of visits. Of this number, more than one-third, representing the highest percentage (35.3), visited the parks less than once a month. A comparison of this graph with those of the individual areas reveals a deviation of less than four per- cent among the choices of respondents attending parks dur- ing different periods. The exception is found in the classi- fication of "Less than once a month". Major Attractions - Activity Preference Table 16 Percentage of Participation and Non- Participation by Areas (Question 6) Classification Yes No No Response Ingham 86.2 13.8 0.0 Pleasantview 79.1 12.5 8.4 Scott - Lincoln Center 76.4 11.7 11.9 Percent ongotal Response 80.6 12.6 6.8 Figure 31 Frequency of Visits 137 Distribution of Park Usage by Number of Visits by all Respondents (Question 10) I 14.3 Every seek I14.6 Every month Ill.4 No Response 11.0 More than once a week Il3.4 Every two seeks 35.3 Less than once a month Percentage ' 138 As shown in Table 16 (Turn back to page 136) more than threeafourths of the respondents indicated they visited and/ or participated in park activities. In order of ranking (See Table below), the major attracta ions listed by the respondents were picnicking, childrenls play area and swimming. Rest and scenery was the next most favored attraction. Table 17 Ranking of Attraction to Parks by Total Response (Percentage) Question 7 Activity . . .Ra n.k Response, Picnicking 1 75.7 Children°s Play Area 2 62.6 Swimming 3 37.0 Rest and Scenery 4 32.3 Hiking and Nature Study 5 32.0 FiShing 6 31.6 Winter Activities 7 28.6 spOrts 8 22.1 BOating 9 11.7 Golf 10 8.1 Camping 11 7.7 Other 12 5.2 Since many parks do not provide opportunities for camps ing, boating or playing golf, it was not surprising that these activities received the lowest rating. The high rate 139 ing of swimming as an attraction indicates the respondents traveled to areas other than those in their neighborhood for this activity. Fishing, which also ranked high, suggest movement to areas outside the neighborhood. The reasons most often given for not visiting or partici- pating in park activities (See Figure 32 on next page) were that the respondents "Lacked the time", "Had no desire" or the parks were "Too far away". The lack of time could be related to the fact that many listed "Too far away" as a reason. The time it takes to reach park facilities weighs heavily on the decision to make a trip to the park. The-high rating of ”Have no desire" suggest a serious lack of park development that would inspire user-participation. Table 18 Percentage of Activity Preference and Nona Preference of Total Group Response Question 12 Activity Group Response Yes No Badminton 44.8 Baseball 53.4 Bowling 56.8 Football 50.0 Handball 50.0 Painting and Sketching 43.1 Square Dancing 51.7 Swimming 74.1 14C) Figure 32 Total Response of Neighborhoods on Reasons for not R E A S O N S Participating and/or Visiting Parks (Question 11) Too Far Away 18.1 I 2.2 Heavy Traffic Crowded Park .I Lack of Time Lack of Time I 22.1 Cost I3.9 Dissatisfied I 11.6 Have no Desire 19.9 Other 3.6 .w, l I I I I ’I l I T' I 5 10 15 20 25 Percentage 141 The information in Table 18 (See page 139) showing the preferred activities of the total response rates swimming, bowling and baseball as the most popular activities. Tabu- lation revealed that square dancing and handball were very unpopular. Information in this table illustrates how this type of analysis could give direction for the provision of areas and facilities on a community-wide basis. A review of the analysis for the individual neighborhoods shows that em— phasis was placed on different activities; again pointing out the necessity of giving careful attention in applying standards toward making design decisions. Evaluation of Facilities and Areas I I Table 19 Opinions of Respondents on the Adequacy of Facilities in their Neighborhoods (Percentage) Question 14 Reopense ,,,,,, ,_Ingham .Pleasantview Scott-Lincoln Total Yes 44.8 16.6 29.4 30.3 No 47.2 75.0 47.1 56.4 NO Response. _9.0, 9.4 23.5 13.3 Table 19 shows that less than one-third (30.3%) of the respondents indicated that the activities and facilities in 142 their neighborhood were adequate. Of the 86.7 percent answering the question, over 56 percent stated that areas and facilities were adequate. Thé'response in the individual neighborhood did not mirror the results of the total response. Suggestions of Improvement and Support of Recreation Improvement Better than.75 percent of the respondents sub- mitted a variety of ways in which facilities and areas could be improved. Table 20 shows that ”Improved and additional Table 20 Total Response on Ways to Improve Recreation (Percentage) Question 15 Opinion Response Add it iona 1 Parks 14 . 1 Improved and Additional Swimming Facilities 9.2 Improved and Additional Sports Facilities 14.9 Improved and Additional Children's Play Area 7.2 Improved and Additional Supervision and Control 11.0 Improved Maintenance of Areas and Facilities 3.3 Improved and Additional Other Facilities 9.9 Improvement of Natural Scenery 3.8 Closer Location 4.3 No Answer 22.3 sports‘facilitiésijreceived the highest rating, closely fol- lowed by "Additional parks". Very few of the respondents suggested swimming as an improvement, though many listed swim- 143 ming as an attraction to parks (See Table 17). Analysis of the responses in the ipdividual areas, illustrates the difference in the desires of people in different neighborhodds and the use of this data could dic- tate decisions on the development of special facilities for specific areas. The variety of comments such as "Rest rooms aren't pro- vided for children', "A fountain and tennis courts are need- ed", ”More children play areas - especially swimming pools and wading pools" and "More facilities for elderly people who wish to.enjoy a few things along with their children“ indicates the necessity of a more serious consideration of user-preference in final decisions on recreation develOpment. This method would increase the possibility of providing facili- ties that would meet the public's desires. Finally, the respondents were asked, "WOuld you be will- ing to spend more tax money to improve public recreation facilities?" It was felt that tabulation of the answers to this question would give additional indications of the public's attitude toward recreation - its value to their lives and their willingness to shoulder the responsibility of having improve- ments made. 144 The results of this tabulation was quite surprising, in view of the normal attitude of pe0ple toward taxes. Table 21 shows that almost three times as many respondedf”yes" to the questidn of additional taxes for improvement as those indicating "no“. However, many of the respondents stated Table 21 Rercentage Response of Areas to Taxes for Improving Recreation (Question 16) Response Ingham Pleasantview Scott-Lincoln Total Yes 72.4 66.6 41.1 60.1 No 20.6 12.5 35.2 22.7 No Response 7.0 20.9 23.7 17.2 Ithey would agree to a tax if it wasn't too exorbitant and if the money was spent, specifically, for the improvement of recreation (parks) in their neighborhood. ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION OF OCCUPATIONFAGE AND RECREATION An attempt will be made in this section to discuss the relationship of occupations and age to recreation interest and participation. The results obtained from this analysis will provide the basis upon which proposals for a Recreation User-Preference Chart for Designers might be made. An analy- 145 sis of recreation interests and attitudes is made for each age and occupational group. Occupation and Recreation Examination of information recorded on recreation and occupational groups indicated that as a group the unskilled (Primarily composed of factory wor- kers), skilled, professional and official-managerial rated highest among groups visiting and/or participating in park activities. The lowest incidence of park use was recorded for the retired and self-employed. The low rate of outdoor activity for the self-employed might be due to the fact that these people, because they operate on a smaller scale, have to spend a majority of their time ”minding the shap“ and they do not get paid vacations. Table 22 (See next page) shows the major attractions of the various occupational groups. However, very little im- portance is placed upon the relationship of occupation to park attraction. Other factors such as size, age and sex of the family unit probably exerts more influence on the choice of park facility. Still an examination of the table shows picnicking and children's play area had the greatest appeal among the occupational groups. As expected, these facilities ranked 10W“With the retired group being replaced 146 Table 22 Ranking of Attractions According to Occupational Groups (First iour preferences) Question 7 Occupational Groups '6 .. E 5 Activities J“: 3 __ a g g I a- m u I o I '0 I- as c .2 .2 a “e a :1 on! Q Gen-a > I- 0 H --a .as as 2 s .3: 7.: s 2: a O. a. m U V) U) V) = Sail-ing l 4 2 2 3 4 Picnicking 2 l l l l l l 1 Hiking and Nature Study 3 2 3 2 3 Children's Play Area 1 l 3 2 l l 2 linter Activities 2 2 Rest and Scenery 3 2 Fishing 3 Sports 4 Table 23 Ranking of Preferred Activities According to Occupational Groups (First four preferences) Question 12 Sail-ing l 1 l l l l l l Horseshoes 2 4 Volleyball 3 3 Boating l 4 2 Bowling 3 2 3 3 Baseball 2 3 2 Golf 2 Social Dancing 2 4 Roller Skating 3 2 Badeinton 4 4 3 Croquet 2 Tennis 2 4 147 by rest and scenery and fishing. The low rating of swimming as a major attraction is not necessarily due to non-preference, but probably the lack of this facility in the area studied. The Recreation Survey team from Indiana University recommended two locations as needing outdoor swimming pools - the southwest area and the north central district of Lansing.3 The season of the year (summer) and the time of day (afternoon), as show in Table 24, were recorded as the major time of visits for each of the occupational groups. Sunday was the most popular day for visiting parks among all of the groups except the professional and official-managerial. The professional group attended parks mostly on weekdays, while the official-managerial indicated holidays as the most popu- lar. The second portion of the table (See page 148) shows that the official-managerial, professional, skilled and the un- skilled visited the park less frequently than the salesmen, self-employed, clerical and Service. Again, caution must be 3 School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, "Recreation in Lansing - A Survey”, (Indiana University: April, 1964), p. 125. 148 Table 24 Ranking of Tine of Visit According to Occupational Groups (First tau preferences) Questions 9 and 10 Occupational Groups 'B —-a 0 a >5 Tine .LE 3 _. s "E. a GI- va 0 G I} I ‘6 -—t one: an 0 O I III-l ” F" a: :3 s '2 a .1. z: s :2: 2 s 2. "a s z a Tine of Year: Spring 2 2 Suller l l l l l l l 1 Fall 2 2 2 2 linter 2 2 2 Day of leek: leekday ' l 2 2 Saturday 2 2 2 Sunday 1 l l l l 1 Holiday 2 l l 2 2 fine of Day: lorning 2 .2 2 Afternoon 1 l l l l l l 1 Evening 2 2 2 2 All Day 2 Frequency of Visit More than once a neck 2 l ' 2 Every week . 2 2 2 Every tlo rocks 1 l l 2 Every Ionth Less than once a south 1 l 2 2 l l 149 not to place too much emphasis upon the results obtained in this tabulation, as the factors of size, age and sex of the family, also, influences frequency and time of visit. . Respondents were asked to indicate the activities in which the members of their family would participate. Tabu- lation of the responses of the occupational groups to this question is shown in Table 23 on page 146. All groups in- dicated swimming as the most preferred activity. The retired group, as was expected, gave rest and scenery the highest rating among activities preferred. There is considerable variance among the groups on the second most preferred ac- tivity. Bowling was given the third highest rating by the professional, skilled and salesmen group. The results recorded in this table served as the funda- mental basis for the creation of the User-Preference Chart. Analysis and evaluation of the answers to questions refer- ring to interest as a spectator or participant and ways to improve recreation were considered in compiling a chart that would show the probable interest of each occupational group. .Age and Recreation Age probably exerts more influence upon recreation participation and demand than any other fac- tor. As anticipated, an advance in years results in a de- 150 cline in active participation. The analysis of recreational interests was made for each age group. Because only a small number of the resppndents fell within the age range of 60 years and over, they were combined with the age group 50 and over. Respondents between 20-29 years of age listed children's play areas and picnicking as the main reason for visiting the parks. They, usually, attended the parks every two weeks during the summer on Sunday afternoon. The respondents in this group rated swimming as the major activity they would prefer (See Table 25 on the next page) followed by bowling and badminton. The majority of the respondents indicated that their interest in sports was to participate. Many stated they preferred to play some sports and to watch other sports. A strong interest was registered by those falling be- tween 30-39 years of age in swimming, bowling and baseball. The majority of the respondents in this group stated they preferred watching sports activities, but a considerable num- ber indicated they, also, participated in some activities while watching others. Picnicking and children's play area were the major attractions and this age group usually visited 151 .Table 25 Ranking of Preferred Activity, Attraction to Parks and Hobbies by Age Groups of the Responding Neighborhoods (First four preferences) Questions 5, 7, and 12. Age Groups ActiVi‘ies 20-29 30-39 40-49 so plus Sail-ing l l 1 Boating 2 Bowling 2 2 Badainton i 2 Baseball 3 3 3 Roller Skating 4 Football 3 . Croquet 3 ! Horseshoes 4 4 N!— .Atitaciiun_iu_fiurks Children's Play Area Picnicking Hiking and Nature Study linter Activities Rest and Scenery Sui-ling 2 Fishing 2 Sports 4 Neut— Ib u b-‘N r—N on .flgbbies (First three preferences listed) Bowling 2 2 Sail-ing 2 3 2 Hunting and Fishing 1 l l 1 Sports - Spectator 3 Knitting and Seeing 2 Nature Study' 3 152 the parks less than once a month during the summer on Satur- day afternoon. The sports interest of respondents between 40-49 years of age was primarily that of a spectator. However, a small number stated they participated in certain sport activities requiring little physical exertion. Park.Visits were, in the majority of case, during the summer on Sunday afternoon. Most of these respondents attended the parks less than once a month. The frequency of visit might be related more to the lack of opportunity or facilities than the lack of desire. Picnicking and children's play areas were the major attract- ions of parks visited. This age group listed swimming and baseball as the activities they would most likely partici- pate in, if provided in the parks. Table 26 on the next page shows that respondents 50 years of age and older registered a strong interest in swimming and boating. .Actually,.those respondents above 60 years of age 'were, primarily, interested in boating and fishing. .As ex- pected, these respondents preferred watching sports. The most popular hobbies were hunting and fishing, knitting and sewing and nature study. Information obtained in this analysis allowed the formu- 153 Table 26 Ranking of Time of Park.Visits by Responding Age Groups (First and Second Ranking) Time Age Groups 20-29 30-39 240-49 50 + Time of Year: Spring Summer Fall 2 Winter Hug Hug Hue Day of Week: Weekday Saturday Sunday Holiday HN Time of Day: Morning Afternoon Evening All Day ND" ND" Frequency of Visit: ‘More than once a week 2 Every week 2 2 2 Every two weeks 1 Every month Less than once a month HNN HN lation of the Activity Interest Charts by age and occupation found in the appendices.' 154 Summagz Among the occupational groups attending parks, the unskilled (Composed primarily of factory workers), the skilled, the professional and the official-managerial, in that order, ranked highest. The self-employed and the retired had the lowest incidence of park use. Park attendance for most of the occupational groups and all of the age groups was Sunday afternoons during the sum- mer months. The official-managerial group favored the week- days and the professional favored attendance on holidays. Swimming was the most preferred activity among all of the occupational groups. The retired preferred rest and scenery. Swimming, also, rated highest with all of the age groups. Most of the occupational groups and all of the age groups listed children's play areas and picnicking as the features that attracted them to the parks. Fishing and rest and scenery appealed most to the retired group. Respondents under 30 years of age stated they were main- ly participants of sports and those over 30 years of age in- dicated they were mainly spectators of sports. The official-managerial, professional, skilled and un- Skilled, self-employed, clerical and service groups visited 155 parks every two weeks. Those respondents under 30 years of age visited the parks, at least, twice a month, while the respondents in the other age categories attended less than once a month. CHAPTER VI APPLICATION TO DESIGN As previously stated, the primary objective of this study was an investigation of the influence of certain social factors upon physical design. The major approach was a study of the attitudes and interests of the peOple of three selected neighborhoods in the Lansing community. Information obtained from this study is used to develop a Designer's User-Preference Chart and as a fundamental basis for making decisions for the development of park facilities for one of the areas. Design is not an end product, but essentially a "think- ing" and problem solving activity - logical, systematic, or- derly and scientific. It begins with the idea stage and through analysis, synthesis of imagination and practicality, progresses to the physical form itself. Emphasis is placed upon the realization that the proper approach stems from an understanding of the relationship of the design to man - his satisfaction with the total experience. This study suggest that the approach should be analyti- -156- 157 cal; one involving the critical examination of certain accumulated data (cultural, social, technological, biologi- cal and economical) and the integration of these elements into an expression of one harmonious unit. This method re- sults in a design that evolves systematically and one that would produce a variety of spaces that would correspond with the variety of experiences that people yearn to fulfill. This chapter will be devoted to a brief discussion of the value and importance of such studies of user-preference to designers, some general social principles to guide design and the development of a Designer's User-Preference Chart. USER-PREFERENCE s'r’uums The simplicity of life in the past enable man to satis- fy his needs easily, for life was simple and man had very few needs. However, the present day society, with all of its complexities, demands more respect for the application of social needs in design development. More attention must be given to human needs and the satisfaction of these needs through adequate designs. Many designers assume that there is a great deal of similarity among the demands of people for opportunities to 158 recreate. However, this study and other recent studies reveal a great deal of diversity among population groups relative. to the kind, quantity and quality of facilities desired. Other studies have shown that though there is a similarity among the desires of people for certain sppcipl facilities, there was evidence which indicated community individualism. Also, information from these studies and the one performed in Lansing suggest that a person's training and background has a profound influence upon the type of recreation pursued. This was found to be, especially, true among the adults re- sponding in the Lansing study. The influence of such factors as time, distance, facili- ties, cost and skill upon participation have been recognized by recreational designers for a long time. However, very little effort has been devoted toward determining the extent of the influence these factors exert upon design or the scien- tific application of data collected in investigations toward design development. The failure of many projects, in terms of meeting the public's needs or desires or where public use determines success, could possibly be caused by the lack of those re- sponsible for making decisions on develOpment using the above 159 stated approach. The question of how much a participant is willing and able to expend of himself and his resources in order to pursue an activity is unresolved. Insight into these areas would give the designer a better understanding and appreci- ation of the people he is preparing designs for and equip him to develop plans that would satisfy the greatest number. The development of new recreational spaces and the re- designing of old spaces should be based upon an appraisal of individual habits and tastes and not, merely, upon nationally accepted standards. Cities utilizing standards in determining facilities and areas will find them to be more of a disad- vantage than an advantage. The mere fact that standards are created on a national scale indicates that there is no allow- ence for distinctiveness between communities. As a result, communities of lower economic levels must strive for the same predetermined goals as those in the higher income bracket. The use of standards greatly inhibits the functions of the designer. Basic Opportunities for innovation, experimentation, the use of imagination or the application of new data are greatly limited, because of ”organized" decisions. Finally and probably the most important fallacy in the use of stand- 160 ards is the fact that standards are merely statements of an ideal system, consequently, they do not provide the tools for implementation. The fact that many cities attempt to alter these stand- ards to meet their own needs or to adjust them to the socio- economic structure of the community is encouraging. It means that many cities realize they can't use ‘standards', per se, and this has provided impetus for the development of new ideas and concepts in urban recreational design. Agencies charged with the responsibility of providing recreation and the designer who is responsible for the creation of design schemes will find the information obtained in studies of this nature a handy tool for guiding designs that will satis- fy those affected. Further investigations along the lines of this study- should be conducted. The program of research should be ex- panded to include additional activities and interests and con- sideration of many more factors. More specific knowledge of human actions and needs, relative to recreation is needed to Provide adequately for people in our constantly changing so- Ciety. 161 SOCIAL PRINCIPLES AS GUIDES TOWARD DESIGN The principles suggested below are not unbending or rigid but flexible guides or checks in the development of design schemes. The intention here is to suggest an approach for the designer and his responsibility and methods of designing for optimum efficiency of all resources. 1. The initial decision to consider a given area of land as a potential recreational site should be made on the basis of consideration of the number of persons inhabiting a given area. The type of facility to be located on the pro- jected site should, also, be determined with respect to the size and population composition expected to utilize the facili- ty. 2. A basic need of all pe0ple, regardless of sex, eco- nomic or social status is the opportunity for recreation and group association. Provisions must be made to allow peOple to acquire and use their knowledge, skills, insights and re- sources. Opportunities of a varied nature must be provided. The design of an area should give the participant the oppor- tunity to enjoy himself alone or to find fulfillment in group association. ‘ 162 3. It has been found that the density of the population of an area is directly related to the ability of the people in the area to provide adequately for the pursuit of recre- ation. Many peOple today have the resources to satisfy a great many of their recreational needs. However, in con- gested areas where people are of the lower economic level, it's necessary to provide facilities to supplement the in- dividual's resources. Lewis Barrett suggested in his report that people living in areas of poor housing and high popu- lation density should be provided with more opportunities for recreation at the community's expense.1 4. Consideration must be given to the age, sex, socio- economic level and cultural background of the participant. This study showed that the recreational interest of people varied with their age and occupation. There is, however, no creditable evidence to suggest that the degree of partici- Pation of a specific group is directly related to the racial origin of the group. 5. Consider choice as an objective in designing recre- 1 Lewis Barrett, Appendix to “Report Study of Group Work and Recreation", Survey of United Community Services, Inc. and its Member A encies, (Detroit: April, 1953), Detroit United Community Services. 163 ational spaces. Determine the choices people seem to want by observing how they spend their leisure time. 6. Specific concern must be given toward providing for special groups within the population. Consider the pre- ference of ethnic minorities, teenagers, single and married persons. Consider the desires of older people and even dif- ferent members of a single family. Let these factors guide the determination of the physical form of the design. 7. Constantly search, experiment and invent new ways of creating environments that will adapt themselves to the variety of behaviors and activities of our constantly changing society. 8. Accessibility is a prime factor to consider in recreation development. A design having all of the other qualities will be of little value if it is not within easy reach of the participant. This is especially true in areas requiring daily or weekly use. A clear statement must be made between the user and the area. 9. Close linkage between facilities and the spatial characteristics of an area may enhance the choice of activi- ties. This will, also, enable members of a mixed group to pursue a wider range of activities. 164 DESIGNER'S USER-PREFERENCE CHART Analysis of information obtained in this study revealed a relationship between the user's occupation and age and his choice of a particular recreation activity. It is, there- fore, possible to take the results of this analysis and cre- ate a UseruPreference Chart that would aid the designer in making decisions on the development of facilities and areas. This chart should pp; be used as the sole element in evolving design decisions, but to give insight into the possible in; terests and desires of people in a specific area. It is possi- ble to hypothesize that usage of this chart would insure a greater satisfaction and participation of the populace in a newly developed area or one that is undergoing redevelopment. This chart is suggested, merely, as an additional tool for the creator of designs (Landscape Architects, Architects, Urban Planners, etc.) as well as officials_responsible for making policy decisions. The Chart resulted from an analysis of answers tospecif- ic questions on the Home Survey Questionnaire and library re- search on the needs of the individual, particularly, the teenager. Usage in this case is restricted to the Lansing area studied, but there are implications for a general use. 165 The investigation of the interest and attitude of occupat- ional and age groups toward recreation pursuits on a national basis could provide information for the creation of a chart that would allow usage on a wider basis. Further research of other factors affecting choice of facilities and areas, such as income, sex, education and cultural background would give more creditability to the use of such a chart. In either case, special care must be taken in utilizing the chart and certain adjustments are necessary for the application in each area. The real value in the very limited nature of this study is the creation of a framework for a new approach to design. steps as the Usage of'thé'nésr;Prsférsn¢e Chart 1. Requirements: a. Information on the occupations of residents of the area under investigation. b. Information on the ages of the residents of the area under investigation. 2. Determine the percentage of the various occupational groups within the_area and the average age of those residents falling under each occupational group represented. (For example: 30% of the occupants of an area are classified as professional and the average age of those in this group is 32 years of age) 166 Beginning with Chart I (See page 168), locate the occupational group, read right for the first letter of the user classification. Locate what age group the average age of the occupational group being checked falls between and read left for the second letter of the classification. Place the classification in the first column of Chart II (See page 168). Check the Activity Interest Rating (See Appendices C1 and C2) and place the symbols for the corres- ponding interest (Taken from Chart III on page 169) of the occupational and age group in Column Two of Chart II. Follow the same procedures for each occupational and age group found in the area under investigation. After completing column gwp of Chart II for each occupation and age group, rate the major interests of the residents of the area on the basis of the number of times the same interest appears for each group. (For example: Swimming might be rated first by six of the occupational and age groups and pic- nicking might be ranked second by this group; while picnicking is ranked first by the remaining three occupational groups and swimming second. Children's play area could be rated third by all of the groups. Therefore, the major interest list would read swim- ming, picnicking and children°s play area. ‘All of the interests should be checked in this manner to determine the final list. The final decision on facilities that should be con- sidered in the design scheme is determined by com- bining the major interest list with the percentage of occupational groups in the area under investi- gation. (For example: If 50% of the residents are skilled, 301 unskilled and 20% professional, em- phasis would be placed upon providing for the groups in the order of the greatest number. 167 9. Use Chart IV (Page 170) to develop a design criteria for each of the major interest being considered and place in column three of Chart II. USER-PREFERENCE CHART OCCUPATIONAL ONOUP CLASSIFICATION ACE ONOUP OFFICIAL-MANAGINIAL I a an a. PROFESSIONAL u a to no SERVICE m e no so CLERICAL IV ! n so 4. seizsueu v I ) so so seer ease-Lover: VI F eo suntan \m UNSKILLEO vm 'Iaenneo m C H A R T II USER CLASSIFICATION INTEREST OESION CONSIOINATIONS F a < i a EDGEQEEWEEIHME 4 R E as H CRDGUIT CAMPING ROLLIRGKATING DANCING GAGE-ALL VOLLIYDALL FOOT-ALL DDWLING GDLF IADMINTDN WINTER ACTIVITIIG HIKING AND NATURI STUDY CHILDREN'S PLAY ARIA ARCHERY TENNIS HANDICRAFT picuacxauo 170 USER-PREFERENCE CHART IV INTEREST PURSUITS DESIGN CONSIDERATION Sports Major types of 1. Design of natural area (active) sports such as and man-made structures baseball, soft- ball, tennis basketball, badminton, archery, and volleyball should set the mood for spirited competition. 2. Good access and pro- minence in its setting is paramount in develOpment. 3. Linkage with various activities to allow free movement of participants. 4. High quality of mater- ials required to promote community spirit. 5. Desirable orientation for ballfields is that in which pitching direction is approximately northeast or southwest. Other games such as tennis, badminton and volleyball approximately north and south. 6. The surface of court games (basketball, tennis, volleyball, badminton)may be earth, turf or paved. Paved is most desirable. Enclosures and backstops needed and lighting lengthens time of participation. 171 (Continued) CHART IV INTEREST PURSUITS DESIGN . CONSIDERATION Sports (Passive) Hunting, fishing, horseshoes croquet clock golf 1. Development of area for hunting and fishing - keep area as near as possible in natural state. Restrict the development of facilities to few locations that will interfere as littles as possia ble with natural conditions. Requires large quantity of land with plants, animals and fish in their natural habitat. Accessibility by major routes important but restrict auto- mobile movement on the site to periphery. 2. Cost of construction and maintenance in the case of lawn bowling and clock golf which require a ”green“ in good condition at all times necessitates careful consideration before making decision to develop. 3. Orientation of horseshoe courts should be in a north- south direction. Water Sports Swimming, boating, (cru- ising and ac- tive) water skiing 1. Natural water areas are most favorable site. 2. Requires special attent- ion for design of piers, docks and launching ramps and adequate areas for parking, 172 (Continued) CHART IV INTEREST PURSUITS VDESIGN CONSIDERATION service and recreational use. 3. In the case of outdoor swimming pools, consideration must be given to easy access to a supply of pure water, sewer facilities to empty the pool, close to public. transportation and the center of population or neighborhood depending upon use. Regarding orientation, the sun should be back of diving board in late afternoon. Area for spec- tators should not face western 8111'! a [— Winter Sports Skiing,‘ice skating, to- boggan, ice hockey, coasting 1. Conversion of other area; (concrete or asphalt tennis courts) should be considered for ice skating. 2. Natural, quiet, shallow water areas are ideal sites for skating rinks. 3. Park hillsides free from obstructions, golf courses and other larger areas wdth natural slopes provides op- portunities for toboggan slide, coasting and skiing. 4. Accessibility by major traffic routes important for ' usage of larger sites for 173 (Continued) CHART IV INTEREST PURSUITS -DESIGN CONSIDERATION skiing and togoggan, etc. Nature Study of 1. Avoid development of man~ Enthuisiasts nature and made structures and facili- - animals in ties, as much as possible. natural habi- Develop only the barest tat, enjoy-‘ essentials for access and ment of wil- enjoyment. derness 2. Select and preserve natural features or scenery. 3. Develop flora and fauna indigenous to area. 4. Protect area from in- tensive man-made development. 5. Usually requires large acreage for development. Family Camping, pic- 1. Easy accessibility by nicking, chila' dren play areas relaxed ‘ activities, hiking and nature study automobile, public trans- portation and in the case of neighborhood facilities, walking. 2. Camp area should be buffered in an area of natural tree cover. Site distance from entranCe is important for safety. Walks and roads should be aligned with the contour of the terrain. (Continued) 174 CHART IV INTEREST ,PURSUITS DESIGN CONSIDERATION i 3. Family area should be closely linked to other activity areas to allow all of the members to pursue their individual interest. 4, Water feature, if pos- sible, developed for swim~’ ming is a tremendous asset.. A“ Organizat- ions, ' Church, Employee clubs, ' Fraternal Camping, picnicking, relaxed ' activities, rest and scenery 1. Generally same as above with the exception of the emphasis placed on,the re- lationship to many variety of activities. 2. Requires a larger area developed to handle organized activity and construction of manemade facilities. 3. Major emphasis on de~ velopment of passive areas. 4. Control noise and isolate from other uses by screening with plants. CHAPTER VII IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIAL DATA INTO A PARK DESIGN In any discussion of user needs as they relate to de- sign, it is necessary to think in terms of compromise. Re- gardless of how sophisticated it may be and, however, all- inclusive in its coverage, no design can meet all of the needs of any user-group. The question, generally, resolves itself as one of creating a design that will satisfy the greatest segment or discommode the affect of the smallest segment of the user-group. The problem becomes one of developing a plan with a minimum of biases and one that will contain the combination of elements that would likely produce a solution combining broad user-acceptance with maximum efficiency. A basic premise of this study has been the concept that user-needs and interest, rigorously defined and evaluated, can be a major factor in the successful development of re- creational plans. Not only does user-needs and interests furnish insights as to what should be included in a develop- ment and how it will most probably be used, but perhaps of -175- 176 equal significance, knowledge of requirements will enable the designer to determine what is not necessary, in terms of sat- isfying the public°s desires. Environmental pressures change rapidly and these changes require that the professional designer must adapt his pro» posals to new conditions and reflect the changing cycle. The illustration on the next page is a diagrammatic statement of the consideration of various social factors in design develop» ment. To evolve systematically a solution to a problem it is necessary to scrutinize known pressures affecting the physical environment and to determine through research, analysis and synthesis the implications they have for affecting the resul- ting form. The diagram further illustrates that the designer must take into account various data that appears to be out- side his field, but does have a direct influence upon his work. He must weigh carefully these factors that have been proven to have serious implications for physical form. This chapter deals with the design process as it relates to the application of certain accumulated data (social) toward the development of park facilities in a specific area. The area selected to demonstrate the translation of this infor» mation into design is the Ingham Park neighborhood. The ma: .0 to:oa.a:lfl \e 32.32:... _ \\ ae::.os.. 0:22le to..la.o:.a.L TC! 0.00.0.9: . U.S.—C-l DIP To=lA—0=Llnufl MOHOOOOLL :EmOD E “E... :- flflnn -“—o°m cozlaaul J AGE-IISOOO U 178 choice of this neighborhood was based upon the apparent need for redevelopment and the fact that the largest response to the Home Survey Questionnaire was received from this area. It should be understood that the proposed development is based upon the social requirements of the people and that in an actual situation, other factors such as climate, con- struction cost, topography, soils, character of vegetation and economy could alter the basic design. As emphasized in previous chapters, this study adopts the thesis that the initial point for the development of spaces to recreate should be people's activities a their needs, desires and attitudes. The following discussion will be concerned with the sig- nificance of the population characteristics to decisions, pro- posed facilities and the design of the area. POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS AND DECISIONS Ingham Park is a small neighborhood development providm ing opportunities for active and some passive recreation purw Suits. There is a minimum of facilities, in terms of quantity and type and the present develOpment appears to be geared to~ ward a particular age group a the elementary to junior high School. 179 The following discussion is a brief re-statement of the information recorded in Chapter V and its implications to de- sign decisions: 1. Picnicking, children's play area and hiking and nature study appealed to these residents, in terms of making a selection of an area. These facilities, also, rated high on the preference list and are considered important in the park redevelopment scheme. 2. The percentage of family participation was very high and allows the assumption that if preferred ac- tivities are provided, they would be used. Although the frequency of visits ranged from "Less than once a month" to "Every two weeks" it is felt that an appealing development satisfying userudesires would improve this statistic. Seventy-five percent of the reSpondents felt the facilities were inadequate and that a major improvement would be additional sports facilities. Also, twoothirds of the respondents re- plied that they would be willing to pay additional taxes for the improvement of recreation and this illu- strates the value they attach to recreation. This, also, suggest that the developing agency could ex- pect wide community cooperation on the project. 3. The majority of the responding resident's ages ranged between 20-39 years old. This age group is mostly interested in picnicking, swimming, bowling and hiking and nature study. Consideration is given toward providing an area for the older adults (37.5 percent were 40 years of age and older). The chil- dren of the respondents were, almost, equally divided among the age groups 1-5, 6—10 and 11-15. Consideration is, therefore, given toward providing facilities for each of these age groups, but does not necessitate giving special attention to one particular group. 4. The majority of the respondents were employed in jobs classified as skilled. The primary interest of 180 this occupational group are picnicking, swimming, chil- dren's play areas and winter activities. The Detroit Home Study of Regional Recreation Activities (December, 1959) of 2,924 persons revealed a similar interest of those employed in skilled positions. The Detroit Study showed that respondents under this classification rated picnicking, rest and scenery, winter sports and chil- dren's play areas as activities that would attract them. The major interest of all of the occupational groups in the Ingham Park neighborhood were picnicking, swimming and children's play areas. 5. The major preferences tabulated for the respondents were swimming, bowling and badminton. Applying the User Preference Chart to the data collected for this neighu borhood resulted in a rating of picnicking, swimming and children's play areas. .6. The median school age completed (11.4) suggest that these respondents would have a variety of interests in special activities gained through school experiences. 7. This study included no more than a cursory exami- nation of the economic status of the community. How- ever, the economic wellabeing and the composition of the labor force in the neighborhood does aid in the evaluation of recreational needs, particularly for pub- lic recreation. Though the median income for Tract 36 is $6400 per year, a visual inspection of the neighbor- hood suggest that these residents would fall under the classification of middle to lower middle class. Obvi- ously, the residents in this neighborhood have a greater need of public recreation than some of the other resi~ dents in Tract 36. 8. Relative to racial groups, almost all of the resi- dents were white and no particular ethnic group‘with possible "old country” interest existed. Consequently, the need for placing emphasis on facilities to meet the needs of a special racial or ethnic group in the neigh- borhood is eliminated. 9. Population projections for the Lansing community 181 suggest the necessity of developing facilities to accomo- date a larger group in the future. Therefore, it is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Department co- operate with the Catholic Diocese, who own the ppen field east of the park, in developing recreation facilities on the proposed school site. PROPOSED FACILITIES Ballfield The existing ballfield, with the exception of being re-oriented, is considered adequate. Tabulation of boys in this neighborhood revealed that less than one-third ranged between the ages 10415 years old. It is felt that this percentage coupled with the playground facilities of the nearby school necessitated the provision of only one ball- field in the park. Also, the tabulation did not show a pre- ponderance of one particular age, which means that various ages would have to visit the park at the same time to put pressure upon this facility. The open area is sufficient in size to accomodate two small softball fields that might be required on special days (Holiday weekends) and adaptable to the general layout of a football field. By scheduling the use of this space. it can, also, be used for a variety of other activities, such as relays, dodge ball and circle games. Especially, when other areas become overcrowded. 182 Bowling Bowling ranked very high as a major prefer» ence among the residents of this neighborhood, as well as for the predominant age group. Though this facility is not found in most parks, it is felt that the provision of oppor- tunities for bowling is necessary for increased participation and to meet one of the major desires of the residents. The determination of developing six alleys is based, largely, upon the fact that the variety of occupations suggest par- ticipation at various hours and the interest and age of the family units urge the development of facilities in which the entire family could participate. Also, since this intro- duce a new type of park facility for the neighborhood, ob- servation of participation would illustrate the necessity of expanding the facility. Further more, it is assumed that the provision of facilities for the other major preferences would relieve the pressure that might be placed upon this facility. Swimming Swimming ranks as one of the most popular forms of recreation and received the number one rating under the section of preferred activities. It, also, ranked high as a park attraction and interest of the predominant age group in this neighborhood. This information illustrates the 183 critical need of this facility in Ingham Pprk peighborhpod. Though the cost of construction of a swimming pool represents a substantial investment, the primary reason it is pp; pro- posed for the park is the fact that the city of Lansing has plans to build a Comprehensive Community Center in this area, which includes an indoor swimming pool. Picnic Areas Not only is the existing park area quite adaptable to the development of picnic facilities, but it ranked number one as an “attraction", the interest of the pre- dominant age group,as well as the major occupational group in the Ingham Park neighborhood. The type of development sug- gested for the area is the single family unit, as it is not anticipated that the area would be required to accomodate large groups (Fraternal organizations, employee clubs, camp- ing groups, etc.). Because of the importance the residents of this neighborhood attached to picnicking and the emphasis that was placed upon familyatype participation, it is recom- mended that the major portion of the wooded area be developed for picnicking. Older~Adult Area Examination of the Age Distribution Graph (See page 81) revealed a significant number of adults in the older age group. The respondents in this group indi- 184 cated on the questionnaire form that the neighborhood did not provide facilities for the older people's enjoyment. There- fore, it is recommended that an area in the park be set aside for the development of facilities for older people who have a maximum of leisure time to meet and converse and to engage in games which require a minimum of physical effort. A shel- ter is suggested with seats and small tables for checkers, chess, cribbage, cards and general sociability. Pre-Schogl_Area - School-Age Area As was discussed earlier, the age range of thegchildren reported for the neigh- borhood was equally divided among the major groups. Several studies reviewed indicated that premschool areas exceeding 10,000 square feet caused problems of supervision, conse- quently, the area proposed does not exceed this limit. It is felt that should the situation require space to exceed this number(Perhaps on special occasions), the open space ‘west of the pre-school area would provide for the over-flow. Items for the area is selected on the basis of the enjoyment they offer, their educational value, comparative safety and ability to hold the continued interest of the child. A space of a little larger area is suggested for the school-age child (6-10). Essentially, the same type of equipment is recom- 185 mended for this age group as for the pre-school, however, the equipment becomes larger and is a little more daring. Because a majority of the children reported for this neigh- borhood were members of the boy and girl scouts, a craft table is proposed where activities could be offered that‘ would develop greater manual skills and aesthetic under- standing of materials. Shelters A shelter combining storage, rest rooms and covered sitting area is suggested to be constructed near the ballfield (See proposed development scheme) to provide *bpportunities for relaxation (Especially the group of respon- dents 40 years and older who stated they were more of a spectator of sports than a participant) as well as provide shade. A small structure is proposed in the court games area for equipment storage and a simple covered shelter for the area designated for the older citizens. Parking Tabulation of the mode of travel to parks re- vealed that many (65.5%) of the residents of this neighborhood used their automobiles to get to the parks. It is recommended that the present area designated for parking remains, but an additional parking space be constructed on the perimeter of the site near the court games area where it is expected to 186 have a high concentration of participants. Another parking area is suggested to be located on the northwest perimeter of the site when the city constructs the proposed road. THE DESIGN OF THE SITE In addition to considering social factors, the designer must fully understand the site and the total site environs. As stated at the beginning of the discussion, since this study was concerned with social factors, a detail analysis of other factors are not considered. However, to give more va- lidity to the proposed scheme, a brief site analysis is made“ of the area. An effective method of clearly perceiving the character of a site is by preparing a Site Analysis Diagram. The preparation of this diagram is necessary to make decisions on design develOpment. It shows existing streets surrounding the site, structures and facilities on the site, views, tree cover, sun diagram, logical points of entry and notes on the neighborhood. After determining the proposed nature and function of the project (Accomplished through research and analysis) it is possible to begin designing the area. The design of the park is essentially the process of relating the various use areas 187 to each other and the natural and man-made features of the site on the SippyStructure Diagram. It shows the proposed redevelOpment in relation to the site, streets and the neigh- borhood. The final design is basically an expression of the plan- ning process which resulted in the development of the Site Structure Diagram. It requires the designer to reanalyze site functions, logically develop the areas and refine the detail of structures and areas shown on the Site Structure Diagram. The Site Analysis Diagram, Site Structure Diagram and the Site Design for the redevelopment of the area are shown on the following pages. .....u....u.u.......un are? I I < L s. 1 1 0 z . / , eeeeeee eeeeeeee eeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee aaaaaaaaa sssssssssss sssssssss eeeeeeeee eeeeeeee aaaaaaaa eeeeeeee aaaaaaa Al. «N ARC. NL'D ‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ - I... 3.05.... .03! «8’... .C 6.: Ella! 'i i I I A ‘ Ilaall A III- . ea dud-lan a_ IIIII ...I.l.“.l O: i“ 3 ii 1 s .1 i 1 I I I I A 1 I I I 4 I I I if}? i 15111!!! i .1111} APPENDIX A 192 APPENDIX A1 October ___, 1964 Dear Recreation plays an important role in the life of every per- son, including your own. Your enjoyment or participation de- pends upon the availability of recreational facilities. In order to adequately provide these facilities, designers must have knowledge of the needs and interests of the people. As a graduate student at Michigan State University, I am completing a program in Landscape Architecture. In partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master's Degree, I am making a study, under the direction of Professor Richard Julin of the Department of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture with the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation in Lansing, of the interests and needs of the people of selected neighborhoods in the city of Lansing. The purpose of this study is to ascertain the recreational interests and needs of the people to learn if they are being fulfilled by the current activities and facilities and tak- ing these results develop a basic criteria for designers of recreational areas to insure that future developments will meet the public's demands. You have been chosen as one of a selected group of adults to assist in this study. Your comments and opinions will be of great value to me. Will you, therefore, please fill in the enclosed questionnaire? It will take only a few minutes of your time. Please return it in the enclosed self-addressed envelope at your earliest convenience. Your time, courtesy and consideration are greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours, Clinton N. Hewitt 911 G. Cherry Lane E. Lansing, Michigan 193 :APPENDIX.A2 HOME SURVEY OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES Family Composition (Please give ages) Husband Wife Children: Boys Girls Occupation (Indicate whether husband's or wife's) Organizations to which your family belongs (Example: 4H» Club, PTA, YMCA, Boy Scouts, etc.) Does your family have membership in any outing club? Yes_ If so, in what activities do they participate__ Hohbies of members of your faMily. Husband ' Wife Children Does your family (Together or separately) visit and/or participate in activities of the Lansing Community Parks? Yes No IF NO, PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 11 (OMIT QUESTIONS 7 thru 10) What attracted your family to the park? (Check one or more) Children's Play Area Rest and Scenery Golf Sports Hiking and Nature Study Swimming Picnicking Winter Activities Boating . Fishing Camping ‘ Other How long does it take your family to get to the park? Under 15 minutes 30 to 40 minutes . 15 to 20 minutes 1 hour and over Mode of transportation: Car Bus Walk 9;. 10. 11. 12. 194 What time do the members of your family normally visit the park? (Check one or more) Time of Year: Spring Summer Fall Winter Day of Week: Weekday Saturday . Sunday Holiday Time of Day: Morning Afternoon Evening All Day How often do the members of your family normally visit the park? More than once a week Every month Every week Less than once a Every two weeks month If the members of your family do not participate in Recre- ational Activities - - What are the reasons? ___Too far away Dissatisfied with parks and ___Heavy traffic recreational facilities ___Crowded parks Have no desire ___Lack of time Other ___Cost If you checked ”Dissatisfied with parks and recreation facilities”, PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER Would the members of your family participate in any of the following activities? (Use the following numbers to indi» cate whether the answer is the husband, wife or children's Opinion: l-Husband, 2-Wife, 3~Children) Check one or more Yes No Perhaps Yes No Perhaps Archery ___ ,__ Swimming ___ ‘__ Badminton ____ __ Boating ___, __ Bowling ___"_y Square dancing ____ __ Croquet ___,.__ Social dancing ___ .__ Golf ___ ‘__ Roller skating ___ '__ Handball ___, __, Handicraft ‘___ |__ Horseshoes___ ,__ Painting and Tennis ___. __ Sketching Volleyba11____ __ Football Baseball 195 State any other activities in which the members of your family would like to participate 13. Are you interested in sports as a spectator or a particie pant? 14. Do you feel that the recreational facilities provided in your neighborhood are adequate? 15. In what ways would you like to see the area of recreation improved? 16. Would you be willing to spend more tax money to improve public recreation facilities? Name of Person Answering Questionnaire (Fill in if you desire) 196 APPENDIX A3 October 12, 1964 Department of Parks and Recreation San Francisco, California Dear Sir: I am a graduate student in Landscape Architecture at Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Presently, I am working on my thesis, a study of ”Social Influences on Recreational Design". To become better acquainted with how some cities approach recreational design, I am mailing a questionnaire to cities recommended as having successful park systems. Your comments and opinions will be of great value to me. I would appreciate your filling out the enclosed questionnaire and returning it at your earliest convenience. Thank you very much for your time, courtesy and consider» ation. Yours truly, Clinton N. Hewitt 911 G. Cherry Lane E. Lansing, Michigan 197 APPENDIX.A4 PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT QUESTIONNAIRE What factors are considered when determining the type and location of recreational facilities in an established community? When the city expands, through the development of new areas, what steps or procedures are followed before the Departmentns designers begin working on a scheme? ..... What, if any, affect does the class of people (Ethnic and/or economic) in a locality have upon the design of recreational spaces? Does a change in the Age Level of a neighborhood affect the design of recreational facilities provided? (Do you return to an area that has undergone such a change and make design adjustments?) 198 (Continued) Qpestionnaire 5. When a neighborhood undergoes a change in either ethnic or economic groups, does the department make adjustments in the facilities provided? 6. What part does 'public opinion0 play in the decisions and management policies of the department relative to pro- visions for recreation? APPENDIX B 200 APPENDIX Bl Table Bl Population of Cities of Parks and Recreation Departments Returning Completed Questionnaires CITIES POPULATION Boston, Massachuetts 697,197 Chicago, Illinois 3,550,404 Cleveland, Ohio 876,050 Denver, Colorado 493,887 Detroit, Michigan 1,670,144 Grand Rapids, Michigan 177,313 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 79,697 Los Angeles, California 2,479,015 Miami, Florida 291,688 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 741,324 Pasadena, California 116,407 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2,002,512 Richmond, Virginia 219,958 St. Louis, Missouri 750,026 Winston-8a lem, N.C. 111, 135 201 APPENDIX 82 Table 32 Reaction of Cities on the Question of the Affects _ of the Class of People Upon Recreational Design. Cities LE Response . ‘ onsiderable Seme None Boston, Massachuetts _Jc, Chicago, Illinois X Cleveland, Ohio Denver, Colorado Detroit, Michigan Grand Rapids, Michigan Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Los Angeles, California Miami, Florida ' Milwaukee,‘Wisconsin Pasadena, California Philadelphia, Pennsylvania X Richmond, Virginia St. Louis, Missouri X Winston~Salem, North Carolina X NXNX >< NNNNN Table B3 Opinion of Responding Cities on Age Level as a Factor in Recreational Design Cities . . Response Angsiderable Some None Boston, Massachuetts ' X Chicago, Illinois X Cleveland, Ohio M.X Denver, Colorado Detroit, Michigan Grand Rapids, Michigan Harrisburg, Pennsylvania X Los Angeles, California Miami,'Florida Milwaukee, Wisconsin Pasadena, California Philadelphia, Pennsylvania X 'Richmond, Virginia X St. Louis, Missouri 'Winston-Salem, North Carolina X ~ NXXN ><><>< >< 202 APPENDIX B3 Table B4 Reaction of Responding Cities on the Affects of Changing Neighborhoods Upon Design Cities Response Considerable Some None Boston, Massachuetts Chicago, Illinois Cleveland, Ohio Denver, Colorado Detroit, Michigan Grand Rapids, Michigan Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Los Angeles, California Miami, Florida Milwaukee, Wisconsin Pasadena, California Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Richmond, Virginia St. Louis, Missouri Winston»Salem, North Carolina X >< N><><><><>< Table B5 Responding Cities Reactions to the Influence of Public Opinion upon Decisions and Management Policies Cities Response Considerable Some‘ None Boston, Massachuetts Chicago, Illinois Cleveland, Ohio Denver, Colorado Detroit, Michigan Grand Rapids, Michigan Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Los Angeles, California Miami, Florida Milwaukee, Wisconsin Pasadena, California Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Richmond, Virginia St. Louis, Missouri Winston~Salem, North Carolina XX >< ><><><><><>< XX X APPENDIX C APPENDIX C1 Table C1 Activity Interest Rating - Age Groups resulted from an analysis of the rating by Age Groups to the questions on preferred activities, attraction to parks and hobbies of respondents. 204 (This chart See Chapter V) Age Group Interest *15-19 1. Active Sports (Baseball, football, swimming, etc.) 2. Winter Activities 3. Picnicking - Relaxation 4. 0932313 20-29 Akin Swimming 5. Bowling 2. Children°s Play Area 6. Badminton 3. Picnicking 7. Croquet 4. Hiking and Nature fied: 30,39 1. Picnicking A 5. Baseball 52. Swimming 6. Winter 3. Children‘s Play Area Activities 4. Bowling_» 7. Roller Skating 40~49 l. Picnicking 5.4. Baseball A52. Swimming 5. Horseshoes 3. Children“s Play Area 6. Football 50 + l. Picnicking 4. Boating