“HI

I
l

140
599
THS

 

 

um“.—.—_—.‘

I."

m:

m 2 -. 0‘
I s’.‘,;'“.r\;‘~.{

\L . : (““33“
L, ELI-gm] 0101;:

University

 

"' 3*

EXAMINING TY? OVPCPTUNITIFS AND APPROACHES TO RECREATIONAL AND OPEN

SPACE DFVSIOPMFNT WITHIN INNVR CITIES 0F HVTRCPOLITAN PFGIONS

Alvin T. Holman

Plan B Paper

Submitted to Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the degree of
Master of Urban Planning

Professor Keith M. Honey, Chairman
College of Social Science
Department of Urban Planning
School of Urban Tlanning and landscape Architecture
Fall 1972

LQC}KSAN STATE URVflfl?QIY
' " " *' "‘ ' ' :H.

EAST LANSHVG,AMQ+HGAK

     

PREFACE

The subject matter of this Plan B paper generated an inquisitive
interest to this author as a result of general "shop talk" with

some of my fellow professional and student peers, and much of the
awareness that has been given to me via the content of the courses
taken and the courses that I am currently enrolled in within the
Departments of Park and Recreation Resources and Resource Development.
The courses that I have taken and will complete within those two
departments are as follows:

(3) RD 880 Special Problems

(3) PER 680 Special Problems

(4) PPR Auto Park Administration

(3) PER 8&2 Park and Recreation Policy

g3) nan 880/5 Research Methods

16 credits

My main concern and area of interest in park and recreation resources
as it relates to urban planning is that of examining the Opportunities

and approaches to recreational and open space development within

inner cities of metrOpolitan regions.

The goal Of serving human needs is accepted by most open space
planners. Little has been done, however, to define what these needs
are or how Open Space can best be designed to meet them. Open
Space is frequently determined by opportunistic purchases or the
"mystic of the map". A design is selected because it looks good
on a multicolored land—use map. Research has concentrated on such
problems as how to measure and project the acreage requirements for
broad types of Open space—--playfields, playgrounds, tot lots, etc.
This work has been useful in Obtaining general land requirements for
standard recreation activities. But all too Often it has produced
stereotyped plans.

Conventional notions about recreation and open space disregard
such essential questions as:

** What human values and preferences should open space serve?

** How can these values be applied to the design of particular
types of Open space?

** How can the specific values and needs of different groups
within the population be identified and incorporated into the
Open space and recreational planning process?
Senator Harrison Williams of New Jersey aptly eXpressed this belief:
"There is a certain psychic relief in open space that cannot be

underestimated. It gives us visual relief from the tangled, jarring,

and Often monotonous sight of urban develOpment and a sense Of

orientation and community identity. Very few Can picture the location

1

Of every street in town, but most Of us can immediately place the
location of an attractive park or Open space in our mind's eye."1

The main thrust of identifying new forms Of Opportunities and
directions of development of recreational Opportunity and resources
will be in the planning stage Of Operation more than any other
stage Of activity. This would include development, operations,
and administration. In order for new trends and direc tions to be
successful as they could possibly be, it is imperative that the
catalyst for such would be in the planning stage of the activity
process whereby disjointed incrementalism of application can be
minimized.

Open Space plans, under this approach, would be based on the
needs and attitudes of various population groups in a given area.
These groups would be the potential users of the Open space and
their needs would be recorded through systemic social research
techniques. Present methods rely on generalized analysis of
needs obtained by relating gross quantities Of people to gross
quantities of acreage. A "typical population" with "typical interests"

is usually assumed. As a result, the diverse values of ethnic,
economic, age, and other groups within the urban pOpulation are largely
ignored.

Open space has many meanings in the planning Of cities. It
refers to grounds for Sports and games, or to large areas in public

or quasi-public ownership. It includes unbuilt on land, "natural"

areas, voids Open to view, and places Of outdoor assembly. TO this
ambiguous cluster of places is attached a similar cluster Of purposes:
Conservation, recreation, contact with nature, social or mental health.
Such areas are usually shown in green on a comprehensive or city plan,
and the plan is judged on the size and the continuity of its green
areas.

Open Space in the sense that I am making reference to is an
outdoor area in the highly developed and maturated areas Of a metro—
politan region which is open to the freely chosen and spontaneous
activity, movement, or visual exploration Of a significant number
Of city people. It includes places which are not green on planners'
maps, such as vacant lots and alleys.

Beyond the previously mentioned concepts Of Open Space, there
can and should be modifications in the accepted procedure for
designing and planning for an Open space or recreational system
within inner cities or highly maturated central cities. The usual
method begins with a study of existing and projected future pop—
ulation, and perhaps with an analysis of the present patterns of
recreation activity. By applying recognized quantitative standards
Of certain common types of recreation facilities per unit population,
a present and future demand for these facilities is calculated.
Meanwhile, a survey has been made Of existing public Open Space
and recreation facilities, and this is compared to give a present

and futuré dificit. Independently, a survey is also made Of the

 

 

 

 

 

region to identify the lands which are lightly develOped and which have
potential for use in one of the standard ways. These potential open
spaces are compared to the future deficit; costs and access to using
population are computed; and a "best fit" is found between location

of demand and location Of supply within cost limits. This then

becomes the recommended plan, eXpressed as a staged program of land
acquisition and Open space develOpment.

From this author's viewpoint, this is inadequate. Such an Open
space system (except as it takes cognizance of the distribution of
population, general time-distances, and the pattern of existing Open
land) fails to deal with the total urban pattern of which the Open spaces
are a reciprocal part. It confines itself to some rather stereotyped
categories of Open Space: Beaches, regional parks, playfields and
playgrounds, urban parks. Through its use of standards, it makes
gross assumptions about the Open space behavior and desires Of very
large aggregates Of the population, without real regard for class
and individual differences. It plays down the possibilities of
future change and innovation. It largely ignores the possibilities
of large—scaleigfisign (except for generalized map patterns) and the
vast number of potential site-planning devices and characteristics.
The use and administration of these Open spaces are dealt with
superficially. The system concerns itself with only publicly
owned Open Spaces Of a particular type. It does not contain a clear

statement Of Objectives, and how they connect with prOposals.

It is easier to attack an Old concept than to create a new one.

I cannot suggest a new procedure which will overcome all Of the faults.
However, some additional steps to the usual open Space planning
process will be examined in the following section. These steps

do not constitute a complete Open space planning process, nor do they
include other Open space uses, such as conservation. Within these
restrictions, they are Offered as useful in helping insure that Open
space and recreational facilities will be more responsive to meeting
human needs Of urban dwellers and the disadvantaged segments of

urban areas:

1.) An Operational statement of goals for the use of Open space
Should be made. These goals will vary for different groups within the
pOpulation, and they may change in emphasis while the plan is being
implemented.

2.) A detailed study Should be made Of existing open Space
behavior and aspirations Of the population, divided by economic,
ethnic, and age groups. Members of these groups should join in
these studies. Projections would be made of probable future changes
in this behavior and of ways by which it may be modified in desirable
directions. In dealing with a breader, more ill-defined, and shifting
set Of behavioral patterns than formal recreation, it will be more
difficult to make quantitative estimates of land and facility require-
ments. Computations of front feet of beach and numbers Of picnic

tables can still be made, but how do you determine how many tree

u. _) I) C‘ . r ' . . .
houses are needed. since we are dealing with Open behavaor, pr sumibly
.' v c

—6-

partly free and idiosycratic, we will always have to live in a
penumbra Of uncertainty. This must be dealt with by community
participation, by feel, by experiment, by feedback, and by a wide
degree of physical flexibility. Facilities for formal recreation,
conducted according to fixed rules and requiring commitments of
specially designed outdoor space (tennis courts, for example),
would be programmed and located according to need.

3.) The entire existing system Of Open Space, in the sense that I
have used the term, must be surveyed, including its physical character,
use, and control. The potentialities for future Open space must be
analyzed in the same broad way.

4.) Prototype facilities Of a very wide range should be designed,
fully exploiting technical and design possibilities and abandoning former
stereotypes Of "prOper" or "good" parks. These prototypes should
include prOposals for use and administration as well as physical form.

5.) It should be kept in mind that Spaces are used only if
they are accessible. Also, remember that the view in motion is
the most important way Of seeing a city, and that many recreational
activities are themselves typ s Of movements.

A detailed planning—area analysis should be completed for
communities or planning areas within the metropolitan region. It can
best be done as part Of comprehensive planning studies or in

conjuction with urban renewal planning. The format for the planning

for community recreation could be as follows.

Planning Community Recreation

 

Step I Goal Formulation

 

Establish community recreation philosophy
Establish recreation goals

Coordinate w1tn overall goals of community

Step 11 Data Collection

 

Socio-economical; data
Delineation of neighborhood
Inventory of recreation facilities
Administrative structure

Adapted and adopted standards

Step 111 Plan Formulation

 

Identification of recreation needs
Use of standards
Involvement of citizens and civic groups

Demand use factors

l 4. Step lV Implementation

 

Short range objectives

Assignment of priorities

Financial plan

Cities using a planning method in an attempt to find the best
possible recreation program will improve the recreational opportunities
for the urban dweller.

Another study that could exist which would both complement and
supplement the forementioned approaches is one which defines the
"demand" for outdoor recreation facilities in terms of the city's
societal structure and its particular economic characteristics.

In economic terms, "demand" as applied to outdoor recreation means
consumer requirements for use of visits to a recreation area. Providers
of recreation areas therefore must gain knowledge of consumers‘

"wants and needs" for outdoor recreation facilities. ‘here exists a
correlation between demand and supply of the commodity. Demand is
also a function of the satisfaction users derive from their present
degree of participation.

From the perspective of the whole society and the whole economy,
outdoor recreation is but one part of the total life. Hence, demand for
putdoor recreation will be determined in large measure by societal
processes external to recreation itself. The experience of economic
studies with estimates and projections of deiand for outdoor recreation
is relatively short and incomplete; and particularly so within inner
city core areas of metropolitan regions. A study could be designed to

explore and examine factors externnal to recreation which are alledged

to underlie the rises in demand in outdoor recreation facilities. In
the following, economic trends and social indicators are discussed
which are argued to be causes for rising demand in outdoor
recreation.

The Effects of Economic Factors

 

The combination of a growin g pepulation, shorter work hours and
longer vacations have increased total leisure time and generated demand
for leisure time activities. In addition there 's a change in the age
group distribution among the population. We have a younger population
today and fore—casts are for a still larger percentage of young people
in the next decade. These young people are using, increasingly, their
leisure time for outdoor recreation activities. Considerable attention
is given to the role of leisure in our econmy today and to the future;
and to recreation as one of the many uses of leisure. Available statistics
on average time per capita participation in outdoor recreation activities
suggest the enormous rise in the time spent over the past two
generations on outdoor recreation activities.

Revealing data on participation trends in outdoor recreation
activities aree given in a study by hary A. Holman, Associate Professor
in Economics at the George Washington University.2 This study is concerned
with the estimate of how people divide their total time which is a
clearly defined limited resource of Qt hours per day. The national
time budget estimate includes time divisions for leisure trends

during the 1900—1950 period and a forecast for the year 2000. The study

-10-

also analyzes the interrelationships between income increases, leisure
time increases and rising demand in outdoor recreation activities. The
findings reveal that more peOple, more of them in leisure age groups,
and more leisure for all people, combine to suggest a very great
increase in total leisure in the decades ahead. The examination of

the statistics presented in the study indicates that time spent in
outdoor recreation increased at a much higher rate than leisure time
generally, and that income increased many fold times more than leisure.
For the 1900-1950 period, leisure per capita rose by 27 percent, while
real incomes per capita increased about 150 percent; for the period
1950—2000 period, Professor Holman anticipates a still sharper contrast.
A rise in about 12 percent in per capita leisure is expected to be
contrasted with an anticipated rise of at least 150 percent in real
income per capita. The foregoing trends and forecasts show that the
leisure-income balance is shifting toward much more income and to
slightly more leisure, each on a per capita basis. The same trend is
shown in the outdoor recreation activities-leisure time balance.3
Estimates indicate that from 1900 to 1950 the total time spent on outdoor
recreation activities increased only three-fold. The estimated amount
of time to be spent by the total pOpulation in outdoor recreation
activities over the next t0 years will be proportionately even

greater relative to the increase in total leisure time over the

same period.

-11..
The Effects of Social Indicators on Recreation Demands

While economist reason that the factors of more available time
for leisure and increased income effect the continued rise in demand
for outdoor recreation, sociologists, psychologists, social workers
and outdoor recreation specialists emphasize the link between
demand for recreation activities and social objectives. There is
general concurrance that constructive leisure time activities
contribute to the social good of all elements in the population.
Different social groups and different age groups, however, have
diversified recreation needs and varying capabilities in meeting
these needs. Pressing social objectives are linked to needs of
recreational Opportunities for low income disadvantaged youth and
those which have been victimized as a result of inherent cultural and
racial biases. Behavioral scientists argue that constructive
recreation activities are an important means for alleviating and
preventing social ills. Some of their arguements are:

Prevention of Crime and Juvenile Delinquency; anti-social
behavior is related to social deprivation resulting from low income,
poor education, substandard housing, broken families, and inadeeuate
neighborhood environment. In regards to recreation, inadequate
and disjointed recreational facility deveIOpment along with neglect of
proper methodologies for facility and park system renewal has had an
equitdble role in contributing to unwholesome socio—psychological in-

stability within our society also.

. 47“}

-12..

In other segments of society, naturally the forementioned will not
be the case and alternative approaches would have to be eXplored. For
instance, it would appear as if social deprivation did not exist as a
medium ti high income, quality educational opportunity, a "decent
home for every American", and a wholesome neighborhood environment,
the problem would be solved. The forementioned characteristics are
not utOpian in thought or suggestion but exist in reality; yet then,
the question is asked, "Why is shoplifting highest in the suburbs?"

In relation to recreation, in this case, may not be so much that of
inadequate recreational facility development as it would be appropriate

recreation activity programming. It is postulated that improved

 

recreational opportunities will help in alleviating problems of crime
and juvenile delinquency by providing alternatives and socially
acceptable uses of leisure time.

Educational and Cultural Enrichment: Recreational activities

 

provide Opportunity for furthering educational goals as a result of
the recreation program itself (reading, acting health programs, etc.).
They provide the so-called disadvantaged with skills such as arts
and crafts, swimming, tennis instructions, etc.
Recreation and Socialization: it is pointed out the recreation
programs provide the disadvantaged the participation in organized
athletic activities; an activity most lack otherwise. Shared

eXperiences is an aid in socializing disadvantaged or advantaged youth

-13-

for that matter. The eXperience that good performance in sports
requires some degree of discipline, training, and practice. Excellence
is reinforced by visible social rewards both from peer groups and
adults.
The link of social objectives to recreation activities may be

defined in economic terms as an "externality argument". The

assertion is that recreation lessens juvenile delinquency and other
undesirable consequences of life under depressed urban conditions, and
that those not directly involved never theless gain a better community
life as a result of the external effect. Thus, there is an indirect
source of demand by the people of the community for recreation

facilities.

mmonoroCY

 

I. The Comirehensive System Approach

 

The procedmre of system analysis is used to arrive at a
comprehensive array of factors which may be effecting "demand" for
outdoor recreation in highly urbanized and depressed areas. Two
methods of techniques could be used in the analysis. These are:
eXploratory technique and interrogative tecnique. The methods of
the two techniques are as follows:

A. EXploratory Technique

 

This technique consists of empirical methods that assess the

effects of demographic factors of social indicators, and the effec+s

«‘4'.

~1L-

of the types and quality of available resources on the demand for i -
outdoor recreation areas. While it is probably impossible to enumerate,
much less to measure all of the factors that might be involved, it
would appear that some, if not all of the following factors might well
influence attendance at a particular outdoor recreation area.

1. Effects of Demographic Factors

 

a.) Population Characteristics
Total population
race and sex
Specific age groups
Age groups by family relationships
Minor population
Elderly pophlation
Pre—school children

b.) Population distribution

Density structure-person/acre

-15.

2. Effects of Social Factors

 

a.) Family environment
Household size

Normal family life index %of children under 18 living with
both'parents

Marital unrest
Matriachy index
Fatherless children
b.) Housing
Total housing units
Single family dwellings-% of total
Average housing unit size
Home ownership and occupancy
Average value of housing
Monthly contract rent, units with 1.01 or more per room

Low rent index (% of rental housing units with a contract
monthly rent of less than $80)

c.) Social deficiency indicators
School dropout rates by school level
Delinquency referrals

Welfare aid (Aid to families with dependent children)

Q '1

14.2%

-16-

3. Effects of Economic Factors

 

a.) Insane by family and per capita
b.) Educational attainment

c.) Occupation

A- Effect of Resource Supply

 

a.) Number and acreage of outdoor recreation resources by census
tracts

b.) Unit Operation days/year in each unit

0.) Supervisory man hours/10,000 population

B. The Interrogative Technigpe

 

This technique relies upon value judgement and perceptions of
recreation professionals.and facility users. Perception of the
participant will reveal information on the innate attractiveness
of the facility as judged by the average user and the extent to
which demand has been stimulated by good facilities and management.
Perception of the prof.ssional should be applied to test the capacity
of the recreation facility to aceomodate recreationists and the

intensity of management of the recreation area.

II. The Planning_Strategy

 

A study should adopt the following procedure:
a.) the starting point is the investigation, by eXploring eXploratory

techniques of the people, their economic and social characteristics

-17-

which are assumed to effect the demand for recreation facilities. Then
the recreation resources and related institutional Problems are
investigated by applying both empirical and interrogative techniques.
Major, but not exclusive attention should be focused throughout the
study on publicly owned facilities.
b.) A model could be constructed whereby the interrelationship of the
effects of multi—variate factors on outdoor recreation demand will
be tested. The interrelationships of measurable variables will be
established by method of linear regression equations. The model
would test the validity of the interrelationshigs of the multi-

l ..‘ variate factors and the degree of impact they have on demand for
outdoor recreation.

The model would hepefully test the input of the aspiration

 

and satisfaction value judgements by users and the perception of the
recreation professionals and tell why any recreation facility gets

the use it does.

III. Regression Rguations 5

 

a.) General Recreational Demand Analysis

 

First "demand" will be analyzed as a recreational facility is
used by an individual. The regression equation could look something

' ‘5 like the following:

demand by individual (i) for facility (j) over thne
period (t)

Measures of effectiveness on demand can be postulated as follows:
D S D (P:Q:L:A5Y:E:S:R)
t t j 3 i i i i i k
where P g: the price for use of facility j

the quality of facility j

leisure time available to individual i

A

A ;::. age group of individual i

Y :=: the income group of individual i

i
“1} E] 3:; the economic, educational and occupational characteristics
i of individual i
R :ZL 'the quality and quantity of alternate recreational sites

In establishing the regressions, one must assume effects of the
multi-variate variables applied in the equations on demand and the
interrelationships between the variables.

It appears to be probable that an individual's demand for a
facility will be positively related to that facility's quality and
to the individual's available leisure time. Demand of the individual
to use the facility will be related also to the quantity and quality
of available recreation sites.

Ag} The age group distribution and population density in an urban
area will detennine the intensity of demand for quantity of recreation

facilities.

'.

-19-

The study should also test the effect of economic and social
measurable variables on the demand for recreation activities and
facilities.

b. Demand Anal’sis bv Categories of Recreation Facilities
.1 L

 

In this portion of the study, the interest would be in the
demand of categories of recreation facilities which are required to

serve the recreation needs of the citizen in (name of city}

 

inner city core.

At the present time most municipalities administer three
general categories or urban recreation centers:

a.) Neighborhood recreation centers

b.) District or community recreation centers

c.) City—wide recreation activity facilities

Moreover, to serve all recreation needs of inner city residents,
regional recreation areas located outside of the city of open lands
should be adied to the analysis. Hopefully at some point in time a
model can be constructed to determine demand for the various categories
Of a complete urban recreation center system including the regional
recreation centers.

The "markets" for neighborhood, district, and city-wide facilities
are not independent; that is, the demand to use a neighborhood facility
will depend upon the supply of the municipality will depend upon the

number of neighborhood facilities in the city etc. Formulation of

demand relationships should take place accordingly and calculation of

_oo_

the net change in demand for recreation with the addition of a

particular type of facility.

In order to highly effectuate such an effort by amunicipality,
external resources can be tapped and utilized also; and this does
not negate the fact that such efforts could not serve as a catalyst
for stimulating alterations in governmental roles and resyonsibilities
either. Examples of external resources that can be tapped for the
purposes of developing Open space and recreational facilities are
prograns that are available through the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development. Such resources from the Department of Housing
and Urban Development are:

The Office of Community Development

The Neighborhood Facilities Program

The Urban Beautification and Improvement Program'

C‘

The Open space Land Program

The Interim Assistance Grant Program

The following will be a general capsulation of the above mentioned
prograns.

Office of Community DeveIOpmentb

 

The Office of Community Development was established in the
the Department of Housing and Urban DeveIOpment to promote the well—
being of peOple in urban communities and new towns.

To enhance the environment in which people live, work, and play,

the Office of Community DeveIOpment:

I"

** Shapes social policy for HUD
** Supports research and deve10pment in such areas as tenant-
management relations, self-help and personal growth programs
and training for the unemployed and underemployed
** Works with HtD program administrators to further social goals
The Office of Community DeveIOpment is resyonsible for environ-
mental planning for all HUD programs. It administers no grants, but
plans for people through its offices of relocation, social planning
and services, Workable Program for Community mprovement, and urban
design.
In relation to open Space and recreation the Relocation staff, the
Social Planning and Services staff, the Workable Program for Community
nprovement, and the Urban Design staff are involved in the following:
*tDevelops relocation policy for those affected by open Space
andrecreation development or redevelopment
**Developuent of a comprehensive planning and programming
process for designing action progrwns to meet specific
problems in the community and to mesh with the decision—
mahing process

**Involvement of citizens, including the poor and minority groups

2:.»
I\ ’\

Promoting the relationship of design to the social needs of peeple
*fiExpanding research which explores the influence of the physical
environment on human behavior, eXperience and development

: **Devising and introducing new modes of citizen participation in

the physical design process

The Neighborhood Facilities Program7

HUD's Neighborhood Facilities Program provides grants to help
local public bodies finance development of neighborhood centers to
serve low- and moderate— incane communities. These centers;can bring
to neighborhood residents a wide range of services and activities,
including health, educational, social, and recreational programs.

Grants may be used to help finance up to two-thirds the costs of
a new building or to rehabilitate an existing structure. In areas whihh
the U.S. Department of Commerce designates as Redevelopnent Areas a
grant may increase to three—fourths of the cost of the project.

The federal grant may be used for such expenses architectural
services, land acquisition, demolishing unneeded buildings, and site
improvements, as well as for construction of the neighborhood center.
Grants may pgt_be used to cover the costs of operating the center.

Grants are available only for multipurpose facilities which
provide a variety of services, including health, welfare,educational,
recreational, cultural, social, and similar community services for

neighborhood residents.

\

’ . ~ 1 « ,
l .
' .l ‘. h' r': ‘l ' ’ “ ‘ ~ ,

f'

The Urban Beautification and Improvement Prggram8
Federal grants are available to local public bodies and agencies to
finance up to 50% of the cost of beautification and improvement activities
gpgyg the public bodies average level of activity for the two fiscal
years preceding application.
The city, county, or State government must officially adopt a

a beautification and improvement program if a public body is to

“"K'
g!

p l ' ‘ " n ‘1' v' V' \ ‘ t ' '
5“}. ‘5' 8 '0' -,-.\i I: f" t‘l‘!(‘:‘ :‘i‘ H ‘““ it‘ll" .

-23-

participate in the Federal grant program. The local program should

set forth general priority schedule for both public and private

activities to be undertaken within the next t.ree to five years and

should make full use of both private and public resources. Federal
grant aid is available only for the public activities involved.

Applications may cover many ‘ypes of beautification and improve—
ment projects. An application may include preposed activites in all
four of the following categories:

GROUP I. Upgrading and rehabilitating parks, including basic utilities,

paths, walks, roadways, landscaping and shelters.

GROUP II. Improvement of public places, including design, construction,

and upgrading of malls, squares, plazas, waterfront areas, and similar

sites. Items such as decorative pavement, lighting, planters, street
furniture, and fountains are eligible.

GROUP III. Communitywide activities, including landscaping, soecial
street furniture, signs, benches or other improvements to
improve the appearance of streets, greenways, parkways, and
other non—recreational public sites.

GROUP IV. Historic and other public building sites including special

lighting, paving, lan‘scaping or other work to beautify
such sites.
Design costs directly related to these four groups are eligible
for grant assistance.

Not eligible are administrative costs incurred by a public body;

f f.

I "'3

costs of major construction or deveIOpment, land acquisition, main—
tenance; cost of certain recreational equipment or facilities; and
the cost of any activity for which Federal assistance is available

under another program.

9

The Open Space .and Program

 

Providing and pres3rving Open Space in our rapidly eXpanding
metropolitan areas has been a responsibility shared by the Federal
Government. Open space land—~whether used for public parks and
recreation, or to conserve natural resources, historic, and scenic
areas--improves the quality of urban life. It is a necessary
component of a viable urban environment.

Federal grants are available to public bodies to finance up to
50% of the cost of vauiring and developing land for public par s,
and public recreation, scenic, historic, or conservation areas.

In built-up urban areas where no suitable land is available, grants
may cover up to 50% of the cost of acquiring, clearing, and
developing land.

Eligible costs include acquisition of land and certain structures
on the land, demolition of inappropriate structures, and real estate
services. In general, all development activities in central cities
and low—income neighborhoods can be assisted with full 50% grant aid.
Development assistance for land already in public ownership is available

through the HUD Urban Beautification and Improvement Program.

-r.-

Assistance from HUD is not available for the purchase of already—
developed specialized open space areas, such as golf courses, marinas,
and others.

DevelOpment costs may include: basic sanitary, water, and lighting
facilities; paths; walks; landscaping; equipnent sheds and other small
buildings; safety facilities such as retaining walls, fencing, signs,
and curbing; basic recreational facilities and equipment having long-
term use; and other minor improvements necessary for Open space use.

Project Priorities

 

Priority is assigned to Open Space programs which meet the

~urgent needs of people, especially those of low—income neighborhoods

and communities. The Department also gives special attention to
projects that will shape metropolitan growth and to projects
coordinated with other programs designed to improve the urban
environment. This might include projects such as small park develop—
ments in Model Cities or parks in overcrowded inner—city neighborhoods
on short time schedules, often related to Special summer programs to

ease urban tensions.

Interim Assistance grant Program

The primary purpose of the Interim Assistance Grant Program
is to help localities alleviate harmful conditions in slum and
blighted areas. These must be areas marked for urban renewal in
the near future, but in which some immediate public action is

needed.

HUD prov1des grants to municipalities to Pawn”

A‘ 1+

assistance program in one or more areas, on the following basis:
**Not more than tvo—thirds Of the cost Of planning and carrying
out the program for municipalities with a population Of over 50,000,
according to the most recent decennial census.
**Not more than three-fourths Of the cost Of planning and carrying
.

the program for municipalities with a pOpulation Of 50,0t0 or less,

according to the latest decennial census.

An example Of how such a concentrated effort in the area of
urban recreational planning and development can have in serving as a
catalyst for stimulating alterations in goverhment roles and respon—
sibilities would be that of placing the role of alleviating inequality
of recreation Opportunity upon State Government.

An area Of concern that has definate possibilities for efforts in
this direction is that Of a strategy, legislative, and methodological
develomnent of a state supported effort in park and recreation
resources within central cities. From time to time, and increasingly
so in the past several years, there have been discussions on the role
of state government tO provide, develop, and maintain recreational
facilities to a statewide cross—section of the constituency. This has
been done year in and year out, methods to inprove the facilitation
Of recreational areas to the statewide constituency has been endeavored.
However, although the utilization Of Of facilities has been intense
and the demand for such is even more so, the realization that a

cross-sedtion Of the state—wide has not been achieved. As a result,

the concern for inequitable Opportunity for utilization and consup—
tion Of the psychological, cultural, educational, and social benefits
Of existing stayetems have not been reaped by the majority population
Of states whos taxes support the largest portion of a state department's
apprOpriation for state parks and other recreational areaso

There have been research efforts and studies which indicate that
the overwhelming percentage Of patrons, who are the small number of
select few users Of state parks and other recreational areas are
from the urban metrOpldtan areas of the state. However, this large
percentage Of patronage use is a very small percentage Of the total
number of urban dwellers. Hence, the vast majority Of these indivi-
duals, Or social groups, are not able to absorb any benefit whatso-
ever from statewide programs or Opportunities.

The reason for this phenomena is not one which is without an
answer. The generalized hurdles to benefit are the lack of trans-
portation, lack Of economic Opportunity to support such participa-
tion, proximity relationships between state recreational areas and
major urban areas, are just a few.

With such an inequitable governmental administrative practice
that has been traditionally practiced, perpetuation Of such a one-
sided approach is bound to be evident. It would therefore seem
only natural that such departments Of jurisdiction within state
governments would research the possibility of equalizing the

"state of things and the state Of things tO come".

In order for a state agency to prepare for possible courses Of acfiion
in responding tO the immense attention that innovation in the admini-
stration of its function would require, it would only seen to be a
logical approach to programmatically pursue athree—fold process in
meeting up tO the demands Of innovation and equitable accountability.

One level would have a macro analysis orientation which would
examine, evaluate, monitor, and develOp strategies for policy
develOpment that would be conducive to drawing support for any
state—wide innovation---a national affairs collaboration the Of
activity. The second level Of activity which would be involved in
in state and local cooperation and methodologies for implementation Of
developing state recreation facilities within central cities. The
third level would be the micro level whereby project oriented
methodologies, research, strategies, and specific develOpment issues
would be devised and Operated.

A package Of sequential studies would have to be dove-tailed
together on all three levels to come up with any form Of conclusions
to substantiate a state policy toward develOpment Of state recreational
facilities within urban areas.

I° Tentative Studies for Macro Level Activity

 

a.) Asseswnent on a nation—wide scale, of state policies regard-
ing acquisition of land, the development, administration and
1anitenance of state parks within central cities and/or

metropolitan areas (by state).

b ) A legislative review and analysis Of what is, what could b
c. e,

f‘
L—

V”;

or what is being done on the Federal level to stimulate such

activity as mentioned in Ia.

II. State-wide Level Activity

 

a.) An assessment Of what policy deveIOpments, if any, are taking
place on the state level to stimulate such activity as mentioned
above, by state (i.e. the Department Of Natural Resources for
the State of Michigan and corresponding departments and
agencies of all other states).

b.) Analyze relationships of autonomous authorities whos focus
is in park develOpment, management and administration (i.e.

\ the Clinton—Huron Metropolitan Park Authority), tO the
functions and the reSponsibilty of the state.

0.) Develop strategies whereby in the funding portion Of preposals
or legislative enactments, the inflationary costs for urban
prOperty can be adequately met in light of the fact that
urban property values and speculative assessments raise costs

to premium levels.

III. Tentative Studies for Micro Ievel Activity

 

a.) DvelOp methodologies for surveying potential sites and
resouces within matured urban areas.
b.) Examine land use compatability and relationships Of
\ potential sites to assess the types Of treatments that might

be applied to resolving land use conflicts, transportation

problems, etc..

c.) EXpand the range of leisure and recreation encompassment to
include all forms of leisure and recreational activity of

urban populations and urban sub-groups and minorities.

IV. Significance of study areas

 

A.) Macro level activity
1.) The rationale for study on this level is to crystalize
the picture of what developments have taken place with
regards to such an emphasis; what trends are develop-
ing on the national/Federal level of policy determina-
tion; what are some of the trends and conceivable
‘\ directions that can be taken in the future.
B.) State—wide level activity
1.) The rationale for study on this level is to crystalize
the picture of what developnents have taken place with
regards to such an emphasis on the state level of policy
determination; what are some of the trends and conceivable
directions that cabe taken in the future.
C.) Micro level activity
1.) To devise and develop viable methodologies for assessing
needs in urban areas for urban populations in relations
to tfe resources of both the state administration and
urban resource capabilities.
2.) To devise and develop viable methodologies for integrating

and juxtaposing new physical systems with and onto hig1fly_

C?

-31-

matured urban physical systans and land use comgatabilities
and conflicts.

3.) Establish and enlarge the inventory of forms of recreation
within urban areas for urban populations whereby such
activities can be invaluable "planning factors" in a

recreational system's development.

CONCIUEICN

 

The comprehensive planning process encompasses many facets of the

urban planning professiofj And likewise, the techniques and methodolo—

/‘

1

gies employed in the various aspects of a plan development are just

as diverse and complex. The focus of this paper has been specifically
on that of examining the opportunities and approaches to recreational
and open Space development within inner cities of metrOpolitan regions,
as it relates to the entire comprehensive planning process. In
arriving at a truely comprehensive approach to this aspect of planning
as it relates to the inequities, complexities, and considerations

for new and divergent methodologies, strategies, and commitments, no
total solution has been sought; however, the main thesis of this

entire effort is that of acknowledging the diSpariti,s that exist

with this complex problem and to attempt to operationalize unconventional
, but rational and professionally acceptable thought processes along
the lines of attempting to alleviate such disparities from an

institutionalized perspective.

The reason that this particular approach was selected for such
an investigation was that it would afpear that such changes will only
come to fruition when the social institutions take it upon themselves
to facilitate for such changes. The methodologies that will be
applied will have to be both professionally acceptable and socially
beneficial to all institutions involved.

I would, in a very positive way, suspect that any of the
methodologies or concerns raised in this paper would at minimum, be
at least as legitimate as any of the conventional approaches that are
operating to date in the area of concern of this paper° And with
this as a criteria of validity, it can be assumed that further
development and experimentation into such realities should be encouraged
by both the institutions involved and the related professions...that
is to say, if the institutions and the related professions are
truely legitimate, valid, and ethical enough to pursue another
challenge from an aspect of socio-physical planning which traditionally
has been the door—map to other rated and higher priority concerns as
housing, public exnenditure, transportation, manpower and welfare, and

the whole mixed bag of socio—physical concerns of urban America.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Holmn, Alvin ‘1‘., Prgggctus for a System Analysis to Determine Eh

Demand {3 Outdoor Rogostigg Facilities, unpublished paper,
July, 1972

Holman. Mary A». "A National Tins-Budget for the Year 2000",
Sociolggz and Rose“, Vol. 46, No. 1, 1961

H 1 Lo 9. of Su 0 t as nBsnk Currsno ,
U.S. Ssnsto, 87th Congress, 1st Session

Department of Housing and Urban Development psnpblstnOffioo of
Commit: stsloggnt

Dspsrtnsnt of Housing and Urban Dovelopnsnt panphlst-Jsighborbog
Failitiss Frogs;

Dopartmnt of Housing and Urban Development pamphlet-«Urban
Bosutgiostion and Imgovonent Program

Department of Housing and Urban Development pamphlet-wan Sago
M

Department of Housing and Urban stolopnont pamphlet-Jntorgg
W

 

__._.‘n-

A—

III.”

MIICH GAN

I! "WWI”"Will!IIJMHHIIHHIUIHJI

31293 02645 9796

 

“of

.5 _hJ“¢C.—-MW‘ ‘0‘_ ‘ h

_;¢M

,nN'm

(’1‘. s_—:.‘-__—— ‘