Cover Page

Contents

Preface
Letter

SECTION I

Orientation
Summary

SECTION II

History
Needs
Geography
Historic Sites
Competitors
Economic Aspects

SECTION III

Federal Lands
State and Interstate
Local

SECTION IV

Division of Responsibility
Local
State
Federal
Circulation

SECTION V

Educational Opportunities

Metropolitan Systems

In a national plan for the utilization of lands for recreation, the planning for the use of lands in the metropolitan regions of cities is next in importance to such planning in the cities themselves. Not only does it involve more or less frequent recreation service for the inhabitants of the principal cities of a kind which cannot effectively be supplied in them, but it must provide a service also for the inhabitants of a very large number of smaller municipalities and a considerable number of rural nonfarm and farm people.

The extent of the trend toward concentration of the population of the United States in metropolitan communities is not generally understood by the average citizen. The following table shows in general what has taken place during the past three decades.

---

¹ Recent Social Trends in the United States, op. cit., p. 445.

---

This table shows an increasing geographical concentration each decade. In 1930, 75 percent of the total population was concentrated on about 25.8 percent of land area of the United States.

An interesting phase of this concentration movement is the trend toward the Atlantic Ocean, Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and the Pacific Ocean. The following table presents a summary of what has happened in this respect.

---

¹ Recent Social Trends, op. cit., p. 446.

---

In 1930 there were 93 cities of 100,000 population or more in the United States.¹⁷ The following table shows the concentration of population within this group of cities, and in the regions around them, within an arbitrary radius of 20 to 50 miles, the number of metropolitan regions being reduced to 63 by grouping cities close to each other.¹⁸

---

¹⁷ Fifteenth Census of the United states, 1930, Population, Vol. 1, p. 14, table 8.

¹⁸ Recent Social Trends, op. cit., p. 447.

---

About half of the population of the United States now lives within daily access of a city of 100,000 or more. This is 85 percent of the total population classed as urban.

The metropolitan districts comprise about 1.2 per cent of the total land area of the United States and have about 45 percent of the total population.¹⁹

---

¹⁹ U. S. Bureau of the Census, Metropolitan Districts, Population and Area (Fifteenth Census), Washington, D. C., Government Printing Office, 1932, pp. 6-7.

---

The density of population in the central cities was 8,380.4 per square mile, and in the outside territory 528.3 per square mile.²⁰

---

²⁰ Ibid.

---

These districts present some interesting population characteristics. Of all Negroes in the Northern States, 82.9 percent are in the metropolitan districts of those States. The corresponding figure for the Southern States is 16.9 percent. Of the foreign-born white population of the United States 74.9 percent is in metropolitan districts. The metropolitan districts have only 24 percent of the native white population.²¹

---

²¹ Metropolitan Districts, Population and Area (Fifteenth Census), op. cit., pp. 6-7.

---

Over 50 percent of the total population of the Nation between 25 and 44 years of age is in metropolitan districts, whereas only 29 percent of the children under 15 years and about the same percent of the persons 65 years of age and over are to be found in the metropolitan districts.

In the central cities, the females outnumber the males with but few exceptions. The reverse is true in the suburbs. "In nearly every metropolitan district the percentage of foreign-born white in the central city was higher than outside, which condition is also true of the Negroes. With but few exceptions the percentage of children under 15 years of age in the population is higher outside than in the central city."²²

---

²² Ibid., p. 8.

---

The increase of population in the metropolitan districts from 1920 to 1930 was very much higher (27.2 percent) than for the country as a whole (16.11 percent).

During the decade 1920—30, there were added to the central cities 5,622,986 inhabitants and to the outside territory 4,362,930. While the numerical growth was greater in the central cities than outside, the rate of growth outside was approximately 29 percent as compared with about 20 percent in the central cities. This rapid rise of inhabitants in territory outside central cities²³ will probably continue during the present decade (1930—40), indicating that emphasis on planning land use for recreation should be centered on territory outside central cities in order to prevent the recurrence of the conditions as to lack of open space for recreation prevailing in so many of the central cities, and at the same time to provide types of recreation areas which both the central city and the outlying cities cannot effectively provide for themselves.

---

²³ Population and Area (Fifteenth Census), op. cit., p. 6.

---

A clear distinction should be made between a metropolitan region and a metropolitan district as defined by the United States Census Bureau. The average radius of the 96 metropolitan districts set up by the United States Census Bureau is about 11 miles. On the other hand, as far as the recreational use of land is concerned, a metropolitan region is based on accessibility for frequent use of areas set aside for recreation. Modern transportation makes possible the effective frequent use of recreational areas within a radius of at least 50 miles of a central city or cities. For planning purposes the central city is excluded, as are also the larger municipal corporations in the region, since provision for recreational areas within their borders, according to a minimum standard of 1 acre to every hundred inhabitants, is conceded to be a definite responsibility of the cities themselves.

Planning lands for recreational use in a metropolitan region, therefore, is concerned primarily with preserving lands desirable for recreation in the more open sections of the region where the density of population is relatively low. However, in such planning in a region around a central city it is desirable to establish zones based on varying distances from the central city.

The first zone might include the area outside the central city in the metropolitan district as defined by the United States Census Bureau. Special attention should be given to the reservation of lands for recreation purposes in this zone for the reason that the movement of population from the congested sections of the central city is into this zone. Unless liberal provision is made for open spaces for recreation in this zone in advance of growing congestion, a repetition of the lack of open spaces in the congested sections of the city will result, thereby defeating one of the primary purposes of the movement of the people from the central city or cities.

While naturalistic areas of considerable extent may be secured in the zones around most of the central cities, the recreational plan for such zones should take into account smaller areas of the type of large parks and neighborhood playfield parks, commonly found in cities.

In the second or outer zone planning should primarily be directed toward preserving large naturalistic areas of the forest type and the preservation of outstanding topographic features such as streams and stream valleys, water front areas along rivers, lakes, or ocean, and elevated areas presenting varied scenic attractions.

The planning, acquisition, development, and government of land for recreation in metropolitan districts or regions is, from an administrative viewpoint, a very complex problem. It involves several governmental agencies among which may be listed the following:

1. The Central City.—The responsibility of central cities in providing recreational areas within or very near their boundaries according to a minimum standard of planning (1 acre to every hundred population) has already been stated. Many cities, however, have also the legal right to have assumed responsibility for acquiring, developing, and administering recreational properties in their metropolitan districts and regions.

The Denver mountain park system is an outstanding example. Phoenix, Ariz., has such a metropolitan park of 14,640 acres. In 1930, record was had of 186 cities having 381 parks outside their boundaries with a total of nearly 90,000 acres.²⁴ In 1925—26 there were only 109 cities owning such properties.²⁵ The trend is evidently toward cities extending their recreation acreage into their outside metropolitan regions.

---

²⁴ Park Recreation Areas in the United States, 1930, op. cit., pp. 11—13.

²⁵ Park Recreation Areas in the United States, op. cit., p. 11.

---

2. Incorporated communities (villages, towns, and small cities) in the metropolitan district and region outside central cities. Standards for general planning of recreation areas within these have been hereinbefore stated as follows:

(a) Cities of 10,000 and above, 1 acre to every 100 inhabitants.

(b) Cities from 5,000 to 18,000, 1 acre to every 75 inhabitants.

(c) Towns (very small cities) from 2,500 to 5,000, 1 acre to every 60 inhabitants.

(d) Villages from 1,000 to 2,500, 1 acre to every 50 inhabitants.

(e) Villages under 1,000, 1 acre to every 40 in habitants.

These standards would apply also to unincorporated communities whose population would bring them under any of the classifications above. It should be noted, however, that certain types of areas which such small or large incorporated or unincorporated places would be expected to provide for themselves, if they were entirely outside of a metropolitan region, might be provided by the central city itself through an extension of its system of recreational areas into the outside metropolitan district or region or by other agencies, such as the counties, metropolitan park districts, or the State. This is especially true of the picnic, forest type of area.

3. Counties.—While it is clearly apparent that counties have made definite, constructive contributions to the solution of the problem of recreational planning and administration in metropolitan districts and regions, still, since both a metropolitan district and a metropolitan region usually comprise parts of or the whole of two or more counties, it is very difficult to secure uniformity of planning or administration in a metropolitan district or a metropolitan region on a county basis.

4. Special Park Districts.—These districts as set up in Tacoma, Washington; in Illinois, etc., have a peculiar status in that their jurisdiction extends over the recreational areas of the central city and usually a territory outside the central city to an extent determined by the courts and established by a popular vote. From time to time the boundaries of the districts may be extended by the same methods through which the original district was established. The districts usually have special taxing and bonding powers and legislative and police powers.

The special park district has proven a fairly effective planning and administrative agency for handling the planning and administration of recreational areas and facilities in a central city and in a comparatively narrow zone around the central city. It is probably better adapted for use in connection with cities under 200,000 population than the larger cities for the reason that the administrative problems of handling both varied and intensively used areas within the city, as well as in a zone around a central city, become too complex and burdensome for efficient government.

5. Metropolitan Park Districts.—These are similar to the special park districts except that existing metropolitan park districts do not have jurisdiction over the recreational areas within central cities, although they may own and administer recreation properties in central cities independent of the local system.

The Boston Metropolitan Park System and the Rhode Island Metropolitan Park System are in reality State systems. Ohio is the only State in the Union which has enacted legislation providing for special metropolitan park districts. The basic unit in any metropolitan park district created under this law is the county in which the principal or central city is located, but by vote of the people living in adjacent territory the boundary of the district can be indefinitely extended. The Cleveland Metropolitan District includes the whole of Cuyahoga County and parks of several other adjacent counties.

6. The State.—Many States own and administer recreation areas within the metropolitan regions of cities as the result of geographic, topographic, social, economic, political, or philanthropic factors or as a result of a combination of two or more of these factors. In Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island there is not a single State recreation area which is not within the metropolitan region of one or more of the cities of those States and, in many instances, areas in one State are within the metropolitan regions of another State.

This is due primarily to the very small geographic areas of these States. The same situation exists in northern New Jersey. Not infrequently areas of outstanding topographic importance are within the metropolitan regions of cities and are of such magnitude and importance for recreation that the State is warranted in acquiring them, especially if such acquisition is beyond the financial power of local communities. Large cities pay a heavy percentage of taxes to the State. This economic factor leads to demands that the State locate some recreational areas within the frequent-use radius of the cities. Political considerations sometimes influence the location of State recreational areas. Gifts of lands to the State by philanthropists have been the origin of some State parks in metropolitan regions (e. g., Detroit). Whether by deliberate planning as the result of social-economic influences, or because of other factors, in the future the States will likely continue to play an important role in land utilization for recreation in metropolitan regions.

7. Federal Government.—What the Federal Government has done in providing recreational areas in metropolitan regions of cities has, up to the present time, been more the result of chance than of deliberate planning for the purpose of aiding cities to secure such benefits. However, if the plans are carried out for the purchase of submarginal lands in the metropolitan regions of cities, or near such regions and these are turned over to the States or some local governmental agency for administration, the role of the Federal Government in the planning and development of such areas may become a very important one. If there is ever developed a plan of Federal monetary aid to cities, counties, metropolitan park districts, or States in acquiring recreational areas in metropolitan regions, the role of the Federal Government will also be an exceedingly important one.

Among these several different governmental agencies which, up to this time, have actually provided recreational areas in metropolitan regions, standards of planning have been developed for the municipalities only. For the territory outside central cities, exclusive of municipal corporations within the metropolitan region, there are no standards as to the desirable number of recreational areas to be set aside. For the guidance of those governmental agencies, such as counties, metropolitan park districts, and States, which have provided such regional areas for recreation, there are no definite standards.

There is no plan or policy developed governing the division of responsibility among these several agencies. There is likewise no plan or policy developed concerning the desirable type of administrative unit for the planning, acquisition, development, and operation of regional areas for recreation.

Continued >>>

Last Modified: Fri, Sep. 5, 2003 10:32:22 am PDT
http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/recreational_use/chap4-2b.htm