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

Conclusions

In the absence of any standards in planning for recreation in a metropolitan region, exclusive of central cities and other municipalities in the region, the most that can be done is to present some general observations and suggestions concerning the problem.

First. Present-day transportation methods make possible the frequent use of recreation areas in any suitable location within a 50-mile radius of the central city (or cities), and this zone might be accepted as the metropolitan regional planning unit until such changes occur in transportation methods as to modify it.

Second. Insofar as practicable within the radius of 50 miles the recreational areas should be distributed in zones of varying distances from the central cities. Zone 1 should include all the areas from the boundary of the central city to 10, 20, or 30 miles, depending on the extent of the area that has now or is tending to become territory with a density of 100 persons per acre and upwards; zone 2 should comprise all the area beyond the more thickly populated zone.

In the inner zone the character of recreational areas will likely be somewhat different from that of areas in the outer zone. In many instances the inner zone areas will approximate the types of areas which are found in the central city itself, although the system of open space may include naturalistic areas characteristic of those desirable in the outer zone.

In the general planning of recreational areas in both zones of a metropolitan region, special and first attention should be given to preserving natural topographic features, such as streams and stream valleys with adjacent highlands; lakes and lake shores; lands along rivers; ocean fronts; areas of rugged topography presenting varied scenic attractions; swampy areas (especially in the outer zone) suitable as sanctuaries for certain species of wildlife; areas possessing especially fine stands of trees and shrubs and other forms of flora; and areas of special historic significance to the region.

Third. The responsibility for providing recreational areas in a metropolitan region logically and practicably should be assumed by several different public administrative agencies, chief of which are:

(a) The State.—The responsibility of the State may primarily include the preservation, planning, development, and administration of naturalistic recreational areas, chiefly of large acreage, in the outer zone (20 to 50 miles from the central city) of the metropolitan region.

(b) The Metropolitan Park District.—The metropolitan park district plan embodies a comparatively new form of governmental agency, not yet widely used. This plan has merits, however, which recommend its wide adoption as an effective method of securing comprehensive planning in any metropolitan district or any other section of the metropolitan region outside a central city and of securing a unity of financing and administration of recreational services in a logical unit. It cuts across boundaries of existing civil divisions, such as townships and counties, which generally bear no relation to the common problems of the people living in a metropolitan district or region.

The Ohio metropolitan park law providing a method of setting up metropolitan park districts and regions of the cities of that State, is perhaps the best example of legislation bearing on this plan, although the Boston metropolitan park law is worthy of careful consideration.

The function of a metropolitan park district is to assume major responsibility for the general planning, acquisition, development, and operation of recreational areas in the zone extending from near the boundaries of a central city to the limits of the territory that has already become suburban-urban in character or is tending that way, including also all areas of open country between the more developed sections, and perhaps somewhat beyond them. Such a zone might range in width from 5 to 30 miles, depending on the size of the central city or cities, the extent to which suburban development has progressed, and the rate at which it is expanding.

(c) The County.——The county may logically function as a metropolitan recreational-planning and administration agency in the zone as defined for the metropolitan park district, where no such metropolitan park agency exists. This will frequently involve action on the part of two or more counties in order to cover the same territory that a metropolitan park district would include. Unified comprehensive planning is difficult to secure under this condition.

Fourth. It is probable that central cities will continue to acquire and administer recreational areas in their metropolitan districts and regions. It is therefore, strongly recommended, as a general policy, that the cities give first attention to acquiring, developing, and operating areas within their own borders or very near their borders. Very few cities have at present more than 50 percent of the desirable number of types and acreage of recreation areas within their boundaries.

This lack is without question one of the primary causes of the rapid decline of population in the older and more congested parts of cities during the past decade. Property values are falling in these areas of declining population. The areas are becoming more and more a civic and social menace and burden, while at the same time public expenditures for their care and control are mounting. It is suggested that good city management could well include the expending of large sums of money for the purchase of many blocks in blighted areas and for their development as parks, playgrounds, and playflelds. This alone will make such areas desirable as living places again, raise and stabilize property values, bring in greater income in taxes and other types of revenues, decrease ill health and lawlessness, lessen the expense of health supervision and of maintaining law and order.

Fifth. There is urgent need of comprehensive planning for recreation in practically all the metropolitan districts, as defined by the United States Census Bureau (1930), and in metropolitan regions as defined in this report. Among few metropolitan regions having such plans at the present time are New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, and St. Louis.

It is recommended that a metropolitan planning commission or board be set up at the earliest possible time in each metropolitan region, and that such board or commission include representatives of existing city and county boards and a representative of the State planning board, as well as outstanding citizens at large.

If legislation is lacking for the creation of such boards, appropriate bills should be drafted and presented to the legislatures of the several States having metropolitan districts and regions, and a determined effort made to secure their passage.

Recognizing that a movement for the study and planning of metropolitan districts and regions does not usually start automatically or spontaneously, it is further recommended that State planning boards assume leadership in fostering the formation of such metropolitan boards, in drafting and presenting appropriate legislation, and in the organization of metropolitan associations of citizens to aid in furthering the movement.

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