The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR W . N. DOAK, Secretary BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS ETHELBERT STEWART, Commissioner BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES \ Wl £ BUREAU OF LABOR S T A T I S T I C S /................. llO e D D D MISCELLANEOUS SERIES PARK RECREATION AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES 1930 MAY, 1932 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON * 1932 FOR S A L * * Y T H B S U P E R I N T E N D E N T O F D O C U M E N T S , W A S H IN G T O N , D. C. Preface In 1925 and 1926 the National Recreation Association (formerly the Playground and Recreation Association of America), at the request of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, con ducted a study of municipal and county parks in the United States. The study was made under the direction of a national committee and with the cooperation of the American Institute of Park Executives. Much of the information concerning the experiences of park authori ties and development of park systems gathered during the course of the survey was issued in a comprehensive publication entitled “ Parks: A Manual of Municipal and County Parks.” The most important statistical data were issued by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in its Bulletin No. 462, Park Recreation Areas in the United States. The publications resulting from that study proved to be of great interest and value to park and recreation officials, planning groups, and other municipal and county authorities. Because of this fact and for the purpose of determining the progress of the park movement during the years following the earlier study, the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics and the National Recreation Association co operated in conducting a study of municipal and county parks in 1930. The present bulletin contains a summary of the findings resulting from this study and also much of the detailed information generously supplied by park authorities concerning park areas, facilities, ex penditures, and developments in nearly 1,000 municipalities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics was largely responsible for gather ing the material used in this report. The study was conducted and the report prepared by George D. Butler, of the National Recreation Association. m Contents Page Introduction_______________________________________________________ Parks and leisure_______________________________________________ Changes in park services________________________________________ Advertising the parks___________________________________________ Importance of recreation________________________________________ Special recreation service for workers____________________________ Recreation and unemployment__________________________________ Municipal park acreage, 1930----------------------------------------------------------Growth in park acreage, 1925-26 to 1930_____________________________ Types of park properties------------------------------------------------------------------Municipal parks outside the city limits_______________________________ Recreation facilities in parks________________________________________ Park buildings_____________________________________________________ Zoological parks------------------------------------------------------------------------------Park recreation activities___________________________________________ Park workers_______________________________________________________ Construction and maintenance_______________________________________ Park expenditures__________________________________________________ Sources of park funds------------------------------------------------------- 1-------------Gifts for parks_____________________________________________________ County parks_____________________ _________________________________ Parks in metropolitan districts----------------------------------------------------------General tables: T able A.—Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1930, by States---------------------------------------------------------------------T able B.— Cities reporting no parks, 1930, by States_____________ T able C.— Recreation facilities and buildings in cities of 10,000 and over, 1930, by States--------------------------------------------------------------T able D.— Park construction and maintenance in cities of 20,000 and over, 1930, by States-------------------------------------------------------T able E.— Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1930, by States_______ T able F.— Gifts for park purposes in 189 cities, 1926 to 1930, by States_______________________________________________________ v 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 5 7 9 11 14 18 20 24 27 30 31 34 35 37 47 60 73 74 89 95 115 BULLETIN OF THE U. S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS No. 565 WASHINGTON m a y , 1932 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1930 Introduction Parks and Leisure The enormous amount of leisure time, both voluntary and enforced, which the people of the Nation have to-day is creating a problem of the greatest importance. Leaders in education, industry, government, and other fields agree that this new leisure, if wisely spent, presents a rich opportunity for individual happiness and development. A great responsibility therefore rests upon the community to provide both suitable training for the wise use of leisure and adequate oppor tunities for enjoying and participating in wholesome recreation activities. Land permanently dedicated to park use is essential to a wellbalanced outdoor community recreation program. A large percent age of the public outdoor recreation facilities in American cities to-day are provided by public park and recreation departments. Because, in many cities, these agencies are better prepared than any others to offer a variety of attractive and constructive activities which young people and adults may enjoy in their spare time, their value ana importance are recognized to a greater extent to-day than ever before. When the first municipal parks were established in America their primary function was to serve as places of “ peaceful enjoyment amid beautiful surroundings.” With the growth of cities, there developed a demand for places where the people might take part in active forms of recreation. Although present-day living conditions in many towns and cities have enhanced rather than diminished the value and need of landscape parks, the major emphasis in the last few decades has been placed increasingly upon facilities for active recreation use and organized programs of recreation activities. Consequently, the present-day progressive park department is admirably equipped with a variety of areas, facilities, and equipment available for the use of the people. Its staff includes persons trained in organizing and directing the activities which include a wide range of interests. Changes in Park Services Although the park movement has undergone many changes, there is probably no other respect in which the present-day park system differs more widely from that of earlier years than in the type and 1 2 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 scope of its service to the people. As pointed out, the first parks were for passive and semipassive forms of recreation; to-day they are also used for a limitless variety of active recreation. The early attempts to provide active play facilities were to meet the needs of children; to-day a large percentage of these facilities are for young people and adults. Little or no attempt was formerly made to encourage or organize groups to use the parks, whereas to-day manty of the clubs, leagues, and other groups using the parks are organized by the park department. In the early days recreational leadership in the parks was unknown; to-day it is the basis for most of the organized recreation service. Formerly the park offered landscape beauty, band concerts, floral displays, and other attractions; to-day it offers these and in addition opportunities for participation— singing, playing baseball or golf, dancing, skating, painting, swimming, etc. Not so many years ago the park season lasted only a few months; in recent years the park has become a .year-round recreation center. Even to-day in many cities park authorities consider that their field of service is limited to park properties; on the other hand, many park systems provide recreation leadership and service throughout the entire city—in schools, churches, and private property, as well as within the parks. It is largely because of these changes, many of which have developed gradually, that the well-organized park depart ment is prepared to-day to make a vital contribution to the solution of the leisure-time problem. Advertising the Parks Since the fullest possible use of the parks requires a widespread knowledge of their location and service, park authorities in recent years have come to realize that effective publicity methods are needed to acquaint the public with the varied facilities and programs which are being provided. In some cities where cordial relationships are maintained with the press, newspaper stories of park activities and attractions are a regular feature. Monthly bulletins which are widely distributed inform the people concerning the park facilities and scheduled events in other cities. Attractive illustrated leaflets or bulletins have been prepared for distribution by many park depart ments, picturing the beauties and opportunities for recreation in the parks under their control. It is not surprising that these publica tions/which show the animals performing in the zoo, the beauties of the horticultural displays, the children at play in the wading pools and play areas, the pageants and festivals presented in naturalistic settings, the groups engrossed in various handicraft projects, and the alluring trails in the larger parks, attract increasing numbers to the parks and also provide a most effective type of advertising for a city. His torical sketches of the acquisition and development of the individual parks have been used as a means of arousing public interest in a number of cities. Importance of Recreation The importance of recreation in the life of the people and the com munity’s responsibility to provide recreation opportunities have been recognized by leaders of commerce, industry, and labor. Studies of industrial recreation conducted by the United States Bureau of Labor INTRODUCTION 3 Statistics have revealed that many employers have furnished for their employees both indoor and outdoor facilities for sports and recreation. For the most part, however, employees participate in recreation activi ties sponsored by municipal park and recreation departments and utilize the areas and facilities provided for community use. The American Federation of Labor and many of its affiliated groups, “ realizing that individual and social development is as much a matter of having opportunity for recreation and education as it is of leisure/7 have given hearty indorsement to the movement for securing public recreation facilities and centers under trained leadership. “ Industry is generally alive to-day to the bearing recreational opportunities have on the location of their factories,” wrote William Butterworth, president of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. In the foreword of a handbook dealing with playgrounds and recreation issued by the Chamber he states, “ The proper use of leisure, through the development of adequate recreation, is one of the most efficient means of securing our country's future. Well-directed play * * * makes for health; it raises the moral standard; it develops leadership and fair play; it creates a proper sense of respon sibility and respect for authority; it makes for happiness, general welfare, and good citizenship.,, Special Recreation Service for Workers Industrial and other labor groups are benefiting by the service of park and recreation departments, not only through the use of facilities and participation in the regular community programs, but through special classes and activities provided for workers. In one city, for example, a folder entitled “ After Working Hours, Where Play?” listing the playgrounds, pools, recreation centers, and other facilities operated by the park and recreation department, has had a wide distribution. In this folder the department offers the following service: “ If there are sufficient employees from an individual firm who are interested in organizing a recreation class in which a balanced program is conducted, a special place and period will be assigned for their exclusive use. This balanced program includes gymnastics, games, folk dancing, dramatics, social recreation programs, etc. Employees often find it more convenient to participate in activities in their neighborhood community centers, where a balanced program is also conducted. Recreation classes and groups at these neighbor hood community centers are composed of employees from several firms. Advice and assistance in the development of either plan will be given.” Through its industrial recreation division, the depart ment also assists employers and employees desiring to conduct their own activities to establish recreation associations on a company basis and to plan and conduct their recreation programs. Recreation and Unemployment In times of business depression it is often urged that municipal appropriations for recreation service be reduced, and occasionally the cry is raised that they should be eliminated. It was pointed out by Leifur Magnusson, American correspondent to the International Labor Office, in addressing the National Recreation Congress in 1926, that when the Office proposed that the development of facilities for 4 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 the utilization of workers’ leisure be discussed at the International Labor Conference in 1924, criticism and ridicule greeted the proposal. It seemed to many a travesty and irony, in the face of the extreme economic depression prevailing at the time, to speak of such a thing as leisure. Although it took courage to place this subject on the conference program, it proved to be the beginning of a tremendous world-wide interest in the question of leisure, according to Mr. Magnusson. Fortunately officials in most American cities to-day realize that the need for wholesome community recreation activities is increased and not decreased during such periods, not only because of the greater amount of leisure* but because people out of work can not afford to indulge in various forms of commercial amusements. According to the 1930 Year Book of the National Recreation Asso ciation, expenditures for public recreation during the year were .$5,000,000 more than in any previous year, in spite of the fact that 1930 was a year of depression. Attendance reports from many cities indicate that more people are using public parks, playgrounds, recrea tion centers, and other facilities at the present time than ever before. The increase in the adult use indicates that people who are out of work are turning to the municipal park and recreation agencies for guidance in the use of their enforced hours of leisure. Typical of the added burden put upon the parks is the case reported by a Michigan city: “ Due largely to fiscal considerations, large numbers of families are foregoing long vacation trips this summer [1931] and many are experiencing for the first time the pleasure and comfort of picnic and recreation trips to near-by parks and lakes— most of these trips have a county park or lake resort as their objective. ” One of the greatest contributions which parks have made and are continuing to make in the present period of depression is the providing of work opportunities for large numbers of “ relief workers.” There is perhaps no type of municipal service in which it is possible to employ to advantage as large numbers of unskilled workers as in improving ark properties. In dozens of cities funds raised for unemployment ave been used to employ men for this work. New York is an exam ple of such use of unemployment funds, valuable service having been rendered in the parks of each borough. In one borough alone during a 12-month period 26 miles of bridle paths were constructed, 16 rustic bridges were erected, 1,890 acres of parks were cleared and much of this area replanted, 31.5 miles of ditches were dug and put in order, 219 benches were manufactured and erected, 5,472 trees were planted, 51,400 tons of stone were carted and broken on the job, 185,040 cubic yards of earth fill were removed and carted, and many other projects carried out by relief labor. Not only does this work help relieve un employment but it adds to the value and usefulness of the city ’s recreational resources. The following pages summarize the findings of the study of muni cipal and county park areas, facilities, expenditures, and service, which study reveals the importance of parks as a municipal function and also the invaluable contribution which parks are making to the enrichment of life in American cities. E PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 5 Municipal Park Acreage, 1930 Land dedicated permanently to park and recreation use is a funda mental and essential factor in all park service and the acquisition of properties is a preliminary step to the establishing of park facilities and programs. Therefore the figures with reference to park acreage gathered in this study indicate to a degree the extent to which the cities reporting have taken steps to provide their people with oppor tunities for outdoor recreation. Only areas owned by the city and dedicated permanently to park and recreation use are included in this report. No information was secured concerning school play areas. Playgrounds and other munic ipal recreation properties owned or controlled by recreation depart ments in several cities have been added to the park acreage. Although in 487 cities park authorities reported more than 13,500 acres in parks which they use but do not control, these areas are not included in any of the tables in this report. The total park acreage of 308,804.87, reported in Table 2 (p. 7), represents the area of city-owned park properties in 898 communities of 5,000 or more population. Some 250 communities which reported a total of nearly 37,000 acres of parks in 1925-26 failed to submit information for use in the present study. A conservative estimate of the municipal park area in 1930 in towns and cities of more than 5,000 population is therefore 350,000 acres. One hundred and seventy-four communities do not have a single park, according to their officials. Perhaps the most commonly accepted standard of park and recrea tion space for a city is that of 1 acre to each 100 population. Because of the high cost of land in densely settled neighborhoods, many of which were built up before the importance of providing parks was recognized, most large cities fall far short of this standard. Minne apolis, however, with a population of 454,356, has an acre of parks for each 90 people. Denver and Dallas with 1 acre for each 23 and 42 people, respectively, are two other large cities with unusual park areas, although in. both much of the acreage is outside the city limits. Several other cities of 100,000 or more inhabitants provide an acre of parks for each 50 people or less, thereby exceeding by at least 100 per cent the standard of an acre for each 100 people. These cities are Omaha, Fort Worth, Nashville, Tulsa, Salt Lake City, Spokane, Lynn, and Duluth. Other cities which have attained the standard are San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Hartford, New Haven, Springfield (Mass.), San Diego, Wichita, Tacoma, and Peoria. Although in several of the cities named considerable of the park property is outside the city limits, the fact that so many have attained the standard indicates that it is a practicable one. Of the cities reporting, 20 of the 93 with a population of 50,000 to 100,000 and 19 of the 124 cities with 25,000 to 50,000 have at least 1 acre of park for each 100 people. It is apparent from their reports that many communities of less than 10,000 people have as yet failed to make any provision for parks and recreation areas. Nearly 28 per cent of the 448 municipalities with 5,000 to 10,000 inhabitants submitting data in this study reported having no parks. It is probable that a laige percentage of those failing to report also totally lack park areas. Probably the school playgrounds in these communities provide some facilities for outdoor 6 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 play and recreation, but there can be little doubt that there is a great need for added recreation areas in the towns and small cities. The average park acreage in the 325 communities reporting parks in this population group is 52.0, as compared with the average of 44.6 acres five years previous. The number of cities in the 10,000 to 25,000 population group reporting no parks— 48—is surprisingly large, and doubtless many of the 293 other cities in this group, which failed to report, likewise own no parks. In view of the importance of providing facilities and properties for the recreational use of the people, there is urgent need in these cities to take the necessary steps to correct this situation. The average park acreage in the 265 cities in this population group which reported parks is 104. There is no group of cities which is apparently better provided with parks than that of the 25,000 to 50,000 population group. Only 3 cities in this group reported no parks, and the average park area in the 124 cities reporting parks is 335 acres. The most marked progress in the acquisition of parks during the last five years is found in this group. Figures which are available for 103 cities reveal that their total park acreage more than doubled during this brief period. A study of the ratio of parks to population in cities of various sizes reveals that the greatest shortage of park space is in the largest centers. There is, however, no definite relationship between the size of a city and the ratio of its park acreage to population. Table 1 indicates, by population group, the average number of persons for each acre of parks in the cities reporting. The actual population figures were used in determining the ratio for the first four, or largest population, groups. In each of the four groups of cities with less than 100,000 inhabitants the population of the median city reporting park acreage has been considered as the average population of the cities in the group. T a b le 1.— Average number of persons per acre of park, by population groups Population group 1,000,000 and over......... ................................ 500,000 to 1,000,000......................................... 250,000 to 500,000............................................ 100,000 to 250,000............................................ 50,000 to 100,000.............................................. 25,000 to 50,000................................................ 10,000 to 25,000................................................ 5,000 to 10,000.................................................. Number of cities report ing 5 8 24 54 93 124 263 322 Number Of persons per acre of park 401 286 127 110 *165 1104 1 139 > 129 i Estimated. On the basis of the figures in Table 1 the supposition might be made that, as a group, cities with a population of 25,000 to 50,000, and of 100,000 to 250,000, have nearly attained the standard of recommended park space. Other groups also seem to have progressed far toward this goal. As a matter of fact the figures are somewhat misleading, since 89,196 acres, or more than 29 per cent of the total park acreage reported, are in parks outside the city limits. Although some of these parks are close to the cities and readily accessible, most of them are at a considerable distance from the city limits. Since the 7 GROWTH IN PARK ACREAGE, 1 9 2 5 -2 6 TO 1930 standard of 1 acre of municipal parks to every 100 people relates only to parks within or immediately adjoining the city, it is obvious that the ratios in the table indicate a more adequate park provision than actually exists. For example, the group of cities having 25,000 to 50,000 inhabitants makes the best showing, but more than 18,000 of the 41,597 acres reported by this group are in out-of-the-city parks owned by three cities. If parks within the city limits alone were considered, the ratio of park acreage to population would be 1 to 186 instead of 1 to 104. In the population group, 100,000 to 250,000 the ratio is also greatly affected by out-of-the-city parks. Even though some cities are amply provided with parks, there are few which are not lacking in both number of parks and in park acreage. Often in the cities well provided with parks a major part of the acreage is in large outlying properties and many of the densely settled neigh borhoods have no outdoor facilities for either active or passive recreation. This need has been recognized in many cities during the last five years, and many neighborhood areas have been acquired, often at great expense. Table 2 summarizes the number and acreage of parks in the 898 communities with a population of 5,000 and over, concerning which park information was received in this study. Table A (p. 60) gives for each of these 898 communities the (1) number of parks, (2) total park acreage, (3) acres devoted to recreation, and (4) ratio of park acreage to population. T able 2. — Acreage of municipally owned parks and recreation spaces in the United States, 1980, by population groups Population group (1930 census) Cities and towns in Number the United reporting States Number of com munities Total number of parks Total park acreage W ithout parks Having parks 1,084 805 2,261 2,025 i 1,638 * 1,180 31,570 #1,123 37,566.35 20,172. 60 62, 681.75 66, 633. 60 36,049.48 41,596.88 * 27,472.93 «16, 631.28 11, 686 308,804.87 1,000,000 and over______ __ _________ 500,000 to 1,000,000-............................... 250,000 to 500,000..................................... 100,000 to 250,000..................................... 50,000 to 100,000....................................... 25,000 to 50,000....................................... . 10.000 to 25,000......................................... 5,000 to 10,000........................................... 5 8 24 56 98 185 606 851 •5 8 24 54 93 127 313 448 3 48 123 5 8 24 54 93 124 265 325 Total, all groups.......................... 1,833 *1,072 174 898 i Number of parks in 2 cities not reported. * Number of parks in 10 cities not reported. * Number of parks in 21 cities not reported. « Park acreage in 2 cities not reported. * Number of parks in 12 cities not reported. « Park acreage in 3 cities not reported. 7 42 of these cities failed to submit reports, but information concerning park acreage in 27 of them was received from the Regional Plan Association of New York and in 15 others from the Chicago Regional Planning Association. Growth in Park Acreage, 1925-26 to 1930 One of the most striking and encouraging facts revealed in the present study is the tremendous increase in municipal park acreage since 1925. Complete acreage figures from all cities would be required to determine the full extent of this growth, but they are not available. Information is available, however, concerning the 1925-26 and the 8 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 1930 park acreage in 534 cities. In these cities the total area set aside for parks and recreation increased from 201,445.7 to 279,257.8 acres, or more than 38 per cent during this 5-year period. This increase of 77,812.1 acres is equivalent to more than 25 per cent of the total present park acreage of all cities reporting. Figures based on earlier studies showed that during the 10-year period 1916-1926 in the 199 cities which in 1920 had a population of 30,000 or more the increase of park acreage was only 41 per cent. An analysis of the recent acquisition of park lands shows that the greatest progress has been in cities of from 25,000 to 50,000 population, which group more than doubled its park acreage during the last five years. The group of cities having from 10,000 to 25,000 inhabitants showed a remarkable increase of 63 per cent. The smallest gain in park acquisition was in the cities of from 500,000 to 1,000,000 and from 5,000 to 10,000, each of which groups added only 15 per cent. Although in many large cities population has increased faster than park acreage during the last five years, it is significant that in three of the six largest cities in the country— New York, Chicago, and Cleveland— park acquisitions have more than kept pace with popu lation growth. As previously indicated, the total municipal park acreage in the 898 cities reporting parks in 1930 was 308,804.87. Compared with 238,093.7 acres, the amount reported five years previous by 875 cities, it shows an increase of 30 per cent in the municipal park acreage. In view of the fact that the 1930 figures do not include data from many cities which reported large park acreage in 1925-26 (10 of which had 13,553.6 acres in parks at that time), it is fair to estimate that the area of municipal parks in the United States in 1930 is at least one-third greater than it was in 1925. The remark able progress which was made during this brief period, as indicated by these figures, is without doubt much greater than that during any recent period of equal length. Table 3 gives a summary of the growth in park acreage in 534 cities, 1925-26 to 1930, according to population groups. It includes figures for only those cities reporting park acreage in both 1925-26 and 1930. T able 3. — Growth in park acreage in 584 cities, 1925-26 to 1980, by population groups Population group Num ber of cities re porting Total park acreage 1925-26 Per cent ofincrease 1930 1,000,000 and over.............................................. ........................ 600,000 to 1,000,000...................................................................... 250,000 to 500,000......................................................................... 100,000 to 250,000............................ .......... .................................. 50,000 to 100,000........................................................................... 25,000 to 50,000............................................................................. 10,000 to 25,000............................................................................ 5,000 to 10,000.............................................................................. 5 8 21 54 85 103 174 84 31,089.7 17,299.7 47,932.1 43,805.6 25,305.3 17,993.9 12,701.6 5,317.8 37,684.91 20,010.60 56,550.18 66,633.60 33,622.65 37,775.43 20,815.52 6,159.57 21 15 18 52 32 109 63 15 T otal................................................................................. 534 201,445.7 279,257.79 38 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 9 Types of Park Properties Although the total park acreage in a city is the simplest measure ment of the extent to which the city has provided parks, it does not indicate the adequacy of the city’s park system. A well-balanced system requires not only ample park area but also a sufficient number of properly located parks of various types providing a variety of uses. Among the types of properties included in a well-balanced park system are small in-town parks, children’s playgrounds, neighbor hood parks, neighborhood playfields, large parks, and parkways. Unless provided by State or county authorities, outlying reserva tions are needed. Swimming centers, golf courses, zoological gardens, and other special types of recreation areas are sometimes provided in the properties mentioned above, but if not it may be necessary to establish special centers. Authorities differ in their opinion as to the number, size, and dis tribution of the various types of areas comprising an adequate park and recreation system. There is considerable agreement, however, that a greater number of children’s playgrounds are needed than of any other type, the next in number needed being the neighborhood park and the neighborhood playfield. Most of the other kinds of properties are likely to be few in number and their location dependent upon local factors such as topography, transportation facilities, popu lation density, and the availability of suitable land and water areas. Since the present park system in relatively few cities represents the result of a definite park plan which has been followed over a period of years as a basis for acquiring and improving park areas, it is not surprising that more cities do not have a well-balanced park system. Frequently the one or more parks which a city possesses are either inaccessible or suited only to a limited number of uses. In other cities there are several properties many of which are small and serve only as breathing places and beauty spots. It is encouraging to note that in recent years more thought has been given to the planning of well-balanced park systems which serve a variety of park and recreation uses. The present study is believed to be the first attempt to determine the number of various types of park properties provided in the park systems throughout the country. Approximately three-quarters of the parks and of the total park acreage reported in this study have been classified according to types of properties. Although it is ap parent that some of the cities reporting did not follow the basis suggested for classifying their properties, the information is of much interest and value. By far the largest number of properties consists of small areas such as squares, ovals, and triangles, which on the whole have rela tively little value for recreation purposes. Next to them neighbor hood parks are most numerous, followed by children’s playgrounds. The number of large parks is nearly double that of the neighborhood playfields. 10 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 It was observed in the earlier park study (1925-26) that cities were most lacking in children’s playgrounds and in playfields— the areas which, as previously pointed out, should be most numerous. A number of park and city planning authorities have expressed the opinion that from 30 to 40 per cent of the total park and recreation area of a city should be devoted to these two types of properties. It is noted, however, that they comprise only 5 per cent of the total acreage reported by type of property. Doubtless playgrounds and playfields are provided in many of the larger areas reported; never theless it seems certain that the earlier observation was correct and that there is need in most city park systems for additional children’s playgrounds and neighborhood playfields. On the other hand, it is apparent that neighborhood parks are being rather amply provided. Not only are there many such parks, but since the average area of the small parks is 1% acres it is probable that many of the parks reported under this classification should have been classified as neighborhood parks. It is interesting to note that the average area of the children’s play grounds reported is nearly 4 acres and that of the neighborhood playfields 13.3 acres. These figures indicate that park authorities are approaching or equaling the recommended standards for these two types of properties. While it might be expected that the large parks would represent a considerable proportion of the total park acreage, it is rather surprising to find that more than one-half of the total park area reported is in this type of property alone. The average area of these large parks is almost 120 acres. It is gratifying to know that park authorities have acquired so many of these large properties which with the passing years become increasingly difficult to secure for park purposes. Although the number of reservations, namely 138, is relatively .small, their total area exceeds more than 50,000 acres. Since the need for providing a well-balanced park system is now generally recognized, it is believed that each city would do well to make an inventory of its park properties with a view to determining whether or not they provide the number and type of areas which are considered essential to providing adequate park service in a city. Table 4 gives the number and acreage of the various types of park properties reported by cities in eight population groups. Many of the types are easily recognized, but the following comments may help to identify others. Neighborhood playfields are areas primarily intended for the recreation and sports of young people and adults. Reservations and forest parks are large areas, for the most part preserved in their natural state, generally outside the city limits. Miscellaneous active recreation areas include bathing beaches, stadium sites, golf courses, tennis areas, swimming centers, etc. Educ*itional-recreation areas include museum sites, zoological gardens, arboretums, etc. Although several of these facilities are often found in a single park, each park was reported under the heading which represents its major function. In reporting the number of parks of various types, many of the cities did not indicate the acreage in each type of property. There fore the figures representing “ total acreage” are incomplete. 11 MUNICIPAL PARKS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS T a b le 4 .— Number and acreage of park properties, by types of areas and by popula tion groups Small areas Population group N um N um ber of ber of cities 1,000,000 and over.. 500.000 to 1,000 000. 250.000 to 500,000__ 100.000 to 250,000.... 50.000_to 100,000___ 25.000 to 50,000....... . 10.000 to 25,000....... , 5.000.to 10,000.......... Total, all groups........... 309 Total acreage Neighborhood parks Num N um Total acre N um N um ber of ber of ber of ber of age cities cities 277 217 1,117 518 404 272 350 277 351.78 233.04 798.18 3,037.36 519.60 214.80 381.18 160.78 3 5 14 27 42 42 99 110 95 234 184 235 180 291 478.59 783.94 2,128.20 3,016.08 1,805.16 1,039. 99 1,642.12 1,263.04 3,432 5,696. 72 342 1,583 12,157.12 Neighborhood playfields 1,000,000 and over....... . 500.000 to 1,000,000....... 250.000 to 500,000.......... 100.000 to 250,000........... 50.000.to 100,000............ 25.000 to 50,000.............. 10.000 to 25,000.............. 5.000.to 10,000................ Total, all groups. Large parks 1,058.22 446.79 1,771.96 1,014. 56 943.90 334. 82 429.58 558.18 144 492 6,558.01 Miscellaneous active recreation areas 1,000,000 and over.. 500.000 to 1,000.000. 250.000 to 500.000... 100.000 to 250,000... 50.000_to 100,000___ 25.000 to 50,000....... . 10.000 to 25,000....... . 5.000.to 10,000......... . 291 267 I 10,168.60 Total, all groups.. 101 134 99 658.67 251.18 1,377.18 1,149. 24 632.40 449.32 446.28 218. 62 1,313 5,182.89 111 218 Total acreage Reservations or forest parks 362.24 8,960.54 12,263.88 3,158.67 18,351.74 4,182.36 4,051.00 84 138 51,330.43 Boulevards and park ways 4 5 1 15 9 12 20 2 13.00 251.11 38. 94 66. 91 43.42 31.22 145. 06 7.00 3 6 14 21 29 13 28 14 86 61 114 128 97 30 61 20 2,229. 95 1,337.81 3,659.41 2,460.36 434.39 150.21 131.61 87.93 68 596.66 128 597 10,491. 67 Total Miscellaneous 1,000,000 and over.. 500.000 to 1,000,000. 250.000 to 500,000... 100.000 to 250,000... 50.000_to 100,000___ 25.000 to 50,000......... 10.000 to 25,000......... 5.000.to 10,000......... . 117,499.85 Educational-recreational 31 136 102 290 256 185 12,869.49 11,539.12 25, 532. 28 29,931.68 14,641.16 7,039. 44 10,474.05 5/472. 63 49 157 265 137 92 119 102 277.00 947.72 1,674. 76 1,884.84 2, 731. 61 1,123. 66 846.70 682. 31 Total, all groups........... 1 115 Children’s playgrounds 24 60 51 113 17 12 64 38 30.35 496. 89 1, 513. 71 3,106. 85 758.45 518. 81 589.86 416. 92 23 40 62 67 154 216 725 647 2,052 1,602 1,223 748 1,066 881 379 7,431. 84 572 8,944 , 224,131. 69 17,590. 73 16, 649. 84 49, 672. 25 52,887. 96 25.941. 59 29,094.10 19,562. 45 12, 732. 77 Municipal Parks Outside the City Limits The past five years have seen a great increase in the number of cities providing parks outside their city limits. One hundred and eighty-six cities report a total of 381 such parks as compared with 109 cities and 245 parks in 1925-26. Phoenix continues to lead with the largest out-of-the-city park of 14,640 acres, and Denver follows with 44 parks totaling nearly 11,000 acres. The following cities report in excess of 2,000 acres in outside parks: Lawton, Tulsa, and Oklahoma 98621°— 32-------2 12 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 City, Okla.; Dallas and Forth Worth, Tex.; Colorado Springs, Colo.; Nashville, Tenn.; Chico, Calif.; and Medford, Oreg. Acreages of more than 1,000 are reported by Hartford, Conn.; Joliet and East St. Louis, 111.; San Antonio, Tex.; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Spokane, Wash. The average area of these parks is 232 acres, indicating that many of them are large properties. They are frequently designed to provide areas near the city where such activities as hiking, camping, nature study, picnicking, winter and water sports may be carried on. Not only are some of these activities more enjoyable when carried on away from the city, but the land is generally much cheaper. Furthermore, as the city expands and the limits are extended, these areas will probably be needed as city parks. Sometimes connecting parkways or boulevards provide ready means of access to these parks. In some parts of the country, State, county, and district parks have been established where they are readily reached by large numbers of city dwellers. A number of such areas are mentioned in this report in the discussion of county parks. Where such areas are being provided by other public bodies, it is unnecessary for cities to acquire them. Otherwise in securing such areas a city is not only providing properties for the immediate use of its people but is wisely and economically providing for the future. Table 5 lists the out-of-city parks and their reported acreage. T able 5.— Number and acreage of municipal parks outside city limits, by city and State C ity and State Alabama: Birmingham . ,, _____ M obile.............................. M ontgom ery__________ Selma_________________ Arizona: Phoenix__________ Arkansas: Little R ock_____ California: Berkeley______________ Chico__________________ Dunsm uir_____________ Glendale.......................... Los Angeles __ Palo A lto______________ Redlands____________ . Sacramento— __ . . San Buenaventura San Francisco. __ _ _ San Jose __ _ _ _ San Luis Obispo_____ Santa Ana_____________ Santa Barbara_________ Santa Cruz__________ S to c k to n _________ _ U pland. _______ __ Visalia_________________ Colorado: Colorado Springs_____ N um ber of parks Acreage of each park 1 1 1 1 2 1 203 267 100 30 9.8; 14,640 231 1 1 1 11 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 13 2,300 20 560 0.04; 24 939 40 832 50 400 629 10; 200; 330 10 520 3 495.5; 725.9; 1,097.4 * 10,987.5 320 90; 113.5 600 Denver________________ Durango____________ Fort Collins.................... Pueblo _______________ Connecticut: Hartford______________ 44 1 2 1 New Haven __________ Torrin gton...................... 3 1 4 37; 60 15 100 75; 100; 150; 1,311 *100 65 1 Partially outside city limits. C ity and State Delaware: W ilm ington........ Florida: Jacksonville __________ Tam pa________________ Georgia: Atlanta______________ _ Savannah_____________ Idaho: Pocatello.................... Illinois: Canton________________ D ixon_________________ East St. Louis____ ____ Elmhurst______________ Galesburg. ............. ......... Glen E lly n ..................... Joliet___ ______________ K ankakee_____________ Olney______ ______ ___ Peoria_________________ R ockford_______ ______ Springfield....................... Sterling........... ................. Streator_______________ Taylorville....................... Indiana: Bloom ington................... Hamm ond_____________ Huntington..................... Indianapolis___________ K okom o_______________ La Porte______________ Linton________________ N ew A lbany................... Terre Haute___________ Iowa: Cedar Falls......... ............ Fairfield............................ Num b e r o fi Darks . . A <*eage of each park 40; 57.1; 70; 75; 104 25; 31 10; 50; 117 176 720 70 19; 130 200 3; 10; 22.3; 1,130 10.5 2 490 7 *1,242 24 55 *804 * 645.8 26; 60; 120; 120; 150; 400 37 30 10; 55 2Total out-of-the-city park acreage. 275 90 3; 32 44 12 20; 90; 110 22 25 51.3 70 40 13 MUNICIPAL PARKS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS T able 5. —Number and acreage of municipal parks outside city limitsf by city and State— Continued C ity and State N um ber of parks Acreage of each park Iowa—Continued. Keokuk ............... .......... N ew ton.......................... Oelwein.......................... Webster C ity................. Kansas: Dodge C ity.................... Topeka........................... W ichita.......................... Kentucky: Paducah........... Maine: Eastport____ _____ Maryland: Baltimore......... Michigan: Detroit............................ Flint.............................. Grand Rapids............... Ironw ood....................... K a la m a zoo.................. Lansing.......................... . Ludington...................... Saginaw........................... Minnesota: Albert Lea..................... D uluth......... .................. Eveleth.......................... . International Falls____ Minneapolis.................... St. Cloud_____________ St. Paul.......................... Stillwater....................... Mississippi: Greenville...................... Laurel............................. Missouri: Joplin.............................. M oberly.... ..................... St. Louis........................ Springfield..................... Montana: Great Falls..................... Livingston..................... Havre............................. Nebraska: Lincoln_______________ Norfolk.... ...................... New Hampshire: Keene___ New Jersey: Morristown................... N ew a rk ........................ New York: Amsterdam..................... Jamestown...................... North Carolina: Asheville........................ . W ilm ington................ North Dakota: Valley C ity Ohio: A kron............................. . Canton........................... . Cincinnati..................... . Cleveland...................... . Columbus...................... . Dayton.... ...................... . Lakewood........... Wellsville........... Oklahoma: Bristow............... Chickasha........... E l Reno.............. E nid.................... Lawton............... Oklahoma City.. Okmulgee. Ponca........ *2 23 45 70 3 20; 170 644 116 30 45.3; 100 131.1 13 324 41 5; 186 20; 23; 45 30; 40 33 1; 6.5; 15 320 75 20 « 90; 154,8; 207.6; 3 480 120 4.6; 15.4; 30 50 14 210 10; 79; 160 *320 129.1 40; 100; 124 80; 273 4 20; 59 600 10 *276.9 7 4 100 66.5 49; 125 134 18 3.9 44; 85; 121 21.9; 296.8 123; 330 0.8; 50; 56.9; 320; 480.4 10 5; 193 12; 42 10; 15; 20 240 120; 3,840 2; 3; 4; 5; 8; 8; 20; 40; 160; 417; 620; 640; 640 4; 48 40 1 Partially outside city limits. * Total out-of-the-city park acreage. C ity and State N um ber of parks Oklahoma—Continued. Tulsa__...................... 0.5; 0.7; 0.8; 1. 5; 1.7; 28.3 405; 2,255.5 560 160 2> 300 7 Oregon: Bend............... Mansfield___ M edford____ Oregon C ity .. Pennsylvania: Beaver Falls.. Bradford........ Johnstown___ Lancaster____ Lock H aven.. New Castle__ Philadelphia.. Reading......... Rochester___ Titusville....... Warren______ South Carolina: Charleston___ Greenville___ Spartanburg.. Tennessee: •Dyersburg___ Knoxville....... Nashville........ Texas: Beaumont___ 4 2 40; 51.1; 116.3 130 2.5 121 353 235 5 3 115 154 45; 105; 126 94 2,550.5 24.2; 38.7; 64; 80; 500 100 C isco.. Dallas.. 12.5; 16.5; 25; 40; 176; 900; 2,500 *2,950 Fort W orth____ Huntsville......... Lufkin................ M idland............. San Antonio___ Seguin................ Wichita F alls... Utah: Salt Lake C ity . Tooele C ity___ Vermont: Barre___ Virginia: D a n v ille........... Martinsville___ Newport N ews. Portsmouth___ Richm ond......... Roanoke............. Washington: Anacortes.......... Centralia............ Everett............... Seattle................ Spokane................. Tacom a................. . Yakim a................. . West Virginia: W heeling.............. . M organtown.......... Wisconsin: Beloit...................... Green B ay ............ . Janesville................ Kenosha.................. M anitowoc............. M errill.................... M ilwaukee............. Oconto.................... Racine..................... Rhinelander........... Sheboygan............. Total, 186 cities.. Acreage of each park 26; 50 3 1,100 0.8; 3 270 1,920 8 *550 5; 43 10 40 262.6 50 10 10; 36 33.8 45.6; 146.8; 150.4 * 1,280 2; 10; 339 40 754 36.7 19.7; 86.3 4.9 70; 140 25; 80 80 277 63; 259.9 10 63; 285 10 69.5 381 19,196.3 * Partially oustide city limits; acreage given is outside. 14 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 Recreation Facilities in Parks The landscape park, providing a place for rest and refreshment amid beautiful surroundings, continues to be an important unit in the park system and serves an exceedingly useful purpose. On the other hand, as previously pointed out, the use of parks as recreation centers has during recent years developed rapidly as a result of the increasing amount of leisure and the lack of open spaces for games and sports resulting from the development of our cities. Not only have existing parks, formerly devoted primarily to passive forms of recreation, been put to more intensive use, but many parks have been acquired during the last few years because of their suitability for various forms of active recreation. Many city park systems include areas such as playgrounds, playfields, athletic fields, golf courses, and bathing beaches, acquired primarily or exclusively for active recreation use. The last five years have seen an almost universal acceptance by park authorities throughout the country of the idea which has been grow ing since the beginning of the century, that a major function of the parks is to provide recreation service. By way of illustration, the following lists of recreation facilities reported by park authorities in several cities are given. They indicate the number and variety of areas, facilities, and equipment now com monly provided in municipal park systems. Recreation facilities in the parks of Hartford, Conn. From report dated M ay 1,1930 27 playgrounds. 5 gymnasiums. 28 baseball diamonds. 29 tennis courts. 8 football gridirons. 8 skating ponds. 8 coasting areas. 7 playfields. 2 outdoor gymnasiums. 6 picnic groves. 15 horseshoe pits. 1 concrete swimming pool. 1 bathing beach. 2 wading pools. 4 fireplaces. 3 soccer fields. 3 lawn bowling greens. 2 golf courses (one 9-hole and one 18-hole). 2 hockey rinks. 1 outdoor dancing pavilion. 1 curling-rink. 1 hurling and Gaelic field. Recreation facilities in Pasadena (Calif.) parks, 1930 1 athletic field. 2 band stands. 4 baseball diamonds. 7 children’s playgrounds. 1 golf course (18-hole). 1 outdoor theater. 14 picnic places. 1 stadium. 2 swimming pools. 16 tennis courts. 2 wading pools. 27 horseshoe courts. 2 croquet courts. 8 roque courts. 2 bowling greens. 2 playfield baseball diamonds. 1 whippet track. 1 practice fairway. 1 putting green. 1 archery green. RECREATION FACILITIES IN PARKS 15 Facilities of the West Chicago park commissioners9playground department, May 29, 1929 16 outdoor gymnasiums. 16 recreation buildings. 14 playfields. 16 assembly halls. 9 reading rooms. 12 sand courts. 15 skating ponds. 24 indoor gymnasiums. 6 running tracks. 36 club rooms. 138 tennis courts. 12 recreation game rooms. 4 lagoons for boating. 4 public library exchanges. 12 wading pools. 2 outdoor hand-ball courts, 33 horseshoe courts. 12 athletic fields. 2 golf links (9-hole). 1 bicycle track. 14 swimming pools. 5 roque courts. 2 indoor pools. The popularity of these facilities may be judged by the total attend ance of 9,261,654 at the indoor and outdoor centers operated by the West Parks Playground Department, during the year 1928. In addition to the facilities already listed and to those appearing in Table 7 (p. 17), a great variety of others are to be found in city parks. Among them are archery courts; rifle and pistol ranges; cricket pitches; field-hockey fields; paddle tennis courts; shufHeboard courts; polo fields; bonarro courses; trap-shooting ranges; bridle trails; hand-ball, volley-ball, croquet, basket-ball, etc., courts; driv ing ranges; casting pools; summer and year-round camps, etc. Sev eral types of building and structures commonly found in parks, some of which are used primarily for active recreation, are mentioned in a later section. Some 550 cities reported nearly 75,000 acres in their parks being used for active recreation purposes. Water areas in parks add greatly to the possibility of securing beautiful landscape effects, but they also lend themselves to such forms of recreation as canoeing, fishing, boating, swimming, and aquatic sports of various types. Only 217 cities reported on the water areas in their parks, the total amount being 16,500 acres. Not only do the parks provide facilities for games, athletics, and other forms of active recreation but also for various cultural activities, such as music and drama. Fifty-four cities have outdoor theaters, most of them in a naturalistic setting appropriate to their park locations. One of the best known is the Municipal Theater in Forest Park, St. Louis, with an enormous stage where, among other events, the annual playground festival is held, which is attended by some 12,000 children and adults. The Water Theater in Nibley Park, Salt Lake City, “ is a unique structure, so successful that a modern, thoroughly equipped stage has supplanted the old one. The stage and orchestra pit are built over the lake, a lagoon separating them from the spectators' seats located in a semicircular grove. It is a cool, tuneful spot where, every summer Friday night, a free community art program is presented. ” Among the many other outdoor cultural centers in parks are the Sylvan Theater near the Washington Monument in the Nation’s Capital; the Little Lattice Playhouse in Bamsdall Park, Los Angeles; the Willows Park Theater in Salem, Mass.; and the Spreckels Music Temple in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. A recent development in the provision for music in public parks is the installation of amplifying systems, which may be used for bringing music either from bands, orchestras, cho ruses, victrolas, or the radio to large numbers of people over a con siderable park area. 16 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 Participation in winter sports has been encouraged during the last few years by many park authorities through the provision and maintenance of suitable facilities. Minneapolis has been one of the leaders in this respect and, according to the park report for 1930— In order to accommodate the huge number of participants and accede to the urgent demands from all sides, the (park) board provided in 1930 the following facilities and equipment for winter sports: Fifty skating rinks; 16 hockey rinks, lighted; 22 hockey rinks, unlighted; 23 toboggan and sled slides; 5 ski slides; 1 dog derby track; 1 speed-skating track; 1 figure-skating rink; and 1 sleigh driveway around Lake of the Isles. It is not enough just to furnish the facilities; if they are to be used to their fullest extent there must be a program of events, and this is provided by our recreation department. A marked increase in the number of park recreation facilities is noted during the last five years. There is, however, a decrease in the number of tourist camps, indicating a tendency on the part of park departments, also noted in reports from several cities, to abandon this type of facility. In cities under 25,000, however, many such camps were reported, suggesting that there is greater need for munic ipal tourist camps in the small cities. Table 6, covering a few types of facilities, indicates that the number reported in cities of 25,000 and over population in 1930 is 50 per cent greater and in some instances double that reported five years earlier. T a b le 6.— Number of facilities in cities of 25,000 and over population, 1925-26 and 1980, by type 1925-26 T yp e of facility Baseball diamonds____________________________________ ____ - - _________________________________ Golf courses Tennis courts_____ ___ _______________________________ Bathing b e a c h e s ... ... . ______________________________ Swimming pools_______ ______________________________ Skating rinks____. . . . . . _______________________________ 1930 Number of N um ber of N um ber of N um ber of cities facilities cities facilities 216 92 161 71 106 71 1,596 150 3,914 138 326 403 261 259 96 152 124 2,579 275 6,064 218 511 900 Although some cities failed to submit data covering recreation facilities, Table 7 indicates the extent to which cities have provided the several types of recreation areas and facilities in their parks. This table also includes information submitted by a number of play ground and recreation departments controlling municipal facilities and areas. Table C (p. 74), gives a list of the cities with a popu lation of 10,000 and over reporting such facilities. 17 RECREATION FACILITIES IN PARKS T a b le 7 .— Number of recreation facilities in parks, by type of facility and by population groups Athletic fields Population group 1,000,000 and over___ 500.000 to 1,000,000.... 250.000 to 500,000........ 100.000 to 250,000........ 50.000.to 100,000.......... 25.000 to 50,000............ 10.000 to 25,000............ 5.000.to 10,000............. 5 7 19 37 54 67 103 94 138 84 106 126 157 127 176 130 5 6 14 42 51 70 102 105 41 116 103 109 131 132 52 82 93 148 134 491 349 466 536 449 288 295 189 1,044 395 746 543 3,063 Children’s playgrounds 1,000,000 and over........ 500.000 to 1,000,000....... 250.000 to 500,000.......... 100.000 to 250,000.......... 50.000.to 100,000............ 25.000 to 50,000.............. 10.000 to 25,000.............. 5.000.to 10,000................ 49 81 94 142 120 Total, all groups 519 5 8 20 Bathing beaches 85 108 150 153 95 145 Total, all groups 1,138 Swimming pools 105 41 Golf courses, 9-hole 17 35 42 48 43 87 62 202 367 Golf courses, 18-hole 16 10 37 43 23 14 9 4 123 129 135 70 Tennis courts 64 100 663 480 167 Picnic places 16 40 59 65 106 98 88 90 65 231 Miniature golf courses 5 8 23 53 85 85 121 88 122 282 Dance pavilions 8 222 3,191 1,000,000 and over........ 500.000 to 1,000,000....... 250.000 to 500,000.......... 100.000 to 250,000.......... 50.000.to 100,000............ 26.000 to 50,000.............. 10.000 to 5,000................ 5.000.to 10,000............... 1,000,000 and over........ 500.000 to 1,000,000....... 250.000 to 500,000.......... 100.000 to 250,000.......... 50.000.to 100,000............ 25.000 to 50,000.............. 10.000 to 25,000.............. 5.000.to 10,000............... 5 21 360 238 498 605 533 388 347 Ice-skating rinks Baseball diamonds N um Number N um Number N um N um ber N um Number ber of of ber of of ber of of ber of of cities facilities cities facilities cities facilities cities facilities Total, all group Total, all groups Band stands 64 99 681 596 414 289 259 182 111 156 Stadiums 3 4 4 10 16 5 4 13 18 13 16 5 12 *15 5 2,584 Toboggan slides Tourist . camps 1,529 589 1,274 1,136 983 553 540 285 2 5 17 10 39 64 97 187 219 18 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 Park Buildings Since parks attract large numbers of visitors, many of whom come a considerable distance, it is necessary for park authorities to erect suitable buildings for their comfort and convenience. This fact, together with the increasing use of parks and the diversification of park service, has resulted in the construction of a large number of widely different buildings and structures which now comprise an important part of the park equipment in many cities. These include special types of buildings designed primarily for recreation use or for use in connection with recreation facilities, and service structures in which to carry on many of the operations $nd to house the equipment essential to improve and maintain the parks. In this study an attempt has been made to determine the extent to which park authorities have provided a few of the more common types of buildings. The reports indicate a very marked increase over the findings of the earlier study. Examples of buildings in cities with a population of 25,000 or more, as given in Table 8, are typical. T able 8. — Number of buildings in cities of 25,000 and over population, 1925-26 and 1980y by type of building 1925-26 1930 T yp e of building Number of N um ber of Number of N um ber of cities buildings cities buildings Boathouses............................................................................... Art galleries......... ................................... .............................. Greenhouses............................................................................ Workshops.............................................................................. 37 13 80 81 57 16 166 115 52 21 109 130 157 25 278 255 There is a great variety in the kinds of structures erected in parks. The most numerous and simplest from the standpoint of construction are the comfort stations and the open shelters. Both types are essen tial wherever large groups of people are brought together. The latter are especially useful at picnic and camping centers and children's playgrounds. Among the buildings designed in connection with recreation areas are golf clubhouses; gymnasiums; grandstands which sometimes provide rooms with lockers, showers, and comfort facili ties; camp buildings of various types; dance pavilions; outdoor thea ters; field houses; tourist camps; boathouses; band stands; and fully equipped community-type recreation buildings such as are found in the west parks and south parks in Chicago. A list of the facilities in some of these buildings appears in the preceding section (p. 15). Frequently several types of service are provided in the same build ing. Refectories, for example, are frequently included in boathouses, bathhouses, and golf club buildings. In some cities structures built primarily for band concerts and dramatic productions also provide comfort facilities and space for storing park maintenance equipment. Service buildings vary from simple structures for the storage of sup plies and equipment to fully equipped centers providing carpenter, machine, pamt, and blacksmith shops; garage; storage for machinery, equipment, tools, and supplies; and other essential services. Like wise the horticultural division requires structures ranging from the 19 PARK BUILDINGS small greenhouse to the elaborate conservatory where exhibitions are held. Among the other more or less common types of structures are administration buildings; police headquarters; dwelling houses for park employees; the zoological park buildings; art, historical, and natural history museums; and refectories. Park authorities are realizing more and more the recreational possi bilities of their buildings, many of which were not designed especially for recreational use, and are including facilities in new buildings to make' them suitable for recreational purposes. Many splendidly equipped recreation buildings have been erected in a number of cities. According to a report of the department of parks of the city of Seattle, Wash., for the years 1923-1930, “ the most outstanding development in the recreational division of the park system has been the construction of the Green Lake and Rainier field houses, particularly the former, because of its completeness and the triple purpose that it serves as a fieldhouse, bathhouse, and community house.” The report of the superintendent of playgrounds describes in detail the activities carried on in the various park centers and comments on them as follows: The field houses offered an opportunity for thousands of children and adults to engage in social pleasures and educational pursuits. The assembly halls and clubrooms were used for dramatics, musicals, institutes*, ci vic-welfare meetings, lectures, craft, art, dances, and a variety of social gatherings in addition to a definitely planned and organized schedule of gymnasium, sports, and recreation classes. In Minneapolis the clubhouses at two of the municipal golf courses have been arranged so as to be suitable for social functions. The beautiful dance floors, cozy clubrooms, and bright, cheery dining rooms have made these buildings exceedingly popular for social activities, especially during the winter months. According to the annual report of the board of park commissioners, 11,841 people attended the following functions carried on in one of these buildings during 1930: Number Dances________________________ Dinner dances_________________ Masquerades___________________ Banquets______________________ Luncheons_____________________ Dinners and bridge_____________ Winter sports and dance________ Winter sports party____________ Weddings______________________ Wedding receptions_____________ 2 88 14 1 6 13 1 5 5 3 Number Wedding anniversaries__________ Wedding breakfasts____________ Wiener roasts__________________ Hikers' supper_________________ Swedish supper_________________ Winter sports and bean feed_____ Winter sports and banquet______ Yule log_______________________ 1 2 2 5 1 3 1 1 Total reservations___________ 154 One of the most recent park developments requiring the construc tion of various types of buildings is the municipal airport. In several cities airports have been established in parks or special areas have been acquired for airports and turned over to the park authorities. Among the buildings needed are hangars, administration head quarters, restaurants, and service structures. Although many park authorities believe the development and administration of airports are not proper functions of a park department, it seems likely that the next few years will see an increasing number of municipal airports on park property. Among the cities which have established airports under park control are Enid and Tulsa, Okla., Syracuse, N. Y., Springfield, Mo., Saginaw and Kalamazoo, Mich., Wichita, Kans., Laurel, Miss., Salt Lake City, and Minneapolis* 20 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 The adoption of high architectural standards which have charac terized many of the park buildings erected during the recent years, together with the provision for the increasingly varied uses to which they have been put, may be considered among the finest accomplish ments of municipal park authorities. Table 9, although incomplete, gives a fair picture of the extent to which several types of buildings have been erected in city park sys tems. A discussion of recreation activities, many of which are carried on in park buildings, is to be found in a later section of this report. Table C (p. 74) gives a list of the cities with a population of 10,000 and over reporting boathouses and recreation buildings. T able 9.— Number of buildings in city park systems, by population groups and type of building Administration buildings Population group Comfort sta tions Boathouses Conservatories N um Number N um Number N um Number N um N um ber of of of of ber of ber of ber of ber of build build build build cities cities cities cities ings ings ings ings 1,000,000 and over___________ - ___ 600,000 to 1,000,000........................... 260,000 to 600,000 ...................... 100,000 to 260,000.............................. 60,000 to 100,000................................ 25,000 to 50,000.................................. 10,000 to 26,000.................................. 5,000 to 10,000................................... 5 5 10 16 17 21 23 22 57 8 16 18 23 36 29 23 6 7 10 9 9 12 10 9 35 18 66 18 9 12 10 11 5 8 9 42 56 78 101 98 557 247 300 389 315 250 345 220 6 6 9 8 5 5 4 9 14 9 10 6 6 4 Total, all groups.................. 119 210 71 178 397 2,623 42 58 Dwelling bouses 1,000,000 and over............................ 500,000 to 1,000,000........................... 250,000 to 500,000.............................. 100,000 to 250,000.............................. 50,000 to 100,000................................ 25,000 to 50,000.................................. 10,000 to 25,000.................................. 5,000 to 10,000................... ............... Total, all g ro u p s ............ ..... 5 7 16 28 30 32 4125 184 Greenhouses Museums—Art Museums— Others 66 53 121 104 105 53 50 29 5 6 18 28 30 22 23 5 46 50 56 52 43 31 25 6 3 4 4 6 2 2 1 1 6 5 4 6 2 2 1 1 2 5 6 7 5 4 5 5 581 137 309 23 27 34 44 Recreation buildings Refectories Shelters 7 6 8 9 5 4 Workshops 1,000,000 and o v e r ........................... 500,000 to 1,000,000 ......................... 250,000 to 500,000 ............................ 100,000 to 250,000.............................. 60,000 to 100,000................................ 26,000 to 60,000.................................. 10,000 to 26,000.................................. 5,000 to 10,000.................................... 4 3 14 28 25 24 36 25 72 25 111 122 58 49 45 34 5 6 11 15 11 10 8 9 49 40 60 47 39 24 14 11 4 4 16 30 43 39 61 37 82 62 138 185 168 116 147 73 5 7 17 32 39 30 44 27 25 11 39 55 74 61 63 33 Total, all groups................... 159 516 75 284 234 961 201 351 Zoological Parks One of the greatest centers of attraction to old and young alike is the “ zoo,” a feature which was reported in this study by 138 cities. In some of the larger cities special zoological parks have been devel oped, or large sections of a park have been set aside for this purpose. 21 ZOOLOGICAL PARKS On the other hand, some of the zoos reported consist of only a few specimens in a single building or inclosure occupying a small area. Recently constructed zoos are characterized by splendid welllighted, heated, and ventilated buildings and large outdoor barless inclosures in which an attempt is made to provide a naturalistic en vironment for the animals suggestive of their natural habitat. Ex amples of such construction are the barless bear pits and small mam mal habitat in the St. Louis Zoological Park. In the latter, which is located on a hillside, are displayed raccoons, wolverenes, cub bears, and prairie dogs. In the same park is a new bird house in the center of which is displayed a swamp scene, containing a brook and pool. The inclosure is planted with suitable tropical plants and affords a beautiful natural setting for a group of tropical aquatic birds. Recent developments in zoo planning and construction add to the educa tional value of this park feature and at the same time contribute to the contentment of the inhabitants and the enjoyment of the visiting public. Although several cities did not indicate the number of specimens in their zoos, a total of nearly 42,000 mammals, birds, and reptiles was reported. Among the outstanding zoos in the country are those in Bronx Park, New York; Fairmount Park, Philadelphia; and Lincoln Park, Chicago; St. Louis, Washington, D. C., Milwaukee, and San Diego. Reports indicate that the number of visitors at several of the leading zoological parks in 1930 was in excess of 1,000,000. Detroit reported 10,000,000 visitors at its zoo. T^Jble 10 lists the cities reporting zoos and gives the number of visitors as well as information covering the number of specimens. The 24 cities reporting aquariums in their parks were as follows: Little Rock, Ark.; Pomona and Redlands, Calif.; Pueblo, Colo.; Aurora, Chicago, and Galena, 111.; Evansville and Huntington, Ind.; Boston, Mass.; Detroit, Mich.; St. Paul, Minn.; Moberly, M o.; New York, Rochester, and Watertown, N. Y .; Wilmington, N. C.; Fremont, Ohio; Lancaster, Norristown, and Philadelphia (part of zoo), Pa.; Memphis, Tenn.; Norfolk, Va.; and Sheridan, Wyo. T a b le 10.— Number of buildings and specimens (by kind) in, and number of visitors to, zoos, by city and State State and city N um ber of build ings Number of specimens M am mals Birds Alabama: 1 296 Birmingham______________________________ 189 4 55 16 M ontgom ery.____ ________________________ 152 208 4 Arkansas: Little R ock. _____________________ California: 1 30 Berkeley__________ ______________________ 18 35 200 Los Angeles_______________ ______ ________ 32 18 5 O a k la n d _____ __________________ ________ 3 P o m o n a .____ ____________________________ 493 1,329 13 San Diego....................... ................................... 193 San Francisco_____________________________ 250 60 Santa Barbara__________________ ____ ____ 177 Colorado: Colorado Springs_______ __ __________ ____ 40 Denver___________________________________ 1 4 20 Durango__________________________________ Grand Junction___________________________ 3 28 20 3 41 2 Pueblo................................................................. R ep tiles 20 52 408 20 Number o * visitors Total 505 71 412 296,400 30 235 37 3 2,230 461 177 130,000 10,000 178,776 40 1,000 24 48 43 2,000 22 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 T a b le 10. —Number of buildings and specimens (by kind) in, and number of visitors to, zoos, by city and State— Continued State and city Connecticut: Bridgeport__ _____ _______ _______. . . . . . __ N o r w i c h ..... ........ ............. _............ ......... W aterbury________________________________ Delaware: Wilmington............................. .............. District of Columbia* Washington r Florida: Jacksonville ........ ...... Sanford................................ .......... ................... T a m p a ........ ^......................... Georgia: Atlanta _ _ Idaho: Boise................... ............................................... Nfttnpa Pocatello_________ _______ _______ ________ Illinois: Aurora___ . . . . . . . _____________________ - __ Chicago— Lincoln Park Commission _ . _ ____ D e c a tu r ._____ ____ _____ ________________ Galesburg.._______ . ______________ ____ Indiana: Crawfordsville ___________________________ East Chicago_______________________ _____ Evansville ______ . K okom o __ _ _ __ ______ ____ Seymour________ , _ . ___________ South Bend__________ _____ _____ _______ Iowa: A m es.......... ........ ................................................ Cedar Rapids_____________________ ____ __ Davenport______ ___________ _______ ___ Iowa C ity________________________________ Kansas: Dodge C ity _______________________________ M cPherson__________ ______ _____________ W ichita............................................................... Louisiana: Alexandria....................................................... M o n r o e ________ __________ ________ ____ _ Maine: Portland___________ ____ _____________ M aryland: Baltimore...................... ..................................... Hagerstown........................................................ Massachusetts: Boston____________________________________ Fitchburg......................... ................................. Lowell______________ _______ _____________ Springfield.................... ..................................... Worcester........................................................... Michigan: Detroit............ .................... ............................ . Flint____________________ ________________ Grand Rapids__________ _________________ Jackson___________________________________ Kalamazoo________________________________ Lansing............................................................. Marquette.................... ........... ...................... . Saginaw_________________ _____ __________ Minnesota: Chisholm ........................................................... Little Falls......................................................... S t Paul............................................................... Mississippi: Jackson................. ............ ................. Missouri: Joplin_____________ ____ _____ _______ ____ Kansas C ity ________ _______ __________ __ M ob erly_____________________ _____ ______ St. Louis........................................... ............. - . Springfield- _____ ______ ____ _____ _______ Montana: Great Falls...................................... ....... Nebraska: Falls C ity........................... .................... .......... Lincoln____________________ _____ ____ ___ O m a h a _____________ ________ _ _______ Y ork........- ........................................................... 1Number of cages. N um ber of build ings 10 4 2 2 7 Number of specimens M am mals 20 76 20 19 563 Num ber of visitors R ep tiles Birds 200 45 10 16 1,076 Total 1 4 606 6 119 146 85 200 40 'ol 5 1 31 2 8 79 30 40 fOO 150 12 2 ICO 7 8 1 1 350 20 20 2,250 100 9 1 2 62 15 6 95 50 6 45 29 4 2 84 8 6 25 1 8 2 10 40 34 20 2 1 3 10 10 50 78 3 12 28 4 50 54 121 50 10 90 1 4 176 315 100 68 903 2 220 121 31 39 2,245 5 3 61 681 180 52 75,000 117 1,000,000 2,600 120 20 2, 500. 000 15,000 83 60 208 58 12 70 15 10 134 101 64 214 157 34 117 790 14 104 24 12 36 3 66 12 22 15 88 9 8 225 437 24 2 175 165 8 86 309 1 710 135 35 581 2 130 4 382 120 6 4 17 40 201 20 107 17 a 255 2 3 1 2 8 4 10 2 6 33, 767 50.000 30.000 ___JL_______ 889,845 52,000 971 2 12 338 150 10 1 10 5 60,000 552 100 12 50 4 5 2 ,171,515 794 235 200 186 10 70 36 500 500 100,000 1 1 947 49 221 35 8 408 688 474 6 1,759 255 6 60 325 255 10, 000,000 40,000 2,000 100,000 2,000,000 100,000 1,000 23 ZOOLOGICAL PARKS T ables 10.— Number of buildings and specimens (by kind) in, and number of visitors to, zoos, by city and State—Continued State and city N evada: R eno.......... ................................................ New Jersey: P aterson ........................................................... Trenton_______ *........ ....................................... New Yerk: A uburn............... ................................. ............. Buffalo................................................................ New York— Bronx______ ________ ________ ___ _____ B rooklyn.......... ............................ .............. ................ Manhattan .............. Oneonta. _......................................................... Rochester............................................. ............. Syracuse__________________________________ U t i c a - - ............................................................ Watertown__________________ ____________ North Carolina: Asheville............................................................. W ilmington........................................................ North Dakota: Devils Lake................................... Ohio: Canton___________________ _______ _______ Cleveland......... .......................................... ....... Columbus....................... ................................... Elyria.................................................................. Fremont...................... ................. .................... Greenville.......................................................... Massillon........................................................... Oklahoma: Chickasha-......................................................... Oklahoma C ity ................................................. Tulsa..........................- ....................................... Oregon: Portland.......... ........................................... Pennsylvania: Erie...................................................................... Lancaster............................................................ Norristown.......... .............................................. Philadelphia.........._........................................... Pittsburgh.......................................................... Scranton...................................................... ....... Wilkes-Barre...................................................... Williamsport..................................................... Rhode Island: Providence____________________ South Carolina: Charleston__________________ _____________ Greenville_____________________ __________ Spartanburg........ .......... ................................. South Dakota: Sioux Falls............... .................... Tennessee: Memphis...................................... ......... Texas: Beaumont.......... ............................................... Cisco................ ......... .................................. ... Dallas.........................................._.......... .......... Fort W orth ....................................................... H ouston. ........... ....................................... ......... San A n to n io ........ ......................................... . W a c o !................................................................. Wichita Falls..................................................... Virginia: Norfolk................................................................ Staunton............................................................ i Washington: Everett................................................................ Seattle............. ................................................... Spokane............................................................ T a com a................................................ .......... Wisconsin: Baraboo............................................................... K en osh a ............................................................ La Crosse............................................................ Marshfield......................................................... | Menasha............................................................. Milwaukee......................................................... ! Racine................................................................. ■ Sheboygan............. .......................................... j W yom ing: Sheridan................................................1 T otal................................................................ ' Num ber of cities reporting..................................... j Num ber of specimens N um ber of build ings M am mals 6 30 300 330 4 1 200 500 1 700 Birds R ep tiles 3 47 7 17 Total 269 203 200 50 131 90 68 300 79 41 287 503 50 210 131 33 37 100 5 6 1 50 44 13 20 167 3 6 3 1 66 36 130 2 98 1 8 42 7 11 1 4 20 196 200 121 223 750 90 35 150 3 14 23 86 615 180 300 24 30 200 5 30 105 1,265 434 150 18 50 200 2 9 5 17 3 2 3 1 4 2 3 2 2 20 35 25 25 4 420 10 20 150 3 325 155 44 10 138 25 487 190 234 300 35 96 204 100 905 280 825 1,100 73 129 126 3 67 206 30 20 282 1 100 1 200 j 20 12 17 13 18 1 60 j 2 4 I 3 1 9 40 4 3 20 1 14 9 12 8 5 3 1 12 4 1 5 333 140 16 30 804 12,123 1111 Num ber of visitors 108 | 16 3 10 5 22, 904 | 77 | 60,000 8,000 102 6 1,268 192 25 22 2S4 2 100 42 15 20 454 1,100 214 24 62 191 3,115 806 475 42 80 400 52 45 175 4 900 b00,000 7,000 416,000 4,500 552,261 175,000 100,000 50,000 25,000 250,000 364 135 1,441 470 1,130 1,408 108 225 600,000 200,000 3,000,000 16 | 209 3 30,000 71 559 130 220 49 71 8 65,862 12,500 250,000 38 72 17 17 15,000 18 774 278 72 50 641, 250 125,000 4,122 41,788 31, 729, 718 138 49 4 ' 423 138 56 20 95 222 13 5,000,000 46 | 5,000 24 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 Park Recreation Activities The range of recreation activities carried on in parks and by park authorities is so wide and varied that it was impossible in the present study to secure detailed information concerning them. A few selected activities were recorded, however, and the number of cities reporting these activities gives a suggestion as to their frequency in park pro grams. Of the activities listed, children’s play under leadership and band concerts hold first place, with athletic leagues, water sports, holiday celebrations, winter sports, and pageants following in the order named. As pointed out elsewhere in the report, one of the most outstanding developments in the park movement during the past two or three decades has been the organized movement by park leaders to develop a program of recreation activities in order that the greatest possible number of people may enjoy and make full use of the parks. The objectives and results of such activities are summarized as follows in an attractive booklet describing the parks and recreation centers in Salt Lake City: “ There is encouraged and developed talent, skill, sportsmanship, and cooperation— the basis of good citizenship. It fosters comradeships and helps toward a solution of the ever-present metropolitan problem of juvenile welfare and use of leisure time.” The park program in this city, typical of that in many others, “ briefly summarized, includes sports, ‘ stunts/ dancing, theatricals, swimming instruction, supervised games and play for juvenile groups, handicraft, pageantry, nature lore, and other diversions and instruc tion under direction of a corps of experienced men and women.” In reading park department attendance reports one is impressed by the large percentage of people who visit the parks to participate in some form of organized recreation activity as compared with those who are seeking merely to walk through the parks and enjoy their beauty. Without doubt the recent tendency of park departments to employ trained recreation leaders is partly responsible for the popu larity of this part of the park program. The diversity of the program is illustrated by the list of recreation activities for 1930-31, issued by the division of recreation of the department of parks and public property in Cleveland, Ohio. Of special note is the large percentage of activities designed to serve young people and adults. This varied program makes it possible for an to nnd some form of recreation in which they may engage during their leisure hours. PARK RJT REATION ACTIVITIES 25 Recreation ac wities, Cleveland, Ohio, 1980-81 Summer season: Playgrounds. Public service. Baseball. Outdoor festivals. Band concerts. Sane Fourth celebrations. Beach exposition. Tennis. Swimming. Boating. Roque. Cricket. Outboard motor regatta. Golf. Model yacht regattas. Model airplane meets. Yachting. Archery. Track and field games. Casting. Horseshoes. Canoeing. Handicraft. Soccer. Rowing regatta. Fall: Clam bakes and picnic service. Soccer. Dramatics. Gymnastic Olympics. Basket ball. Community neighborhood center program. Football. Labor Day festivals. Tennis. Indoor swimming. Bowling. Athletic carnivals. Winter: Neighborhood center programs. Nationality festivals. Institutes. Indoor party service. Dramatics. Music festivals. Soccer. Christmas programs. Winter sports carnivals. Skating. Basket ball. Gymnastics. Coasting. Bowling. Spring: Playgrounds. Neighborhood center programs. Swimming. Picnic service. Casting. Hobby shows. Gaelic football. Soccer. Baseball. May festival. Outboard motors. Tennis. Golf. Boating. Roque. Canoeing. Horseshoes. Institutes. Cricket. Yachting. Rowing. Modern park programs provide opportunities for participation in activities and also for the enjoyment which comes from watching others play. An idea of the extent to which park recreation service is appreciated may be gained from the following statement covering the attendance at various recreation features conducted by the Board of Park Commissioners of Milwaukee in 1930. It should be added that the people of Milwaukee are also served by a system of county parks, many of which are readily accessible, and also by a number of playgrounds under the public schools, attendance at which centers is not included in these figures. 26 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 Attendance Skating................................ Tobogganing______ ______ Coasting________________ Hockey games (26)_______ Skiing meets (2)_________ Curling__________________ Skating races (7)-------------Trap shooting___________ Conservatorv____________ Zoo______ J_____________ Soccer football (35 games) _ Baseball (983 games)_____ Soft ball (572 games)......... Football (212 games)_____ Horse races (14 programs). Boating_________________ Canoeing____________..___ Park dances_____________ 635,752 22,834 46, 300 14, 965 20, 500 1, 477 57, 500 6, 345 445, 933 641,250 9, 750 374, 465 57, 980 103, 305 11, 400 201, 312 30, 064 129, 473 Attendance River bathhouse attend ance---------------------------Visitors at Bradford Beach Sane Fourth celebrations... Playgrounds_____________ Tennis__________________ Quoits_____________ _____ Bowling on the green_____ Band concerts (44)_______ Golf_________ I __________ Track and field meets (4)__ Swimming and canoe races (1)______________ Registered picnics (469)__ Special events (6)________ Park visitors_____________ 2, T otal............... . 175,211 319, 800 233, 000 664, 861 231, 583 16,397 10, 771 185, 900 98,365 1, 600 1,000 103, 409 33, 400 935, 956 7,821,858 Although recreation service to young people and adults is rightly receiving increasing emphasis in park programs, the importance of providing play programs for children is not being overlooked. In many cities park authorities have recognized the public responsibility for the play of children and are conducting, Hinder competent leaders, constructive play programs serving large numbers of children. Typi cal of such programs is the following list of activities conducted on the summer playgrounds in Dallas, Tex. The popularity of the play ground is not surprising in view of the interesting and attractive activities which now comprise its program in many cities: O'Leary contest. Junior leaders. Doll village. Sand modeling. Baseball pitching contest. Learn-to-swim campaign. Jack tournament. Swimming contests. Sewing clubs. Handwork. Dramatic games. Whittling and carving. Jackknife contests. Puppet show. Jump rope. Carnivals. Charades. Hopscotch tournament. Folk dancing. Original doll show. Baseball efficiency contest. Soap modeling. Playground circus. Doll-buggy parade. Pet show. Poster making. Doll-dressing contest. Story acting. Soap-bubble contest. Play days. Community evenings. Boat carnival. Playground museums. Stunt contest. “ Perhaps the most notable feature of the year’s use of the parks was the marked increase in the numbers seeking the parks for winter sports. This is a development making the parks useful assets for the whole year instead of only for spring, summer, and fall.” This statement from the 1930 report of the Erie County (N. Y.) Park Com mission reflects a definite trend in northern cities to make the parks year-round centers. The provision and maintenance of special areas and facilities for winter sports have been responsible for much of this added use, but an important factor in several cities has been the organization of hiking, outing, and trails clubs which frequently include in their schedule hikes to large or outlying parks. In the winter these hikes are often combined with winter sports, possibly followed by a “ feed” in one of the park buildings. It is believed that as people grow to realize the beauty of the park winter land- 27 PARK WORKERS scape there will be an increase in the number of park visitors. As mentioned in the earlier section on park buildings, the programs of athletic, music, social, dramatic, rhythmic, art, and manual activities now being conducted indoors by park authorities in many cities are also an important factor in gaining for the parks added year-round use and popularity. Table 11, although incomplete, is a summary of the cities reporting a few of the activities commonly carried on by park authorities: T a b le 11.— Number of cities reporting specified park recreation activities, by population groups Number of cities reporting— Population group H ol Na Ath Band Chil Flow iday ture a W in Pag W con dren's ter ter letic cele ac er leagues certs Play shows bra tivi eants sports sports tions ties M o tion pic tures Com mu nity sing ing 1,000,000 and over........................ 500,000 to 1,000,000...................... 250,000 to 500,000......................... 100,000 to 250,000.......................... 50,000 to 100.000........................... 25,000 to 50,000............................. 10,000 to 25,000............................. 5,000 to 10,000............................... 3 6 14 34 48 30 41 33 5 7 19 33 47 38 54 58 4 5 17 35 53 49 58 41 5 6 8 16 16 10 13 16 6 7 13 21 29 29 27 39 1 2 8 13 10 11 10 4 2 3 12 20 28 17 18 20 4 6 15 31 38 31 37 37 4 6 8 25 26 23 34 21 2 3 8 12 11 5 6 7 2 4 11 17 16 12 13 14 Total, all groups............... 209 261 262 90 170 59 120 199 147 54 89 Park Workers For the maintenance of the vast properties comprising city park systems, for the operation of their many facilities, and for the leader ship essential to the varied recreation programs, a great staff of workers is needed. Naturally the personnel required is dependent largely upon the park acreage, the nature and extent of its development, and the kinds of service rendered the public. In the large park systems a highly organized staff is needed, whereas in the smaller communities having only one or two parks of limited acreage no special park workers are required. In these communities the neces sary maintenance work is often done by workers with the street, public works, or other department. Some of the park authorities in the larger cities and many in the smaller cities failed to report the number of workers, but a total of 44,431 persons employed for park service was reported. Nearly one-half of these persons are employed the year round, a slightly larger number being seasonal workers. In the cities of 500,000 and over, a majority of the workers are employed on a yearround basis, but in the smaller cities the number of seasonal workers is much greater. In a few cities, such as Los Angeles, practically all park workers are employed the year round, whereas in others there is a small year-round staff supplemented by a large corps of seasonal workers. Although the personnel required for park service can not be esti mated on the basis of park acreage alone, it is of interest that in the cities of between 50,000 and 500,000, most of which reported both 98021°—32------ 3 28 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 acreage and personnel, one worker is employed on the average for each 8 or 9 acres. It is apparent that civil-service examinations are not generally required of applicants for park positions, since of the 524 cities supplying data, only 60 reported that park positions are filled by civil service. Two of these cities state that only a few positions are filled in this way. Table 12 gives the number of cities reporting as to whether park positions are rnled by civil-service examinations: T a b le 12 .— Number of cities reporting whether or not park positions are filled by civil service, by population groups Number of cities where park positions are— Population group Filled b y civil service N ot filled b y civil service 1,000,000 and over................................................. 500,000 to 1,000,000................................................ 250,000 to 500,000................................................... 100,000 to 250,000................................................... 50,000 to 100,000..................................................... 25,000 to 50,000................................. .................... 10,000 to 25.000....................................................... i 5,000 to 10,000.........................................................|! 4 6 9 17 6 9 7 1 1 7 25 54 70 146 160 T otal............................................................ ! 60 464 2 ii A brief statement effectively describing the personal services involved in the operation of a modern park system is contained in the Seattle park report for 1923 to 1930: The development of park properties has created new problems of operation arising from the necessity of handling increased numbers of park visitors and has added proportionately to physical maintenance work. Parks, squares, and places require gardeners and laborers; playfields require play leaders and ground keepers; field houses require managers, play leaders, and physical instructors; bathing beaches demand managers, attendants, life guards, and swimming instructors; boulevards require pavement repair, border upkeep, and traffic regulation; the zoo must have a director and his corps of animal keepers and attendants; nurseries and greenhouses need skilled horticulturists; golf courses demand managers, starters, greens keepers, and laborers; carpenters, plumbers, painters, electricians, and janitors are required in the upkeep of buildings; all branches of the system call for supervision, supplies, tools, and equipment of many kinds. Detailed information concerning park personnel was not secured from most cities in the recent study, but the lists of workers in a few park departments, shown in Table 13, indicate the number and types of employees in these systems. 29 PARK WORKERS T a b le 13.— Number of employees in park service of specified cities St. Paul, M inn, (population, 251,606; p a r k a c r e a g e , 2,667.25) Tulsa, Okla. (population, 141,258; p a r k a c r e a g e , 3,139.5) T ype of service Year round General executive.......................................... Offinft administration Construction_______________ ____ ________ Maintenance_____________________________ Recreation service....... - ................................. Police...................... .....^__________ ________ Forestry_________________________________ Zoological garden________________________ Botanical garden_________ ______ ________ Engineering____ _________ _______ _______ T otal...................................................... Average, exclusive of adniinistration_____ Seasonal 2 5 20 16 1 5 2 6 Total 6 2 5 50 170 51 7 80 2 12 322 150 379 250 50 150 35 6 75 Year round Seasonal 2 1 9 34 3 2 1 15 6 2 2 9 52 19 4 116 9 1 18 16 2 11 3 4 57 100 T«tal 76 , 1 5 42 118 « Springfield, Mass. (popula tion, 149,900; park acreage, 1,646.59) General executive________________________ Office administration_____________________ Construction.................................................... Maintenance_____________________________ Recreation service________________________ Police.................................... ........................... Forestry........................................................... Zoological garden............................................. Botanical garden_________________________ Bathhouse.......... ............ .................................. Concessions_______________ ______________ 1 4 *102 11 14 40 6 9 30 19 77 14 70 6 28 Total....................................................... 187 126 313 1 *10 66 i Including horticulture. Kenosha, W is. (population, 50,262; park acreage, 422.47) 1 5 *112 1 3 2 18 1 1 4 2 1 3 2 39 11 3 3 1 2 5 3 41 73 21 10 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 32 * Including maintenance. Table 14 is a summary of the information submitted by cities of various population groups concerning the number of year-round and seasonal employees. T a b le 14.— Number of employed park workers, by population groups Year round Population group 1,000,000 and over__ _____________________ 500,000 to 1,000,000........................................... 250,000 to 500,000.............................................. 100,000 to 250,000.............................................. 50,000 to 100,00C................................................ 25,000 to 50,000.................................................. 10,000 to 25,000................................................. 5,000 to 10,000................................................... Total, all groups___________________ 485 j| Total workers Number of cities Number of workers 9,083 2,774 2,890 2,737 1,533 728 642 317 4 6 20 43 37 66 134 140 6,964 2,036 3,168 4,042 2,647 1,271 1,460 591 5 7 22 48 85 87 170 186 17,347 4,810 6,070 6,889 4,180 2,103 2,124 908 20,704 450 22,179 610 44,431 Number Number of of cities j workers 5 6 22 47 84 77 142 102 Seasonal Number Number of of cities workers 30 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 Construction and Maintenance The creation and maintenance of parks are obviously two of the most essential functions of a park department. While new park systems are being established or old ones are being expanded, con struction activities are of major importance. Once parks are estab lished, however, maintenance is a factor which requires continuous attention. No matter how beautiful or how well suited to recrea tion use a park may be when it is established and opened to the public, if it is not regularly and carefully maintained, it fails to render the maximum service. This is equally applicable to a play ground or a botanical garden, a golf course or a zoo, although the kind and amount of maintenance naturally vary with different types of properties. Because the continuous improvement and mainte nance of the parks are so important, it is not surprising that in many annual park department reports a large amount of space is devoted to this type of work done during the year in each of the parks. Many of the services of the construction and maintenance division are so complex and diverse that they do not readily lend themselves to statistical reporting. Therefore, in the present study information was requested on only a few major activities. For example, 364 cities reported nearly half a million trees planted by park authorities in 1930. The contribution which they are making to the attractive ness of American cities through this one service alone is exceedingly important. Likewise, in the millions of shrubs, bulbs, and plants set out each year, park authorities are perhaps doing more than any other single agency to make our communities beautiful. In many cities one of the responsibilities of park departments is to care for street trees, and many of the million trees reported sprayed and trimmed last y e ar were along the public streets and highways. In some cities construction and maintenance are cared for by a single division of the park department. In some of the larger cities, however, these services are the responsibility of various divisions, such as engineering, general maintenance, landscape design, forestry, horticulture, police, zoo, and others. These divisions are in turn subdivided into several sections, as, for example, in the case of general maintenance, electrical, repair, floral, storehouse, motor vehicle, nursery, and others. Among the multitudinous responsibilities falling within this general classification are the grading and planting of new areas; the erection of park structures and facilities, including build ings, walls, roads, paths, apparatus and equipment for children’s play and adult activities; cutting grass, planting, spraying, and trimming trees and shrubs, setting out flowers and bulbs, weeding and fertiliz ing flower beds and other areas; repairing, painting, and replacing buildings and equipment; hauling materials; cleaning snow from walks and drives; erecting and removing bleachers, benches, lights, and other special equipment needed for band concerts, winter sports, and other special activities; removing rubbish and papers; installing and maintaining water mains, drainage systems, drinking fountains, lights, sewers, and other utilities; surfacing and paving special areas— in short, assuring that the park plant is kept in the best possible con dition to render the greatest public service. Table D (p. 89) gives a list of some construction and maintenance work reported done in 1930 by park authorities in cities with a pop ulation of 20,000 and over. 31 PARK EXPENDITURES Table 15 summarizes only a few of the items of work carried on in a large group of cities in 1930: T able 1.5.— Activities in construction and maintenance of parks, by population groups Trees planted Population group Shrubs planted Bulbs planted Plants set out N um Number of N um Number of N um Number of N um Number of ber of ber of ber of ber of shrubs bulbs plants trees cities cities cities cities 5 1,000,000 and over............. 600,000 to 1,000,000....... 1.. 250,000 to 500,000............... 100,000 to 250,000................ 50,000 to 100,000................. 25,000 to 50,000.................. 10,000 to 25,000................... 5,000 to 10,000..................... 5 4 28 33 41 57 91 105 52,070 9,817 25,340 51,632 112,768 76,119 122,849 27,901 2 26 29 37 44 78 75 157,768 20,065 119,552 •78,176 90,706 121,029 65,877 151,629 5 3 22 29 34 40 58 49 954,864 215,000 476,532 634,324 394,372 174,180 500,910 57,197 4 3 22 25 31 34 47 48 1,178,236 615,000 1,038,670 1,037,358 570,072 291,573 429,000 339,037 Total, all groups.. . 364 478,496 296 804,802 240 3,407,379 214 5,498,946 Trees trimmed Population group Trees sprayed Areas graded Areas planted N um Number of N um Number of N um Number of N um ber of ber of ber of ber of Number of trees trees acres acres cities cities cities cities 1,000,000 and over........ ..... 500,000 to 1,000,000............. 250,000 to 500,000............... 100,000 to 250,000............... 50,000 to 100,000................. 25,000 to 50,000................... 10,000 to 25,000................... 5,000 to 10,000..................... 5 4 24 27 33 48 71 65 79.656 157,197 233,190 99,957 92,838 170,702 102, 541 30.656 4 4 17 21 22 29 39 38 108,559 339,219 260, 277 137,167 58,405 56,840 79,836 27,360 Total, all groups__ 277 966,737 174 1,067,663 Roads con structed Parkways and boulevards con structed 4 2 16 18 25 29 61 30 185 | i 1,340.50 26. 63 324.20 660.80 1,170.00 689.95 579.15 253.85 4 2 14 13 23 20 36 19 258.50 7.98 631.00 358.00 968.50 139.99 625.87 156.00 5,045.08 131 3,145.84 Walks con structed Population group N um Number of N um Number of N um Number of ber of ber of ber of miles miles miles cities cities cities 1,000,000 and over............. £00,000 to 1,000,000............. 250,000 to 500,000............... 100,000 to 250,000................ 50,000 to 100,000................. 25,000 to 50,000................... 10,000 to 25,000................... 5,000 to 10,000..................... 2 1 9 8 12 28 29 27 3.00 28.00 611.00 33.70 45.48 74.70 75.15 45.22 1 1 8 7 9 8 15 4 6.62 15.00 8.30 164.07 16.58 • 12.33 21.68 48.50 7 25 26 24 8.10 67.00 13.60 9.70 6.12 42.50 71.59 67.19 Total, all gro u p s... 116 916.25 53 293.08 105 285.80 4 1 11 Park Expenditures The question of expenditures for public services is one of much gen eral interest, especially during the present period. Since parks in many cities comprise the largest and most valuable of municipal propties, information concerning their cost is of considerable importance. Park expenditures may be roughly classified under two types: (1) Capital expenditures or outlays for land, improvements, and struc tures; (2) operating expenditures, including the cost of maintaining 32 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1030 properties and of providing the various types of park service. In cities where the park system is being extended and developed the former items will be large, but in well-established systems which are not being expanded most of the funds are spent for operation. In the present study, information concerning park expenditures was received from more than 700 cities, and it is believed that this pro vides more detailed data with reference to recent park finances than is available from any other source. Although a number of cities sub mitted little or no financial data, so many complete reports were received that a compilation of the information in them should be of much interest and value to park and other public officials. That 1930 expenditures for park purposes exceeded $100,000,000 is one of the outstanding findings of the study. The large percentage of this amount spent for salaries and wages is another item of special significance in the present situation, indicating as it does the impor tance of parks as a means of providing employment. Capital expendi tures totaling nearly $200,000,000 in 416 cities during the 5-year period 1926-1930 indicate the importance of parks in city fiscal plan ning and also the marked impetus given the park movement during the period. The extent to w^hich funds for these outlays are secured from bond issues is illustrated by the amount of bond issues reported by 148 cities during these years, namely $153,000,000. The total expenditures reported for the year 1930 by 721 cities do not represent the full amount spent for parks and community recrea tion in these cities. In a number of large cities museums, zoological gardens, and other special park features are supported by private organizations many of whose expenditures were not reported in the present study. The expenditures of city playground and recreation departments, many of which conduct activities in parks and operate their own playgrounds, playfields, and centers, are not included. It is estimated that the expenditures of these departments alone for 1930 accounted for $10,000,000 of the $38,500,000 spent for com munity recreation service, according to the Recreation Year Book. Although in a number of cities, leadership on park and city play grounds is provided by school authorities, no school expenditures are in cluded in the present report. Furthermore, in some of the largest cities total expenditures were not reported by all of the park authorities. A study of the per capita expenditures for parks in the cities of various population groups shows that the average amount spent for each person is, with one exception, least in the cities of 5,000 to 10,000 and increases in amount in each of the succeeding larger population groups. This suggests that in the larger cities, especially since the ratio of park acreage to population is generally smaller, the parks are more highly developed and intensively used and consequently require a greater amount of continuous maintenance. Furthermore, it is probably true that in the larger cities there is generally provided a more varied and highly developed recreation service during a larger part of the year than is commonly found in the smaller communities. Table 16 lists ^he average 1930 per capita expenditures for parks, in the cities reporting them, by population groups. The figures for the first four groups are based on the actual population of the cities reporting. In each of the four groups comprising cities of less than 100,000, however, it has been estimated that the population of the median city reporting expenditures represents the average population of the cities in the group. 33 PARK EXPENDITURES T a b le 16.— Per capita expenditure for parks, 1980, by population groups Number of Per capita cities report expenditure, ing 1930 Population group 1,000,000 and over_______________________ 600,000 to 1,000,000......................................... 250,000 to 500,000............................................ 100,000 to 250,000............................................ 60,000 to 100,000.............................................. 25,000 to 50,000................................................ 10,000 to 25,000................................................ 5,000 to 10,000.................................................. 5 8 24 54 82 103 211 234 $2.89 2.33 1.75 1.49 * 1.24 * 1.06 1 1.12 1 1.10 > Estimated. Table 17 gives a summary of the expenditures for parks in 1930 by cities of various population groups. In addition, the amounts spent for land, buildings, improvements, and voted for park bonds during the 5-year period 1926-1930 are given. Since these amounts vary from year to year, it is necessary to have figures for a period of several years if they are to have any considerable value. Capital expendi tures by several municipal playground and recreation departments, and bond issues voted for areas and facilities to be administered by them, are included in the figures for the 5-year period. Table E (p. 95) indicates the park expenditures in each of the cities reporting. T a b le 17.—Park expenditures, 1980, by population groups Land, bu ild in gs, and im p r o v e ments, 1930 Supplies, equip ment, and mis cellaneous, 1930 Salaries and wages, 1930 Interest and sink ing funds, 1930 Population group Num ber of cities 1.000.000 and o v e r ... 500.000 to 1,000,000... 250.000 to 500,000___ 100.000 to 250,000.... 50.000.to 100,000........ 25.000 to 50,000.......... 10.000 to 25,000......... 5.000.to 10,000............ Total, all groups. Amount Total, all groups. Amount N um ber of cities Amount 5 $12,773,863.61 4,830,778.21 6 15 3,008,636.85 34 2,697,967.89 52 1,631,349.59 47 957,474.97 101 1,141,811.83 90 544,806.61 5 $4,218,638.40 7 4,422,547.19 18 2,533,732.29 37 1,541,800.42 66 1,108,158.26 64 484,012. 73 120 467,404.23 130 185,339.09 5 $18,346,578.98 7 5,286,199.03 4,558,015.29 18 3,187,459.21 36 66 2,501,476.56 73 1,265,269.86 140 990,342.57 161 412,935.33 350 446 12,961,632.61 506 27,586,689.56 Tota!1park expend11kures, 1930 1.000.000 and o v e r 600.000 to 1,000,000... 250.000 to 600,000___ 100.000 to 250,000___ 50.000 to 100,000 . 25.000 to 50,000 , . 10.000 to 25,000 5.000.to 10,000............ Num ber of cities Land[, b u ild in g s, an d im p r o v e me:nts, 1926-1930 36,548,276.83 5 $99,707,508.20 8 22,139,940.92 21 23,587,972.85 43 23,416,582.65 53 7,947,589.99 64 4,968,087.47 114 5,284,947.00 108 3,043,447.65 5 $102,913,266.00 3 8,865,240.83 14 14,479,850.00 24 12,700,358.11 22 5,564,367.93 23 2,543,513.75 30 3.566.125.00 27 2.628.900.00 721 416 190,096,076.73 148 153,261,621.62 Amount 4 $7,359,873.66 2 507,140.25 6 1,176,068.90 7 570,224.28 12 294,158.74 17 122,741.17 32 228,875.45 32 122,186.91 112 10,381,269.26 Bond1 issues, 19261930 5 $43,664,811.55 8 13,414,067.94 24 13,913,668.90 64 10,907,823.73 82 6,610,774.99 103 3,776,588.50 211 3,505,670.74 234 1,723,661.94 97,517,068.29 Num ber of cities ...................... 34 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 Sources of Park Funds Since the establishment and operation of city parks are almost universally recognized in the United States as municipal functions, it is assumed that the expense of providing this service should be met from public funds. An analysis of the reports from 647 cities shows that more than 80 per cent of the money which was made available for park purposes in these cities in 1930 came either directly or indi rectly from public taxation. The most common method of raising money for parks in 1930 was through city appropriations, 524 cities reporting this method and the total amount representing nearly 40 per cent of all the park funds received. More than 15 per cent was raised through special park tax levies and 28 per cent was secured from bond funds. In only 12 cities were assessments used as a method of financing parks, and of the total amount raised by this method 72 per cent was reported by Kansas City, Mo. Among the sources of park revenue which supplement municipal funds in many cities are gifts, concessions, fees and charges, and the sale of property. Reference is made elsewhere in this report to the extent to which park systems have received gifts of land and money from individuals and organizations. Eighty-six cities reported such gifts in 1930. In recent years charges for the use of special recrea tion facilities such as golf courses, bowling greens, swimming pools, and skating rinks have resulted in-a considerable income to park departments or municipalities. Receipts totaling nearly $5,000,000 were reported from fees and charges in 158 cities in 1930. Many park authorities have found it advisable to let or lease on a concession basis such park facilities and services as refreshment stands, boats, bathing-suit rentals, and dancing pavilions, although to an increasing extent such services are being handled directly by park departments. Income from concessions in 1930 was reported by 146 cities to be $2,225,644.82. About 10 per cent of the total receipts, which amounted to nearly $100,000,000, were from special funds, sale of park property, or from miscellaneous sources. Table 18 gives a summary of the extent to which parks in cities of various population groups secure funds from different sources: 35 GIFTS FOR PARKS T a b le 18.—Sources of park funds, 1930, by population groups C ity appropriation Population group N um ber of cities 1,000,000 and o v e r .. 500,000 to 1,000,000.. 250,000 to 500,000... 100,000 to 250,000... 50,000 to 100,000.... 25,000 to 50,000........ 10,000 to 25,000_____ 5,000 to 10,000.......... T otal.............. N um ber of cities Amount 4 $13,043,457.10 6,334,874.92 6 19 5,823,299.14 45 5,981,823.56 59 2,826,088.28 79 1,703,019.91 159 1,797,542.81 153 735,904.68 524 38,246,010.40 Donations 1 1,000,000 and o v e r .. 500,000 to 1,000,000250,000 to 500,000— 100,000 to 250,000... 500,000 to 100,000. 25,000 to 50,000____ 10,000 to 25,000____ 5,000 to 10,000_____ 5 8 14 6 23 29 Total.............. 86 Special tax levy Amount Bond issues N um ber of cities 3 $10,892,803.19 3 10 17 11 35 44 710,927.52 1,041,741.12 1,242,924.08 428,232.78 552,926.31 210,626.18 123 15,080,181.18 Special funds $65,167.74 72 $105,701.25 2,254,013.79 193,520.90 494,292.58 165,347.47 31,892.33 13,256.95 42,466.30 4 5 11 24 22 29 25 26 548,210.16 69 3,300,471.57 146 3 1 5 8 4 8 4 9 $2,833.47 853.95 35,885.02 5,870.55 42,041.78 2,819.97 12,490.85 6,140.83 2 1 4 11 8 8 12 11 $5,226,912.06 22,885.43 417,238.12 270,200.31 63,615.17 17,029.17 46,667.31 30,023.84 Total.............. 42 108,936.42 57 6,094,571.41 $1,145,713.68 435,010.11 92,694.75 229,002.95 125,087.64 61,480.94 17,864.15 ' 118, 790.60 2,225,644.82 Amount 1 $45,864.43 4 2 1 1 2 1 476,316.68 5,987.61 1,681.96 6,200.00 913.32 1,174.54 12 538,138.54 Fees and charges 3 $1,134,408.83 2 317,389.36 14 1,072,789.01 21 1,462,784.22 25 403,889.37 26 179,567.01 35 222,408.86 32 73,455.97 158 4,866,692.63 Total Miscellaneous 1,000,000 and o v e r .. 500,000 to 1,000,000.. 250,000 to 500,000. _. 100,000 to 250,000... 50,000 to 100,000___ 25,000 to 50,000 10,000 to 25,000........ 5,000 to 10,000.......... 27,315,752.45 Concessions 1 3 9 10 14 9 11 12 Sale of property, etc. N um ber of cities 4 $19,399,360.49 3 1,861,203.00 8 1,884,041.70 14 1,697,172.59 350,232.91 7 14 1,053,049.51 12 618, 331. 25 10 452,381.00 15,827.61 51,041.90 142,176.03 22,094.14 188,955.92 62,946.82 ___. _______ Amount Assessments 5 $51.062.222. 24 6 11,226,230.56 21 10,722, 540.45 48 11,239,917, 39 71 5,363,084. 69 93 3,505,365.76 193 3,471,357.73 210 1,733,890.76 647 98,324,609.58 Gifts for Parks In a study of donated park and recreation areas, conducted by the National Recreation Association, a brief report of which was published in 1929, information was secured concerning more than 3,000 such areas in nearly 1,000 towns and cities. The total area of the donated parks was approximately 75,000 acres, which was estimated to rep resent nearly one-third of the total municipal park acreage in 1925-26. Although no valuation was available for many of the parks, the total reported value of those for which estimates were given exceeded $100,000,000. The study proved that gifts were a very important factor in the acquisition of municipal park systems in American cities. A number of cities, including Raleigh, N. C., Olympia, Wash., Musca tine, Iowa, New Brunswick, N. J., and Oneonta, N. Y., reported that every acre of existing park property was secured through gifts. Boulder and Colorado Springs, Colo., Council Bluffs, Iowa, Beau mont, Tex., and La Crosse, Wis., are among other cities reporting few properties not acquired through the generosity of individuals or groups of citizens. Bridgeport, Waterbury, and Hartford, Conn., Grand Rapids and Flint, Mich., and Utica, N. Y., are a few of the cities that have received outstanding gifts of park property. 36 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 That many cities are still the recipients of park gifts is evident from information submitted in the present study. Although no figures are available as to the number of acres of parks donated in the 5-year period 1926-1930, the valuation of such gifts of land reported by 130 cities totals $8,568,257.08. Since these figures for the most part represent the present value of unimproved areas, many of them unsuited for other uses, the value after they are improved and devel oped into parks is likely to be several times greater. These gifts include many types of areas, varying from the children’s playground to the large outlying reservation. Typical of the former is the Edwin Gould Playground of 6.5 acres in Dobbs Ferry, N. Y., and of the latter, Percy Warner Park of 700 acres in Nashville, T.enn. Littauer Park and Swimming Pool of 4.1 acres in Gloversville, N. Y., is an example of a fully equipped recreation center presented to the city. Doyle Field, of 24 acres, in Leominster, Mass., a fully equipped athletic field and playfield dedicated in October, 1931, is among the most recent of such gifts. Oglebay Park, a beautiful tract of 750 acres presented to the city of Wheeling, W. Va., is one of the most notable park gifts of the past five years. This park, with its many fine buildings, roads, gardens, and arboretum, is serving as a center for a wide range of recreational activities. Although gifts of land have perhaps exceeded in importance other gifts for park purposes, many cities have received funds for special park features or for the general improvement and maintenance of parks. Perhaps the largest gift of this type was the bequest in 1908 of George F. Parkman to the city of Boston, valued at between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000. The income from this fund must be used for the maintenance and improvement of parks in existence before 1887. According to information received in the present study, 100 cities received gifts other than land for park use during the 5-year period 1926-1930. The reported value of these gifts totaled $4,248,082.44. The two largest gifts reported were one of $870,000 to the Los Angeles parks for a Greek theater, observatory, and hall of science, and one of $600,000 to the South Park Commission of Chicago for a planetarium. It is interesting that both of these gifts were to provide facilities which would enable the parks to bring to the people a knowledge of the universe in which they live. In reporting the sources of their funds for the year 1930, 86 cities stated that $548,210.16 came from donations. In addition, 69 cities reported $3,300,471.57 from special funds, which in many instances consist of bequests similar to the Parkman fund in Boston, referred to above. Although these figures are incomplete they indicate that the park service in many cities is being aided by gifts of generous and public-spirited citizens. Table 19 indicates the amounts given cities of various population groups during this period. Table F (p. 115) contains a list of the cities reporting gifts for parks during 1926-1930 and the value or amount of these gifts. 37 COUNTY PARKS T a b le 19.— Value of park gifts, 1926 to 1930, by population groups Gifts of land Population group Num ber of cities Value of gifts Other gifts N um ber of cities Value of gifts 1,000,000 and over..................................................... 500,poo to 1,000,000.................................................... 250,000 to 500,000....................................................... 100,000 to 250,000....................................................... 50,000 to 100,000......................................................... 25,000 to 50,000.......................................................... 10,000 to 25,000........................................................... 5,000 to 10,000............................................................ 3 2 10 20 24 12 24 35 $942,025.00 250,141.63 2,044,100.00 1,325,075.95 3,017,939.50 104.278.00 395.425.00 489.272.00 3 3 6 10 12 8 24 34 $1,522,040.00 460,000.00 260,427.00 791,221.86 348,653.24 132,967.69 219,636.34 512,536.31 Total................................................................ 130 8,568,257.08 100 4,248,082.44 County Parks During the quarter century following the establishment of the first “ municipal park” in America, many cities acquired park areas, and several of them made considerable progress in the development of municipal park systems. The movement for county parks, on the other hand, developed very slowly. Twenty-five years after the establishment of the county park system in Essex County, N. J., in 1895, it is probable that not more than 15 of the 3,000 or more counties in the United States had acquired even a single park. The report on county parks published by this bureau, based on the study conducted in 1925-26, listed only 33 counties as having one or more county park areas. In 1930 the total number of counties that had established parks was 74, according to the present study. This indicates that during the last few years there has been a marked growth in the movement for county parks. The total park acreage in 1930 was 108,484.94, representing an increase of 60 per cent over that reported five years previous. The nearly 39,000 acres in county parks reported as ac quired during the 5-year period 1926-1930 represent more than onethird of the total present acreage. Although county parks in 20 different States are included in this report, Michigan and California lead in the number of counties having one or more parks, with 16 and 12, respectively. Wisconsin, New Jersey, and New York also have counties with well-developed park systems. Six Illinois counties have established forest preserves which provide such opportunities for recreation that they have been con sidered as county parks in this study. Most of the $57,500,000 spent for county park lands and improve ments during the five years 1926-1930 has come from bond funds and county appropriations. Of the $22,000,000 spent for park purposes in 1930 alone in 60 counties nearly 70 per cent was for land, buildings, and improvements. This indicates that to a considerable degree county parks are still in the making. After they are improved it is likely that a larger proportion of the annual budget will be spent for operating them. It seems probable that the same factors which have brought about the establishment of parks in so many counties during the last few years will continue to give impetus to the movement. With the 38 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 growth of cities and the increasing difficulty in securing at a reasonable price within the city limits large areas suitable for park and recrea tion use, there has been a tendency, as mentioned before, for cities to acquire tracts outside and often at a considerable distance from the city. Since such areas serve not only the people in the city acquiring the park but also those in the surrounding region, and since the county is often the governmental unit controlling the region, it is reasonable that the expense of acquiring, improving, and operating the parks should be met by the county. Furthermore, in many rural counties there is no city large enough to meet the cost of providing a suitable park, but under the auspices of the county, all of its people may be served without a special burden on any community. Moreover, the problem of acquisition and operation, expecially of parkways and large park areas, is much simpler under county than under joint municipal control. As might be expected, the forms of recreation carried on in county parks are for the most part less highly organized than in the city areas. Fishing, picnicking, hiking, nature study, outings, with base ball, volley ball, horseshoes, and other sports, swimming, boating, horseback riding, and in many cases winter sports are among the most popular. In some of the county parks located near centers of population, golf, tennis, children's play activities under leadership, athletic leagues, and many of the other features commonly found in a city park program are provided. A list of the facilities reported by each of the counties is given in Table 22. It will be noted that the facilities most frequently found in county parks are, in the order named, picnic places, tennis courts, baseball diamonds, children's playgrounds, bathing beaches, and athletic fields. An idea as to the service rendered by county parks may be gained from the 1930 attendance reports, which indicate more than 63,000,000 visitors in the 37 counties reporting. One-half of the counties having parks did not estimate the number using these properties last year. An illustration of the contribution which county parks are making in the lives of both children and adults is found in the report of the activities conducted and the number of people served by the Union County, N. J., Park Commission shown in Table 20. Although this commission is outstanding in the recreation service which it provides in its 17 parks, totaling 4,168 acres, most of the following activities are carried on in one or more of the other county park systems. Of special interest in the following statement is the large percentage of persons engaged actively in recreation activities. 39 COUNTY PARKS T a b l e 2 0 .— Attendance at Union County A ctivity Playgrounds........... Baseball................... Softball.................... Soccer...................... T e n n is.................... Football................... Field hockey.......... Golf.......................... Cricket..........- ........ Lawn bowling____ Handball— . ......... Horseshoe pitching. Picnics..................... Fishing.................... Boating................... Boat sailing. .......... Swimming.............. Track....................... Camping................. Trap shooting........ Partici pators 541,236 47,961 10,229 13,294 45,485 27,497 191 51,594 4,604 2,451 2,400 3,139 154,769 32,453 22,195 8,562 221,857 56,983 645 I*, 443 Spectators 260,045 10, 557 45,184 17,451 147,538 310 ”11,921 1,755 1,097 80 31,476 " 3, 683 (N . J.) parks, 1980, by activities A ctivity Horseback riding......... Ice hockey___________ Skating........................ Coasting......... .............. Skiing............................. Soccer handball______ Easter sunrise service.. Fireworks display........ Easter egg hu nt............ Croquet......................... Volley ball..................... Horse and dog show s.. Rifle and pistol range.. Archery.......................... Gaelic football.............. Special features............. Hiking and w a lk in g ... M otoring....................... Total.. Partici pators Spectators 13,135 471 65,852 850 122 43 5,550 325 ‘ 32,"565 6,500 336 142 113 713 57 126 8,743 988,126 750 105 150 1,500 18,595 655,579 2,339,727 1,240,456 Up to the present time the most notable county park development has been in large metropolitan regions. The park systems in the vicinity of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Cleveland, Mil waukee, Pittsburgh, Rochester, and Buffalo represent a large pro portion of the total county park acreage in the country. On the other hand, several rural counties have established one or more parks. It is to be hoped that the next decade will see a marked extension of the county park movement into the rural districts which for the most part are lacking in public areas and facilities devoted to wholesome recreation. Table 21 contains a statement of the number and acreage of county parks, expenditures, attendance, and managing authority in the counties reporting parks. Table 22 lists the recreation facilities in the parks of the counties reporting. T a b le Expenditures in 1930 N um ber of— State and county Parks Acres £1.— County parks in the United States, 1980 Acres ac quired, 1926-1930 Operating ex pense $16,000.00 $1,000.00 Total Managing authority CALIFORNIA 165.00 535.00 18 2 1 15 2 15 2 4 9 1,945.00 6,945.00 20.00 15.00 160.00 217.00 88.00 350.00 334.00 130.00 3,369.00 3,369.00 393.00 582.10 ........ m o o " 1 100.00 11 100.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 10 60.00 60.00 Cook *____________________ 50 33,000.00 2,873.00 D u Page8 - ICane8 P ia t t 8 W i ll 8 - ____ 22 4 250.00 ........ 2 1,006.48 500.00 30.50 582.98 30.50 582.98 W innebago *.......................... 9 1,116.00 774.00 Pueblo Board of supervisors. $17,000.00 $18,535.00 43,000.00 * 97,280.00 100,000 1,122,284.00 1,510,059.00 1,640,598.60 5,000,000 40.000.00 17,000.00 8,321.00 15.000.00 2,700.00 63,989.37 ........19,641.66" 14,423.01 18,000.00 4,500.00 57,666.00 23,321.00 2,700.00 83,630.37 14,423.01 22,500.00 48,410.33 50.000.00 20.000.00 200,000 265,000 51,119.20 65.000.00 16.000.00 240,488 387,775.00 225,000 Forestry committee, board of super visors. Board of supervisors. D o. D o. D o. D o. Board of forestry. Board of supervisors. Forestry board. Board of supervisors. Board of county commissioners. AREAS COLORADO 165.00 535.00 RECREATION Los Angeles______________ Merced Orange San D iego________________ San M ateo Santa Barbara............. ......... Santa Clara Tulare.................................... V ent lira 2 1 3 PARK Land, build ings, and im provements Expenditures for land, build Total park ings, and im attendance, 1930 provements, 1926-1930 FLORIDA 5,000.00 100,000.00 10,000.00 8,000.00 15,000.00 108,000. 00 5,000.00 30,000 D o. Highlands Hammock (Inc.). GEORQIA Glynn ® 125,000 C ounty planning board. ILLINOIS 980,053.26 48,000.00 791,948.87 1,672,002.13 3,961,669.28 32,910.69 111, 499.92 852.32 852.32 106,056.00 17,000.00 65,000.00 173,000.00 15,000,000 800,000 Board of forest preserve commis sioners. Forest preserve district. D o. Forest preserve board. Board of forest preserve commis sioners. Forest preserve district. IN 1930 D ade___ - _________________ Highlands , 11 000.00 181.00 Hamilton.. 3 80.00 1 5 5 1 9 8 10 3 8 1 9 1 1 1 2 6 200.00 373.22 520.00 20.00 856.09 64.50 457.00 60.00 468.00 24.09 80.00 171.00 34.00 23.00 10.00 275.00 R am sey. W inona.. 2 1 200.00 27.00 200.00 27.00 Jackson.. 4 77.00 39.00 6 22 1 7 5 17 515.04 3,947.81 20.00 587.10 750.00 4 ,16S. 00 515.04 ' ” 756.00" 1,175.00 4 5 1 1,350.00 3,357.19 1,100.00 22 17,152.00 Charlevoix. _ D elta............. Gogebic......... H o u g h to n ... Iron________ Jackson_____ K en t_______ L u c e ............ M enom ineeM idland....... M uskegon. _. Oakland........ Sanilac.......... Shiawassee.. W ashtenaw.. W ayne.......... 10.00 194.03 240.00 20.00 856.09 64.50 397.00 1, 000.00 2,871.54 9,000.00 4,270.21 17,500.00 35,000.00 200.00 1,500.00 , 1 000.00 4,000.00 11,639.11 42,000.00 11,171.61 69,260.30 32,500.00 110,100.03 60,000 Board of supervisors. 20,000 .....saw 91,461.00 4,675.50 16,000.00 4,546.89 9,003.29 3.500.00 21,600.00 3.000.00 5,033.08 194.32 2.500.00 6,834.97 600.00 3.000.00 1.550.00 213,034.00 2,300.00 2,900.00 175,000.00 5,700.00 25,000.00 61,000.00 1,571,442.10 4,677,257.28 460,799.03 635.738.01 466.755.01 607,637.22 1,893,612.76 4,500.00 961,561.19 679,433.06 914,724.12 1,350.00 3,357.19 1,100.00 130,100.52 260,320.48 229,513.64 325,624.80 884,577.96 1,310,834.30 17,529.00 1,578,667 726,000 3,863.00 8,502,520.00 10,235,384.00 29,719,420.00 6,800,000 24.09 25.00 Tooaro 4,591.29 188.32 600.00 23.00 3.00 Board of park commissioners. 12,000 18,000 100,000 i, 210,000 7,900 25,000.00 1,400.00 57,721.48 3.000.00 3.000.00 5.000.00 186,519.50 1,250,000 18,000 25.000 35.000 10.000 C ounty park commission. County road commission. C ounty park board. C ounty park trustees. Do. County road commission. C ounty road and park commissioners. County County C ounty Do. County Do. D o. County park trustees. road commissioners. park trustees. road commission. park trustees. County auditor’s office. County farm bureau association. County court. NEW JERSEY Camden....................... Gloucester.. H udson___ Passaic........ U n ion ......... 522,768.97 984,696.95 1.599.900.38 1.271.048.38 2,372,974.94 314,432 C ounty park commission. D o. County commissioner. 18,783,200 County park commission. Do. D o. 3^580,"l83~ NE W YORK E rie............................ M onroe...................... Onondaga................. Westchester..................... Bee footnotes at end of table. Do. D o. County park and regional planning board. County park commission. PARKS 1 COUNTY H enry.. T a b le 21.— County parks in the United States, 1930—Continued Expenditures in 1930 N um ber of— State and county Parks Acres Acres ac quired, 1926-1930 Land, build ings, and im provements Operating ex pense Total Expenditures for land, build Total park ings, and im attendance, provements, 1930 1926-1930 Managing authority PARK NORTH CAROLINA C herokee1________________ Guilford................................. N ew H a n over.___________ 1 40.00 0 2 5 10,000.00 215 00 1,450] 00 2 $3,000.00 100.00 NORTH DAKOTA La M oure______________ _ $3,150.00 $1.726.79 $4,876.79 6,035.00 18,000 4,090.00 215.00 1,450.00 539,065.37 9, (570.48 96,000.00 220,089.88 10,329.52 29,000.00 759,155.25 20,000.00 125,000.00 2, 596,337.45 9,670.48 246,000.00 3,500,000 4,010.00 4,010.00 500,000.00 300,000.00 800,000.00 2,500,000.00 2,000,000 2 4 186.00 100.00 100.00 2,481.24 3,552.97 6,034.21 27,773.00 45,000.00 125,000 1 1 3 20.00 325.00 27.00 Memorial park board. OHIO Cuyahoga *_______________ Lucas 4................................... S u m m it4_________________ Cleveland metropolitan park board. Toledo metropolitan park board. Akron metropolitan park board. 100,000 PENNSYLVANIA Allegheny________________ Bureau of parks. AREAS 125.00 100.00 RECREATION 1 3 1 TEXAS i ............ 21.00 WISCONSIN Doar _ _ ____ "Dnnsrlfm i Kenosha ____ 1i Marathon Marinette M ilwaukee_______________ lta cin e 1.................................. 2 1 3 0 3 16 1 9.00 140. 00 9.00 525. 00 525. 00 33.00 15.00 960.24 12.00 197.00 37.00 2,172.84 12.00 Board of county commissioners. 2,040.48 2,040.48 500.00 j 1 100.00 1 1,700.00 , Do. 600.00 22,088.20 811.71 i.......................... 280,971.80 | 199,050.72 1,700.00 4,800.00 22,038.20 10,212.44 811.71 480,022.52 198- 267.05 50,222.97 5,641.54 1,366,457.91 15,000 i County | County County Do. County 937,339 County D o. 60,000 park commission. rural planning committee. park commission. park committee. park commission. 1930 WASHINGTON Clark Grays H a rb or8 Snohomish County commissioners’ court. Do. IN Galveston L u b b ock _________________ WYOMING 98621’ to 4* Natural Bridge..................... 2 80.00 Total............................ 415 108,484.94 33,773. 66 N um ber of counties re porting................................ 73 72 49 15,192,440.04 42 1,000.00 4,000.00 5,000 6,867,830.50 22,249,069.29 57,538,403.77 63,294.209 41 60 54 x Data are for 1928. 1 Data are for 192&-1928. * The areas reported in this county are forest preserves, although in many respects they serve as parks and provide recreational facilities. * Although this system is essentially a metropolitan park system, in many respects it is similar to a county park system. * Data are for 1928. This park is jointly owned b y the county and the city of Montesano. Board of commissioners. T a b l e 2 2 . — Recreation facilities in county parks Num ber of facilities reported State and county Athletic fields Band stands Chil Golf Golf Baseball Bathing Boating dren’s Dance courses, courses, Ice-skat Picnic dia ing rinks places beaches facilities play pavilions 9-hole 18-hole monds grounds Stadi ums Swim ming pools T obog gan slides 4 1 1 7 2 Tourist camps PARK Tennis courts CAIIFORNIA 1 4 1 1 l 1 1 3 2 6 1 1 6 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 6 0) 2 6 1 4 1 ! 1 i ............. (*) 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 14 1 1 1 4 (l) 1 10 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 7 65 1 2 0) AREAS FLORIDA 1 1 Dade TTi ffVi1a n <5 IN 1930 GEORGIA 1 DItttiti 2 ILLINOIS Cook Piatt Will W innebago................ ............ 2 20 25 10 5 12 5 1 7 3 1 2 1 15 1 5 0) 4 1 1 5a 5 0 h 18 4 0) 0) (x) INDIANA i 1 1 i 1 1 4 IOWA (0 (>) RECREATION Kern 2 Los Angeles Merced Orange Sort TSiaorn Rnn MafAn Santa Barbara Rftntft niar» TnlarP V flrhjm 0) MICHIGAN C h a rlevoix............................ D elta............ ..................... . . . Gogebic.................................. Houghton...... ......................... Iron........................................ Jackson_________ __________ K ent......... ............. . . . .......... Luce......................................... M enominee______ _________ M idland.................................. Muskegon....... .......... ........... Oakland............. ................... Sanilac........... ......................... Shiawassee__________ ______ Washtenaw............................ W ayne..................................... 1 1 2 1 1 (l) 2 7 1 ............1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 I 1 1 1 2 1 5 4 4 8 10 4 0) 4 8 (*) 1 2 2 1 (,) 1 1 1 0) 3 8 1 ! 1 I 1 1 2 5 5 2 1 1 1 4 1 0) 1 2 8 7 2 3 1 5 1 2 0 1 5 3 !............... ! i 0) 0) 2 i i i . 8 3 3 8 1 9 0) 1 4 MINNESOTA 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 COUNTY Ram sey................................... W inona......... ........................ 1 MISSOURI Jackson___________________ 2 1 PARKS NEW JERSEY Cam den............................. __ E s s e x .................................... H ud son................................... Passaic____________________ U nion....... ................. ............ 2 9 6 2 1 8 4 3 2 33 23 1 13 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 6 I 1 7 19 10 1 1 5 2 3 2 20 1 l 1 l 1 1 12 1 4 2 1 1 2 i 2 0) 4 1 i' ! NEW YORK Erie.......................................... M onroe_______ ____________ Westchester_______________ 1 4 17 5 2 15 3 2 4 0) 1 1 179 73 4 12 4 4 4 7 1 NORTH DAKOTA La M oure.......................... 1 0) 1 1 OHIO Cuyahoga.................... .......... Lucas...................................... .............................. S u m m it................................. s............................. See fo o t n o t e s a t end o f tab le. 18 3 2 1 1 1 3 1 25 2 5 2 250 Cn T a b le — Recreation facilities in county parks— Continued N um ber of facilities reported State and county Chil Golf Golf Band Baseball Bathing Boating dren’s Dance Picnic dia facilities play pavilions courses, courses, mg rinks places stands beaches monds 18-hole 9-hole grounds Athletic fields Swim j Tennis ming courts pools Stadi ums T « ^ - 1 Tourist slides . i Allegheny________________ (i) TEXAS Galveston___________ ______ Lubbock _________________ ......... 1 1 6 ; ii i i I 1 1 6 5 1 1 4 2 1 1 50 1 1 4 4 2 j............... i ! 10 2 1 4 i !............... WASHINGTON i Snohomish ! Doar Kenosha -- _ Marathon Marinette - Milwaukee - -- (l) 2 3 f> __ Total............................. N um ber of counties report ing__________ ______ _____ lI ! j 2 5 1 7 0) 1 1 1 2 1 i 1 3 1 ! 91 | 26 1 (0 2 j 2 3 (5 ; W YO M IN G Natural Bridge___ 3 j1 WISCONSIN i 4 3 _ 10 3 3 14 _______ 2 1 ! 4 !............... 1 ; 6 51 1 1 ............... | 3 1 ......... 33 ‘ 20 i 221 439 93 ! 332 i 45 522 1 N ot reported, 2 Data are for 1928. 3 Including 2 counties not reporting number of facilities. * Including 1 county not reporting number of facilities. 1 1 ji 174 i! 644 1 3 1 i i i; (i) 1 56 I I1 423 |! 1i 1 1 1 865 760 8 1 23 30 8 12 11 • s Including * Including 7Including 1Including 5 1 15 36 ! 339 46 ; 67 15 •22 13 | s 27 4 counties not reporting number of facilities, 3 counties not reporting number of facilities. 14 counties not reporting number of facilities. 5 counties not reporting number of facilities. PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 | PENNSYLVANIA PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 47 Parks in Metropolitan Districts Until recent years the opportunities which people have had for taking part in recreational activities or enjoying areas of natural beauty have been limited to those in the vicinity of their homes, except on rare occasions or during vacation periods. The shorter working-day, the 5-day week, rapid transit lines, the automobile, and good roads have helped make it possible for people to go farther afield for their recreation. In considering the recreational opportunities available for the people of a city it is therefore necessary to take into account not only the parks, playgrounds, and centers provided by the city but also the various other areas in the region which are operated by county, regional, State, and Federal authorities. Far-seeing public officials and private citizens in many metropolitan districts, especially during the last decade, have taken steps to meet the growing need for recreation areas resulting from the concentration of population and the other factors just mentioned. The establish ment of regional and county planning commissions and associations which have conducted surveys and educational campaigns, emphasiz ing parks as an essential feature of the regional or county plan, has been an important factor in bringing about the acquisition of additional parks in several metropolitan regions. Since the statistical tables in this volume, covering only city and county owned parks, do not give a complete picture of the extent and variety of park and recreation areas available for the use of the people in the large metropolitan districts, an attempt is made here to describe them briefly. Some mention is also made of plans for future park development. It is probable that to an increasing extent, especially in the larger cities, future park planning will be based upon regional rather than municipal needs and will involve the cooperation of all communities in the region. New York The extent to which the park and recreation opportunities available to the people of a city or region are provided by other than municipal parks is well illustrated in the case of the Nation's largest city. The first large municipal park, Central Park, was established here, and a number of other splendid properties were acquired and developed. Among them are the following large parks, some of them widely known: Prospect, Bronx, Pelham Bay, Van Cortlandt, and Riverside. Marine Park in Brooklyn, a water-front property of more than 1,200 acres, is now being developed according to a plan which provides for a number of features of unusual scenic interest and recreational value. Although large sections of the city were built up without any parks or playgrounds, during the last few years the city officials have recognized the necessity of acquiring additional areas, and the per centage of increase in park acreage has exceeded that of growth in population. In the least thickly settled borough, that of Richmond, recent park purchases have brought the amount of park land up to 1 acre for every 68 people, a ratio attained by few municipalities of equal size. In 1930 a plan was presented by the city authorities call ing for the spending of $52,000,000 for the purchase of parks and playgrounds within the limits of Greater New York. Authorization for expenditure of $28,000,000 has already been made for this purpose. 48 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 The land acquired will go far toward meeting the present and future needs, although it will not be possible to provide adequate areas in many congested sections of the city. The total present acreage, 14,289, represents 1 acre of parks to every 485 people in the city. The New York region offers some of the finest examples of park developments in America. The Palisades Interstate Park of New York and New Jersey, comprising 48,130 acres, has been called “ the most notable example in the United States of interstate coopera tion for the conservation of outstanding scenic features and the promotion of outdoor recreation.” Although most of this area is about 50 miles from New York City, water, rail, and highway facilities make it fairly accessible and consequently a large percentage of the enormous number of its visitors come from this city. Perhaps the outstanding features of the system are the extensive camp develop ments and the Storm King Highway, a remarkable engineeringachievement, affording motorists a panorama of the Hudson River Valley. A more recent State park development nearer the city is that of the Long Island State Park Commission, which during the last few years has acquired and equipped a series of parks and parkways consisting of 12,800 acres of upland and 10,000 acres under water. The feature of greatest recreational interest is Jones Beach Park, with its enormous bathing facilities, which served 1,400,000 persons during the 1930 season. Westchester County, which bounds the city on the north, has created since 1922 what is perhaps the best-known county park system in America. The 17,000 acres of parks and parkways in this system are largely composed of the following types of properties: (1) Water-front parks with 9 miles of shore line, affording excellent facilities for water sports, picnicking, and other activities. Rye Beach is an example of this type of property, and among its features is a model amusement park, Playland, which in 1930 attracted 3.400.000 visitors, a large percentage of whom came from New York City; (2) inland reservations, one of which, Poundridge Reservation, of 4,100 acres, is preserved in its natural state; and (3) parkways totaling 160 miles in length, several of which widen at intervals into parks providing opportunities for various forms of recreation. Although they are in another State, several of the county park systems in New Jersey are easily reached from New York, especially since the opening of the interstate bridges. The large parks and reservations, especially in Essex and Union Counties, attract many visitors from the metropolis. A complete listing of the parks serving the people of New York City and vicinity would include the State parks under the Taconic State Park Commission, totaling nearly 4.000 acres, the various county parks in New Jersey, and the munici pal parks in the large number of communities in the New York region. Much credit for the present interest in park acquisition in New York and vicinity is due to the Committee on Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, which made a comprehensive survey of open spaces in the region and prepared a plan for the extension of park areas. The area included in the region lies in three States and its population is 11% million people. In a bulletin entitled “ Park Progress in the Region,” issued in October, 1931, by the Regional Plan Association (Inc.), the park gains during the last few years are recorded and it is pointed out that the recent park development, PARKS IN METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 49 in a general way, is in harmony with the proposals in the regional plan. According to figures in this bulletin the total area of parks, parkways, and reservations in the region is 104,265 acres, or seven times as great as the municipal park acreage in New York City. Chicago The importance of supplementary park areas is also indicated by a study of the Chicago region. This city of more than 3,000,000 people, which has received high praise for its park achievements, has less than 6,000 acres in city parks. Although nearly 1,000 acres have been acquired during the last five years, Chicago still ranks below several other large cities in its provision of parks near the homes of the people. On the other hand, the many municipalities in the region, which extends into Indiana and Wisconsin, own nearly 7,000 acres in parks and playgrounds. Therefore the Chicago region of 5,000,000 population provides between 12,000 and 13,000 acres in municipal areas. As a result of the great progress made by many of these communities in acquiring parks during the last few years, the acreage of municipal parks and playgrounds per 1,000 persons in the Chicago region has increased from 2.3 in 1927 to 3.3 in 1931, according to the Chicago Regional Planning Association. Outstanding among the park achievements of Chicago is the development of the city’s lake front for park and recreation uses. Beaches, boat harbors, lagoons, and a magnificent shore drive are features of the lake-front plan, much of which has already been completed. Another feature of its various park systems is the number of fully equipped recreation buildings, providing gymnasiums, auditoriums (with stage), clubrooms, facilities for games, handicraft, and social recreation, and in some instances swimming pools. Prob ably no other city in the United States provides in its parks so many elaborate and varied facilities for indoor recreation, In the many splendid properties, especially under the South Parks, West Parks, and Lincoln Park Commissioners, are found many excellent examples of landscape design, provision for outdoor recreation, horticultural displays, and educational-recreational features. Chicago is unique in the number of different independent park managing authorities, of which there are at least 20 in the city. In the development of a series of outlying parks and reservations, Chicago has earned a place of leadership among American cities. The Cook County Forest Preserves, comprising 33,000 acres, afford remarkable recreation opportunities for the people of the city and region. Easily accessible by automobile, trolley, and railroad, these forest preserves, which encircle the city, were reported to have had in 1930 an attendance of approximately 15,000,000 people. A large part of the area is in natural forest, but a great variety of recreational facilities have been established, including golf courses, swimming pools, picnic areas, bridle paths, winter sports facilities, camps, and many others serving all ages and interests. A zoological garden and arboretum are centers of educational and recreational interest for large numbers of people. A “ forest way system” is now being de veloped which will make it possible for one to encircle the city of Chicago on its three landed sides, either on foot, horseback, or in an automobile, without leaving forest preserve property. 50 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 The success of this notable civic achievement has doubtless been a factor in the establishment of forest preserves totaling more than 2,000 acres in three other counties in the Chicago region— Du Page, Kane, and Will. Approximately 1,000 acres in parks have been acquired by the two neighboring Wisconsin counties, Kenosha and Racine. The State of Indiana owns nearly 5,000 acres in parks within easy reach of the people of Chicago, and these parks accommodate great crowds of visitors. Part of this area consists of the famous sand dunes, affording a rare combination of terrain and native flora and fauna, which are preserved to a remarkable degree. Taking into account these various properties, the total public park acreage in the Chicago region is in excess of 52,000 acres, or an average of more than 10 acres for every 1,000 people. It is encouraging to note a movement promoted by the Chicago Regional Planning Association to increase the service of existing park areas and to extend further the park acreage in the Chicago region. Philadelphia Unlike New York and Chicago, Philadelphia is largely dependent for recreation upon its own facilities and areas. Fortunately its per capita park acreage is greater than in either of the other cities, approx imately 8,000 acres in city-owned parks and playgrounds being avail able for the use of its nearly 2,000,000 people. Most of this acreage is in properties controlled by the Fairmount Park Commission, but it includes 43 play areas totaling 146 acres under the bureau of recrea tion, which provides many excellent outdoor and indoor facilities for the recreation of the people. A large number of small properties are operated by the bureau of city properties. According to data prepared by the Regional Planning Federation of the Philadelphia Tri-State District, the amount of publicly-owned recreation area in the 16 counties comprising this region of some 3,500,000 people, totals 35,664.7 acres. Nearly two-thirds of this acreage, however, is in forest land which at present offers little opportunity for recreational use. The rest of the area includes, in addition to approxi mately 10,000 acres in park properties in Philadelphia and other cities, some 3,500 acres in State and county parks. Of these the most important from the standpoint of use by the people is the Camden County (N. J.) park system of 515 acres, providing many facilities for boating, swimming, picnicking, and a variety of athletic sports. Recognizing the need for more large outlying areas, a movement has been launched with a view to acquiring additional State parks. Some of the counties in the region are also considering the establish ment of park systems. Detroit There is no regional organization working for the extension of parks in Detroit and vicinity, but the city-owned parks and playgrounds are supplemented by a number of outlying areas. Fourteen State parks, totaling nearly 1,000 acres, provide the Detroit region with opportunities for picnicking and many other activities. Wayne, Oak land, and Washtenaw Counties have established parks totaling nearly 500 acres, which are widely used by the people of Detroit and vicinity. At the present time plans are being laid for extending the county park systems. The remarkable system of highways in Wayne County, in PARKS IN METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 51 which Detroit is located, helps make these various parks readily accessible. The 4,050 acres in Detroit's park and playground systems, comprising a variety of well-equipped areas, render effective service to great numbers, not only of Detroit citizens, but of those of the neigh boring communities, many of which are almost entirely lacking in park areas. Perhaps the best known of Detroit's parks is Belle Isle, of some 740 acres, a popular year-round center for water sports, winter sports, band concerts, golf, and dozens of other activities. The 39 areas totaling 547 acres under the Detroit Department of Recreation include a municipal camp site of 314 acres several miles outside the city limits. Los Angeles In the 5,247 acres comprising the Los Angeles park system are many examples of beautiful landscape planting and design. Griffiths Park of 3,753 acres, one of the largest city parks in the United States, renders varied service to the people of the district through its three golf courses, large picnic centers, 30 miles of bridle trails, boys' and girls' camps, zoo, bird sanctuary, 23 miles of scenic drives, and other recreation features. In Exposition Park, with its rose garden, enor mous stadium, swimming center, and other sports facilities, are to be held many of the events on the program comprising the 1932 Olympic games. Although the growth in park acreage has not kept pace with the rapid increase in population during the last few years, Los Angeles has made notable progress in providing a system of neighborhood playgrounds and playfields and in acquiring and improving water front properties. The playground and recreation commission, which has been responsible for these recent recreation developments, con trols 51 properties totaling 164.6 acres and conducts several municipal mountain camps on Federal property. In addition to the parks and playgrounds in the city of Los Angeles, there are some 5,000 acres in municipal parks in 21 other cities of 5,000 or over in the county. Several of these cities, among them Long Beach, Pasadena, Glendale, Santa Monica, and Alhambra, have fully developed park systems. Los Angeles County, although bordered on the east by magnificent mountain areas, including the Angelus National Forest of 646,192 acres, and on the west by upward of 50 miles of beaches available for aquatic sports, has acquired for the recreational use of its people 18 parks totaling nearly 7,000 acres. These areas include two large mountain playgrounds remarkably equipped for a wide range of recreational activities and four beach areas. Attendance in 1930 at the county centers alone was approximately 5,000,000. In order to ascertain the recreational needs of Los Angeles County the board of supervisors has recently completed a study of the open spaces in the metropolitan district. In the State park survey report issued in 1929 one of the areas recommended for purchase was a tract with ocean frontage in Los Angeles County. It is therefore evident that the people in this region are looking forward to the acquisition and development of additional areas to supplement the excellent facilities already available. 52 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 Cleveland The Cleveland region is served primarily by areas comprising two systems— the city parks and the properties of the Cleveland Metro politan Park District. The 3,160 acres of municipal parks in Cleveland provide many facilities for such activities as swimming, baseball, tennis, children’s play, and winter sports. They do not include any very large properties such as are found in many other metropolitan centers. However, people in Cleveland and vicinity find ample opportunities for camping, picnicking, horseback riding, nature study, and other forms of outdoor recreation, in the large reservations under the metropolitan park board. Most of these areas are in Cuyahoga County, although the jurisdiction and prop erty of the board extend into neighboring counties. Its properties, totaling 10,000 acres, include a network of parks and parkways which, after the acquisition of other areas, will eventually form a semicircle about the city of Cleveland. An attendance of more than 3,500,000 was reported in the metropolitan parks during the year 1930. The small acreage in municipal parks reported by several communities in the district possibly reflects the absence of a central park and planning agency in the Cleveland metropolitan region. St. Louis The St. Louis park system, comprising 2,956 acres, includes many fine properties designed and equipped to serve the recreational needs of the people. Among them is Forest Park, of 1,380 acres, one of the most popular features of which is the noted zoological park, which attracts large numbers of visitors. The Missouri Botanical Garden is another area which has gained national prominence. Although this city compares favorably with several of the other large cities of the country in its per capita park acreage, there are practically no county, State, or regional parks in the vicinity. Consequently, the people of the St. Louis region enjoy fewer public opportunities for the outdoor activities which are possible in large outlying parks and reservations than do the people of most metropolitan districts. Furthermore, there was almost no increase in the city’s park acreage during the last five years, although progress in suburban park develop ments is reported. Under the leadership of the Park and Play ground Association of St. Louis interest is being stimulated in the creation of an outer park system to function under an outer park reservation district act, of which advantage has never been taken. The development of such a system, which is also being urged by the city park authorities, would add materially to the recreational resources of the St. Louis region. Baltimore Through its increase by 825 acres during the period 1925 to 1930, the park acreage of the city of Baltimore has more than kept pace with its population growth during the period. This city has also been carrying out a policy of acquiring at least 100 square feet of playground space per child around each school, with a result that it is much better provided with neighborhood playgrounds than many large cities. To an unusual degree, responsibility for conducting the PARKS IN METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 53 city's recreation program is centered in one group, the Playground Athletic League. In the well-distributed parks are many facilities for varied forms of recreation and in the Patapsco River Reserva tion, a State park of 916 acres located a few miles outside of the city, are opportunities for camping, fishing, swimming, and other out-ofdoor activities. A comprehensive plan for park extension, published in 1926, recommends the acquisition of considerable additional land for large parks, parkways, and waterside recreation areas, the last named situated outside the city limits. Without doubt the people of the Baltimore region will benefit by the park development recently authorized in the Maryland counties adjoining the District of Columbia. Boston A full understanding of the opportunities for recreation available to the people of Boston and the surrounding region requires a study not only of the city's parks but also of the park systems in the many neighboring cities and particularly the areas provided by the Metro politan District Commission. One of the first American cities to recognize the importance of acquiring parks, Boston many years ago developed a system of parks connected by an unbroken string of wide and attractive parkways. The largest single park in the nearly 3,000 acres which make up the system is Franklin Park of 527 acres. The other areas include several water-front parks, the Fens, and many neighborhood areas equipped for various forms of active recreation. Parks of the reservation type, one or more of which are to be found in most large cities, are supplied in the Boston region by the metro politan park system, comprising nearly 10,000 acres in reservations and 1,500 acres in parkways. These properties, located in 38 different towns and cities, supplement the local parks, which in many instances are very inadequate. The many fine beach and river-front areas in the metropolitan parks offer bathing and boating facilities for millions of people during the summer, and the magnificent Blue Hills Reser vation of nearly 5,000 acres affords an unusual opportunity for the enjoyment of nature. According to a report on future parks, play grounds, and parkways, issued by the Boston Park Department in 1925, the purchase of land for additional neighborhood parks, recre ation areas, and golf courses is one of the greatest present needs. Although land for one golf course and for five playgrounds has been acquired since that date, additional areas are needed in many sections of the city. Pittsburgh The outstanding development in this region during the last five years has been the acquisition and improvement by the county authorities of two large parks totaling 4,000 acres, one located several miles north and the other south of the city limits. In these areas the landscape of the Allegheny foothills has been preserved in as nearly a native state as possible, even though they have been equipped to provide various forms of recreation for the entire family. Play grounds, wading and swimming pools, athletic centers, golf courses, boating centers, bridle paths, nature trails, and camp colonies are continuing to be developed. As a reminder of the past, herds of buffalo have been placed in commodious inclosures in both parks. 54 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 Although a report entitled “ Pittsburgh Parks” was issued in 1923 by the citizens’ committee on city plan, little progress has been made since that date in the extension of the city park system. Further more, due to the uneven topography, many of the 1,700 acres in the city parks are little suited to development for active recreation use. Supplementing the Pittsburgh parks are 41 playgrounds and athletic fields, totaling 162 acres, under the control of the bureau of recreation. Milwaukee Although Milwaukee’s park acreage is less than 1,300 acres, its park system is supplemented by 2,173 acres in county parks which provide, among other facilities, four 18-hole golf courses, swimming and boating centers, winter sports facilities, and picnic areas. Accord ing to reports, the county is also developing a proposed 84-mile park way system which, like the county parks, is under the guidance of the county regional planning department. In addition to the city and county parks, there are some 200 acres in suburban community parks, a State fair park of 147.5 acres, and the National Soldiers’ Home of 340 acres, all of which provide recreational opportunities for the people of the region. Milwaukee differs from the other large cities previous ly mentioned in that to a large extent the recreation program con ducted on park property is under the direction of the school author ities, who have also provided many playgrounds used for community recreation activities. Buffalo The lack of large naturalistic park areas in the Buffalo park system, which comprises 1,600 acres, is met to a degree by the fine outlying properties of the Erie County Park Commission. Although the total area of its four parks is only 1,350 acres, and they have been open only a few years, the attendance records for the year 1930 showed a total of 1,578,667 visitors. Not only are these parks used widely during the spring, summer, and fall but there has been a marked increase in the numbers coming to the parks for tobogganing, skating, ski 'limping, snowshoeing, and other winter sports. Preliminary steps Lave also been taken looking to the development of county parks in the neighboring Niagara County. The people of Buffalo also have access to splendid recreational oppor tunities provided in the State parks. Allegheny State Park, of 65,000 acres, although 67 miles from Buffalo, may be reached by good auto mobile roads or by train. This great area with its many facilities is used by thousands of people for camping, hiking, boating, fishing, riding, and other sports. Letch worth Park, of about 6,000 acres, situated 50 miles from Buffalo, is an area of unusual scenic and his toric interest. Another State park easily reached from Buffalo is the Niagara Falls Reservation, which attracts millions of visitors a year from all parts of the world. 1 San Francisco and Oakland The park system in San Francisco, comprising 2,761 acres, includes some splendid properties. Golden Gate Park, the great commanding unit of the system, is recognized as an outstanding achievement in park planning and development. In addition to its famous scenic PARKS IN METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 55 and horticultural beauties, this park is notable for its magnificent buildings, among them the Memorial Museum, the Hall of the Acad emy of Sciences, and the Steinhart Aquarium. The many oppor tunities for active recreation afforded in the parks are supplemented by the 33 areas, totaling 136 acres, under the control of the playground commission. Although there is no regional park system serving the city, the people of San Francisco and vicinity have ready access to the great expanses of national forest in near-by counties. Oakland, across the bay from San Francisco, owns 1,158 acres in parks and playgrounds, and several of the smaller adjoining cities have a number of municipal parks. Large publicly-owned forest and water areas also provide opportunity for certain types of outdoor recreation. The formation of a regional planning association, metropolitan park association, and other organizations in 1928, and a subsequent comprehensive survey of the recreational needs of the East Bay communities are important steps leading to the acquisition and development of outlying park and recreation prop erties for the region. The published report of the survey provides the “ basis for a constructive plan of action and for present and future recreational needs.” Washington, D. C. Washington, D. C., the Nation’s Capital, is widely famed for the extent and beauty of its open spaces. No American city owns such a large number of park properties. Although the many small squares, circles, and ovals are unsuited for recreation use and are costly to maintain, they add greatly to the attractiveness of the city. In addition to its numerous small areas, the parks of Washington include formal landscape parks, many of them the site of Government build ings, and several large properties developed for active recreation use. Among the facilities which they provide are 6 golf courses, 28 baseball diamonds, 75 tennis courts, 18 picnic centers, and many miles of bridle trails. Plans for extending the present Washington park system beyond the boundaries of the District have been worked out, and recent legislation provides for the financing of the project. The National Capital Park and Planning Commission, in cooperation with similar commissions in Virginia and Maryland, is now acquiring land to be used as a part of the regional park development. The projects that are planned include “ a complete recreation system for the District of Columbia; a park drive encircling the entire city, to be known as Fort Drive, as it will connect some 18 Civil War forts; Potomac River Park, extending as far as Great Falls; the extension into Maryland of Rock Creek Park, the largest unit in the present system, and the preservation of other stream valleys.” Tins pro posed regional park system, involving a cost of nearly $30,000,000, will likely assure for the Capital region' the same position of promi nence in the park and planning field that the parks of Washington have gained for the Nation’s Capital. Minneapolis-St. Paul Each of these cities has a comprehensive park system. The former with more than 5,000 acres of parks for its population of 464,356, has received wide recognition for its well-balanced park system and its widely diversified park service. Among the outstanding park features 56 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 in Minneapolis are the utilization of the lakes for recreation, the parkways connecting the large park units, the distribution of neigh borhood playgrounds and playfields, and the extent to which the parks are used for recreation the year round. A movement for a metropol itan and county park system has been under consideration for a num ber of years, and plans for a county park system have been prepared. Up to the present time, however, little progress has been made in bringing these plans to a realization. St. Paul, with its 2,267 acres of parks, ranks high among American cities in its ratio of park acreage to population. Much progress has been made in recent years in the development of these areas for recreation use. Supplementing the city parks are 200 acres under the control of the county authorities. Some Southern Cities County and regional park developments are found in few of the large population centers in the South. Municipal parks and play grounds provide most of the public facilities for outdoor recreation. Possibly the lack of county and regional park systems is due to the fact that there are fewer closely built suburban communities adjoining the large cities in the South than there are near many large northern centers. Consequently parks are acquired by the municipality rather than by a larger political or geographical unit. New Orleans, the largest of the cities in the far South, reports a total of 1,607 acres in parks and playgrounds and in addition has Audubon Park, of some 234 acres. These properties are all inside the city limits, although the area of the city, comprising 125,000 acres, is greater than that of many metropolitan regions. The levee board’s Lake Pontchatrain dredging project includes plans for a great water-front park which will greatly increase the recreational resources of New Orleans and vicinity. Louisville’s park system, comprising 2,410 acres, includes many splendid properties. Much progress has been made during the last few years both in acquiring areas and in improving them for effective use. Atlanta has 1,500 acres of parks, one of them a 176-acre park outside the city limits. Birmingham, with only 862 acres, is less well provided with parks than most cities of the same population. Its need for large outlying reservations was pointed out in a report issued in 1924, which contained recommendations for the acquisition of nearly 3,000 acres in parks within or near the city, 16,000 acres in large outlying reservations and the construction of 46 miles of park ways. Memphis is another city which has a recommended plan for the extension of its present park acreage of 1,360, which is now utilized to an unusual degree. Several of the large cities in Texas have made remarkable progress in acquiring parks during the last decade. Much of the new property consists of large areas, many of them outside the city limits, although the importance of providing smaller neighborhood parks and play grounds has not been overlooked. The parks of Houston, comprising 2,700 acres, afford a well-balanced system. Two large State game preserves are within easy reach of the people of this city. Dallas, with 6,202 acres of parks, ranks next to Denver among large cities in the ratio of park acreage to population. In addition to its well-dis PARKS IN METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 57 tributed neighborhood parks and areas devoted to active recreation use, seven parks totaling some 3,670 acres lie outside the city limits. Much of this acreage is in a large lake. In addition to areas under park control, there are several thousand acres of land and water under control of the water department available for boating, fishing, and picnicking. San Antonio and Fort Worth have also made notable progress in the acquisition and improvement of park areas. Ohio Metropolitan Districts A number of the large cities in Ohio have taken advantage of the special State legislation permitting the formation of metropolitan park districts and have thereby supplemented their municipal park systems by the establishment of regional parks. Since most of these regional or metropolitan districts have been established during the last few years, their influence is only beginning to be felt. The Cleveland metropolitan park system has already been mentioned. The people of Cincinnati, who now have 3,162 acres in parks, are likely to gain added park areas through the recent establishment of a board of county park commissioners and a regional planning commission. The latter group has published a report outlining a plan of park and parkway acquisition and development for the county. Large parks and reservations totaling 9,300 acres are suggested as additions to the present park acreage. Several of these properties are extensions of existing large parks and reservations which comprise one-half of the area of Cincinnati's park system. Toledo is another Ohio city which is the center of a metropolitan park district. In addition to the 1,593 acres in municipal parks, the region provides two district properties of 215 acres. The public provision for parks in Columbus consists of 1,080 acres of parks and playgrounds. Some 20 miles from the city, however, lies Buckeye Lake, a State park of 4,000 acres in which there are several hundred cottages leased on a rental basis, and where there are opportunities for fishing, boating, and bathing. Summit County, in which Akron is located, has made excellent progress in the development of its regional park system, which now comprises five properties totaling 1,450 acres. The municipal park area in the city of Akron is only 514 acres. Newark and Jersey City These two cities own fewer acres in parks than any other large cities in the country, the municipal park acreage being 39 and 91, respective ly. In both cases, however, the city park properties are supple mented by county parks situated within the city limits. The people of Newark have ready access to the nearly 4,000 acres in the Essex County park system, which includes two splendid properties of the reservation type. Six county parks, comprising some 700 acres and affording beautiful landscape areas and a variety of recreational facilities, are within the city limits and to all intents and purposes serve as municipal parks. Several of the communities in the vicinity of Newark have a number of park properties. A county park of nearly 250 acres serves the people of Jersey City, a densely populated municipality of 316,715. Although this city is within a comparatively short distance from the many park areas in the New York region, there is a marked shortage of neighborhood parks and recreation areas in Jersey City and the other municipalities of Hudson County. 58 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 Kansas City, Mo. This city is widely known for its comprehensive system of landscape parks and connecting boulevards, largely acquired many years ago. The total area of these properties comprises 3,402 acres. It has been pointed out, however, that the expense of maintaining these boule vards has prevented the provision of adequate neighborhood play grounds and play fields. Large-scale municipal unemployment proj ects announced in November, 1931, include the improvement of park properties and the development of additional park facilities. The four Jackson County parks are within easy reach of Kansas City. Seattle and Portland These two leading cities of the Northwest have acquired fine park properties which afford the people many opportunities for both active and passive forms of enjoyment and recreation. The parks in Seattle, comprising 2*559 acres, form a well-balanced and widely distributed system of open spaces. Notable among the park facilities are the 10 bathing beaches and the field houses which are equipped for a great variety of uses. The 2,292 acres of parks in Portland provide 1 acre of open space to every 133 people in the city. In addition to the municipal recreation spaces in these two cities, the national forests in the region afford their citizens opportunity for varied forms of outdoor recreation. The Mount Ranier National Park, within easy reach of the city of Seattle, is of great recreational value to the people of this city and the entire region. Indianapolis In acquiring its park areas this city of 364,161 people has adhered rather closely to a comprehensive park plan laid out originally in 1895 and further extended in 1908. At the present time the city owns 2,869 acres in parks and parkways, or 1 acre for each 124 people. There is one large park of nearly 1,000 acres which provides three golf courses and many other recreation facilities. There are no county, regional, or State parks in the Indianapolis region, nor as far as is known are there any plans under way for such developments. Rochester This city is fortunate in having ready access to a number of State and county parks. Monroe County, in which it is located, has re cently established a county park system which now comprises five parks with a total of 3,357 acres. These areas, which include both lake-front and inland properties, afford contact with nature and also opportunity for many outdoor activities. The Genesee State Park, known as Letchworth, mentioned earlier in this section as accessible from Buffalo, lies only 53 miles south of Rochester and is used by large numbers of its citizens especially for week-end and vacation outings. The city of Rochester owns 1,864 acres in parks, including some lake-front properties, but like many other cities it is deficient in the number and size of its neighborhood playgrounds and recreation areas. In addition to its parks the city owns large water-supply properties 30 and 35 miles distant, part of which are now used for picnicking and which offer great recreation possibilities, PARKS IN METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS 59 Denver This city of 287,861 people lies in the center of a region widely famed for its parks and forests. The system of 44 mountain parks, owned by the city and located within a radius of 40 miles from its center, is unique among municipal park developments. These parks are connected with the city and with each other by a system of roads making possible various park trips up to 150 miles or more in length. These parks, which include 11,000 acres, are situated in canyons and on mountain slopes. They are all fully equipped with picnic facilities and offer many miles of footpaths and mountain trails. The municipal parks within the city limits, totaling 1,635 acres, are connected by a system of boulevards and parkways. They pro vide an unusually varied group of facilities, among them an open-air theater of classic Greek architecture. Supplementing the city-owned park areas are the well-known Rocky Mountain National Park, easily reached by automobile from Denver, and great stretches of national forest lands. Providence This is another city whose park and recreational resources can not be measured solely by its municipal park areas. In addition to the 1,000 acres in the Providence parks and the 108 acres in 30 municipal playgrounds under the recreation commission, there is available for the use of Providence and adjoining communities a comprehensive metropolitan park system. Included in this system, whicn is under State ownership and control, are many large and a number of smaller properties consisting of forested areas, river and bay front properties, and areas developed for intensive recreational use. Great numbers of people use these parks for winter sports, hiking, picnicking, water sports, and a variety of other uses. The availability of these outside parks compensates to a degree for the limitations of the city park system, which, although it contains some fine examples of park development, is far below the recommended standard in total acreage. Although the most notable park planning on a regional basis has been done in the large metropolitan districts, considerable progress has been made in many smaller centers. Tacoma, Wash., for ex ample, has a metropolitan park district. Many Illinois cities have established park districts extending beyond their boundaries. Men tion has previously been made of the increasing number of cities which have acquired parks outside their city limits. Many smaller cities are within easy reach of county, State, or national parks and forests providing recreational opportunities which supplement their municipal parks and playgrounds. No study of a city's recreational resources is complete which fails to take into consideration these various types of public properties which are available for the recreational use of its people. 98621°—32----- 5 GENERAL TABLES T able A.— Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1930, by States C ity and State Population Num ber of parks Total park acreage Population Acres used for active to 1 acre of park recreation Alabama: 259,678 35 862.5 Birmingham ^ - - - 54.5 15,593 8 Decatur______________________________ ____ 1 11,059 3.1 Fairfield............................................................... 385.2 68,202 16 M obile_______________________ - ___________ M ontgom ery______________________________ 66,079 171.4 15 1 18,012 30.0 Selma_____________________________________ 2 10.0 7,596 Talladega .......................... 6,814 6 T roy______________________________________ 229.0 Arizona: 8,023 2 Bisbee_____________________________________ 6.0 6,006 2 2.0 Nogales___________________________________ Phopnir,.^ . _ ir. .... . ...... ______ 48,118 13 14,683.61 5,517 7.0 Prescott___________________________________ Arkansas: 31,429 5 Fort Smith________________________________ 38.0 7 81.679 Little R ock________________________________ 638.0 2 5,966 52.0 Paragould_________________________________ California: 35,033 9 177.2 Alameda__________________________________ 1 Anftbpirn . ..... ... ..... ................ .......... . 10,995 20.0 1 5.0 5,216 Arcadia___________________________________ 6 26,015 35.0 Bakersfield ..................... . ...................... 82,109 117.0 Berkeley__________________________________ 37 17,429 Beverly Hills______________________________ 5 60.0 10,439 Brawlev___________________________________ 5 30.0 5 Burbank__________________________________ 16,662 184.0 12.5 13,270 5 Burlingame_______________________ _______ 3 Calexico______________________________ _ . 42.5 6,299 4 2,379.1 7,961 C h i c o _________________________________ _ 2 ____________________________________ C olton 7.0 8,014 1 Compton...... ............................. ........................ 12, 516 4.0 5,425 Coronado____________________________ ____ 7 15.0 5,669 3 5.1 Culver C ity ____________________ ________ 1 D aly C ity_________________________________ 7,838 7.0 1 Dunsmuir__________________ _______ _ . 6,050 20.0 5 15,752 44.0 Eureka____________________________________ 52,513 F resno1___________________________________ 224.8 16 62,736 Glendale__________________________________ 12 676.6 Hermosa Beach_______________ __________ _ 5,000 2 44.0 1 Huntington Park__________________________ 24,591 9.0 Long Beach _______________________________ 142,032 17 148.6 1,238,048 5,411.6 Los A ngeles2________________________ : ____ 130 6 13,842 101.8 M odesto__________________________________ 2 5,498 Montebello________________________________ 17.0 6 41.9 9,141 M onterey_________________________________ 3 6,437 15.0 N apa______________________________________ 1 7,301 20.0 National C ity ..................................................... 284,063 65 1,157.6 Oakland*_________________________________ Ontario__ - ..................... .................................... 13,583 4 68.0 6,285 6 22.8 Oxnard____________________________________ 13,652 9 1,010.0 Palo A lto.............................................................. 1,002.7 P asadena ____ . . . . . . . ___ ___ ___ 13 76,086 8,245 8 83.0 Petaluma_________________________________ 1 Pittsburg______________________ ___________ 9,610 20.0 20,804 7 102.0 Pom ona_________ k_________________________ 6 65.0 Redlands__________________________________ 14,177 R edondo Beach___________________________ 3 20.0 9,347 Riverside__________________________________ 7 134.3 29,696 1,224.0 Sacramento________________________________ 93,750 20 San Bernardino___________________________ 7 45.8 37,481 178.0 11,603 5 San Buenaventura________________ _______ 147,995 San D ie g o 4_____ ________________ _________ 47 2,675.0 2,897.2 San Francisco •____________________________ 634,394 81 659.4 57,651 San Jose___________________________________ 10 10.3 11,455 5 San Leandro______________________________ 550.0 San Luis Obispo___________________________ 8,276 4 13,444 2 20.0 San M ateo___________________ _______ ____ 30,322 24.5 5 Santa Ana............................................................ 300 284 3,580 177 386 600 760 30 282.7 3.1 263.0 53.3 8.0 1,337 3,003 3 788 I7B5576 7.0 825 128 114 271.0 12.0 195 549 1,043 742 700 290 347 91 1,060 148 3 1,145 3,129 362 1,080 1,119 302 357 234 92 113 2,732 960 235 136 323 218 429 365 246 199 278 13 76 99 478 220 217 467 224 77 818 <35 57 221 87 1,110 15 672 1,270 6.0 10.0 8.0 ............io .o 38.5 9.5 30.0 ............12.5 7.0 1.5 3.0 1.5 32.8 2.0 ..........400-6 * 164.6 43.4 15.0 3.5 12.0 10.0 * 528.6 20.0 2.0 50.0 81.5 20.0 65.0 13.0 125.6 37.9 .......... 675.0 * 136.2 ............io.’ 3 20.0 20.0 10.0 61 GENERAL TABLES T a b le A.— Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1930, by States— Continued C ity and State California— Continued. Santa Barbara............................. . Santa Clara................................... Santa Cruz.................................... Santa M onica.............................. . South Pasadena........................... South San Francisco................... Stockton....................................... . Torrance........................................ Upland........................................... Vallejo............................................ Visalia............................................ W hittier........................................ Colorado: Colorado Springs......................... D en v er7..... ................................... Durango......................................... Fort Collins.................................. Grand Junction............................ Longmont...................................... Pueblo............................................ Sterling.......................................... Trinidad......................................... Connecticut: Ansonia *........................................ Branford......................................... Bridgeport •.................................. East Hartford............................... Fairfield......................................... Greenwich 10................................. Hamden......................................... Hartford......................................... M anchester.................................. Meriden « ............................. ........ M ilford........................... ........... . New Britain.................................. New Canaan................................. New H aven........................ .......... N ew L ondon................................. Norwalk 12..... ................................ N orw ich 13...................................... Putnam ........................................ Rockville....................................... Seymour......................................... Shelton........................................... Stamford........................................ Torrington.................................... Wallingford................................... W aterbury..................................... W est Hartford............................... West Haven.................................. Wethersfield.................................. Delaware: 'Wilmington...................... District of Columbia: Washington.. Florida: A von Park..................................... Bradenton...................................... Clearwater..................................... Coral Gables................................. Fort Lauderdale........................... Gainesville..................................... Jacksonville................................... M iam i............................................. Orlando.......................................... Palatka........................................... River Junction.............................. St. Augustine................................ Sanford........................................... South Jacksonville....................... Tallahassee..................................... T a m p a 14........................................ W inter Haven............................... Georgia: Atlanta........................................... Augusta.......................................... Brunswick..................................... Cartersville.................................... Columbus...................................... See footnotes at end o f table. filia tio n Num ber of parks Total park acreage Population Acres used for active to 1 acre of park recreation 33,613 6,303 14,395 37,146 13,730 6,193 47,963 7,271 5,830 14,476 7,263 14,822 17 1 6 10 6 4 25 14 3 6 8 3 727.8 3.3 600.0 223.4 113.0 37.7 259.0 13.1 20.0 20.6 111.9 10.8 33,237 287,861 5,400 11,489 10,247 6,029 50,096 7,195 11,732 17 86 5 7 7 5 33 5 2 2,760.9 12,622.0 326.0 125.5 105.0 80.0 905.0 110.0 6.3 19,898 7,080 146,716 17,125 17,184 32,159 20,250 164,072 21,950 38,481 12,500 68,128 5,431 162,655 29,640 36,019 23,021 7,318 7,445 6,600 10,113 46,346 26,040 11,170 99,902 24,941 25,808 7,507 106,597 486,869 4 1 25 12 7 8 1 3 2 2 30 4 4 33 3 9 10 47 658 5.0 13.0 1,112.4 30.0 15.0 95.0 1.0 2,709.7 72.5 1,514.0 50.0 1,028. 0 27.0 1,847.7 224.7 110. 5 419.1 .4 15.0 25.0 17.1 204.0 77.9 27.0 275.0 25.0 75.0 40.0 803.9 4,275.3 545 135 570 1,140 328 20,250 61 320 25 250 67 201 88 132 326 55 18,295 496 264 590 227 334 410 363 995 344 187 132 114 6,600 5,986 7,607 5,697 8,666 10,465 129,549 110,637 27,330 6,500 5,624 12, 111 10,100 5,597 10,700 101,161 7,130 8 4 6 3 46 1 94 106 21 6 1 10 8 9 20 27 10 27.0 70.0 138.0 67.0 370.5 1.6 600.0 214.9 392.5 139.0 21.1 216.0 19.5 22.4 76.3 725.5 14.0 245 86 55 85 23 6,650 215 513 69 47 266 56 516 251. 141 149 509 *13.5 2.5 270,366 60,342 14,022 5,250 43,131 67 11 28 1 8 1,500.0 166.5 35.0 34.0 76.0 180 370 400 154 507 46.4 4.0 34.0 26.0 1 27 25 8 12 27 1 44 27 46 1,910 24 166 126 164 185 560 291 679 65 1,480 161.3 193.1 15.0 35.9 205.0 2.6 105.0 2.0 12 23 17 320.0 91 125.5 97 105.0 75 55 ..........65ao 65 35.0 1,860 5.0 13.0 150.0 10.0 312.0 7.0 *161.0 24.0 100.0 *30.0 12.0 5.0 125.0 14.9 9.0 40.0 15.0 15.0 50.0 120.6 4.0 70.0 133.0 64.0 191.6 1.6 50.0 78.4 40.0 6.0 4.0 62 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 T a b le A.— Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 6,000 and over, 1930, by States— Continued C ity and State Georgia—Continued. D u blin —............... Gainesville............ M a con ................... Savannah « .......... Valdosta................ Idaho: Boise...................... Lewiston............... N ampa................... Pocatello............... Tw in Falls............ Illinois: Alton w.................. Aurora............... . Batavia................. Belleville.. B erw y n 17.......................................................... Blue Island 17.................................................... Cairo................................................................... Calumet C it y 17................................................ Canton.................... - ......................................... Centralia *.......................................................... Chicago.............................................................. Bureau of parks, recreation, and avia tion ..................... .................................... Lincoln Park commissioners.................. South Park commissioners...................... West Park district................................... Other park districts.................................. Chicago Heights........... ................................... Cicero (3 park districts)................................. Decatur.............................................................. Des Plaines........................................................ D ixon____________________________________ Downers Grove................................................ East M oline...................................................... East St. Louis................................................. Edwardsville.................... ........................... Elgin............................................. ..................... Elmhurst................................ .......................... Evanston........................................................... Galena................................................................ Galesburg.......................................................... Glencoe 17............ .............................................. Glen E llyn........................................................ H a rv e y 17........................................................... Highland Park................................................. Hindsdale.......................................................... Hoopeston......................... ............................... Joliet................................................................... Kankakee.......................................................... Rewanee........................................................... Lake F orest17................................................... Lom bard............. ..............- .............................. M ayw ood........ .................................................. Melrose Park 17................................................. M etropolis......................................................... M oline................................................................ M orris17............................................................. N aperville17........................... ......................... Niles Center...................................................... North Chicago.................................................. Oak Park 18........................................................ O lney................................................................. Park Ridge........................................................ P eoria18............................................................. R iver Forest...................................................... Riverside........................................................... R ockford............................................................ R ock Island...................................................... St. Charles........................................................ Springfield......................................................... Streator.............................................. Taylorville........................................ Urbana............................................... W aukegan20...................................... See footnotes at end o f table. Population Number of parks Total park acreage Population Acres used to 1 acre for active of park recreation 6,681 8,624 53,829 85,024 13,482 15.0 57.5 434.5 906.9 66.7 445 150 124 94 21,544 9,403 8,206 16.471 8,787 158.3 136 747 136 30,151 46,589 5,045 28,425 47.027 16,534 13,532 12,298 11,718 12,583 3,376,483 180.0 225.0 3.0 25.0 12.6 60.0 78.0 12.0 20.0 20.0 23.0 10.0 155.0 15.0 5,958.1 107 9 45 22,311 66,602 57, 510 8,798 9,908 8,977 10,107 74,347 6,235 35,929 14,055 63,338 5,216 28,830 6, ?95 7,680 16, 374 12,203 6,923 5,613 42,993 20,620 17,093 6,554 6,197 25,829 10,741 5,573 32,236 5,568 5,118 5,007 8,46(5 63,982 6,140 10,417 104,969 6,770 85.864 39,953 5,377 71.864 10,012 14,728 7,316 13,060 33,499 20 47 6 7 17 39 12 1 2 20 2 10 4 22 3 6 201 32.0 1.341.0 18.0 269.3 66.0 70.2 10.0 500.0 90.0 69.0 7.0 285.0 25.0 45.0 1.322.0 86.0 120.0 159.0 17.0 5.0 ,2.0 25.0 178.0 21.0 9.0 72.0 50.0 91.0 60.0 732 167 85.0 1,681 1,270 2,351 25.0 211 8?fi 587 1,230 75 566 20."6 15.0 588.2 350.5 842 1,850 66 605 47 8,977 316 55 346 137 212 901 521 57 69 111 2,339 43 277 129 30 241 143 41 364 5,165 5,370 223 181 265 568 70 169 809 102 962 67 640 75 93 1,000.0 72 270 312 37.0 47.1 65.0 97.0 238.0 23.0 ’ 2,866.7 10.8 1.562.9 13.8 89.6 924.7 150.0 19.0 8.0 6.0 78.0 4.0 400.0 861.9 1.0 2.0 9.1 210 2,866.7 1.381.9 447.6 26.5 36.1 862.1 14.5 213.3 6.0 208.0 323.9 371.0 10.5 21.0 3.0 32.0 117.8 6.0 25.3 39.0 5.0 500.0 68.0 175.0 15.0 40.0 72.0 76.0 5.0 2.0 178.0 21.0 ui'o *10.0 125.0 112 138 141 '300.0 46.6 5.0 *11.0 63 GENERAL TABLES T a b le A.— Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 6,000 and over, 19S0, by StatesContinued C ity and State Illinois—Continued. W heaton............... Wilmette 17........... W in n etka 17.......... W ood R iver.......... Indiana: A uburn................. Bedford *............... Bicknell................ Bloom ington........ Brazil..................... Clinton.................. Crawfcrdsville— East Chicago........ Elkhart................. Evansville............. Fort W ayne......... G ary...................... Hamm ond............. Hartford................ Huntington.......... Indianapolis.......... Jeffersonville........ Kendallville.......... K okom o................. La Porte............ . . Linton................... Michigan C ity M ount V ernon -. . New A lbany........ N ew castle.........— Plym outh............. Rushville............... Seymour................ South B end.......... Terre Haute.......... Valparaiso............. Vincennes............. W abash................. W arsaw................. W hiting ......... Iowa: Am es............ ........ B oone.................... Cedar Falls........... Cedar R apids___ Centerville______ Creston.................. Davenport............ Des M oines.......... Dubuque............... Fairfield................ Fort D odge........... Iowa C ity............. K eokuk................. Mason C ity .......... Muscatine............. N e w t o n .............. Oelwein................. Oskaloosa............. Perry..................... Sioux C ity............ Spencer................. ■Waterloo............... Webster C ity....... Kansas: Coffeyville............ Concordia............. Dodge C ity.......... H ays...................... Iola........................ McPherson........... N ew ton................. Pittsburg......... . Salina___________ Topeka.................. W ic h ita ............... See footnotes at end o f table. Population Number of parks 7,258 15,233 12,166 8,136 5,088 13,208 5,212 18,227 8,744 7,936 10,355 54,784 32,949 102,249 114,946 100,426 64.560 6,613 13,420 364,161 11,946 5,439 32,843 15,755 5,085 26,735 5,035 25,819 14,027 5,290 5,709 7,508 104,193 62,810 8,079 17,564 8,840 5,730 10,880 10,261 11,886 7,362 56,097 8.147 8,615 60,751 142,559 41,679 6,619 21,895 15,340 15,106 23,304 16,778 11.560 7,794 10,123 5,881 79,183 5,019 46,191 7,024 16,198 5,792 10,059 5,500 7,160 6.147 11,034 18,145 20,155 64,120 111, 110 Total park acreage Population to 1 acre of park 75.5 57.4 169.0 5.6 96 265 71 1,450 12.0 35.0 15.0 278.0 38.2 9.0 54.0 125.0 126.0 658.1 710.0 516.0 293.0 2.0 72.9 2,869.2 8.0 20.0 166.0 250.0 22.0 1.0 235.3 31.0 16.0 30.0 15.0 20.0 512.4 538.4 4.0 47.0 48.5 6.0 50.0 22.5 200.0 225.0 434.1 28.0 117.2 780.9 978.9 250.0 45.0 148.0 22.6 68.9 60.0 96.6 27.0 53.0 1.5 20.0 1,394.7 80.0 376.7 105.0 16.0 45.0 25.0 3.0 28.0 10.0 45.0 87.6 100.0 305.0 1, 200.0 423 ‘ ""347" 65 228 882 191 437 267 155 161 193 221 3,306 184 124 1,493 272 195 62 231 113 5,031 833 874 176 380 375 205 116 2,019 372 184 1,040 218 453 59 33 129 290 73 78 146 167 147 147 677 219 389 173 426 147 6,748 294 57 63 123 67 1,012 127 402 1,833 255 615 247 207 202 210 92 64 T able PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 A.—Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1930, by States— Continued C ity and State Population Number of parks Kentucky: Covington_________________________________ 65,252 10,008 Fort Thomas______________________________ 307,745 TiOiiisville,. ........................................ . 6,485 __________________ ___________ L u d____ low 29,744 N ew port................. .......... ............ ..................... 33,541 Paducah, Louisiana: AlATfi.ndri?i_ _ 23,025 6,531 Houm a_______________________ _____ _____ _ 26,028 M onroe________________________ _______ 458,762 N ew Orleans 21................................................... Shreveport.......................................................... 76,655 6,566 West M onroe_____________________ _____ __ M aine: 17,198 Augusta___________________________________ 5,511 Belfast.......... .................................................... . 5,842 Eastport__________________________________ 70,810 Portland_______________________ __________ 9,075 Rockland ....... .............. 13,392 Sanford______________________ ______ ______ 15,454 W aterville....................... .................................. M aryland: 804,874 Baltimore........ ........ ............. .......... ............... f5ftmhridgft _ 8,544 37,747 Cumberland_________ ______ __________ ___ 14,434 Frederick 8_____________________________ 30,861 Hagerstown_______________________________ 10,997 Salisbury........... .................................................. Massachusetts: 5,888 Amherst___________ ______ ____ ____ ______ 10,677 Athol •.................................................................. 7,271 B arnstable ______ ______ ________________ 21,748 Belm ont_______ ______ ____________________ 25.086 B everly__________________________________ 781,188 Boston____________________________________ 15,712 Braintree. ________________________________ 9,055 Bridgewater___________ _____ _____________ 63,797 Brockton______________________________ _ 47,490 Brookline___________________ ____________ 113,643 Cam bridge_____________ _____ __________ 45,816 Chelsea_________ ____ ___________ _________ 43,930 Chicopee____________ ___________ _________ 7,477 Concord__________________________________ Danvers___________________________________ 12,957 8,778 Dartm outh________________________________ Easthampton___ _____ ____________________ 11,323 48,424 Everett *__________________________________ 115, 274 Fall R iver........... ............................................... 40,692 Fitchburg_________________________________ 22,210 Framingham_____________________________ 19,399 Gardner________ ________ _________________ 24,204 Gloucester22_______________________________ 7,028 Grafton___________________________________ 5,934 Great Barrington__________________________ Greenfield •_______________________________ 15,500 Haverhill__________________________________ 48,710 56,537 Holyoke___________________________________ 8,469 H udson__________ ____ ______ ________ ___ Ipsw ich__ ____________ ___________ ______ 5,599 85,068 Lawrence_________________________________ Lexington_________________________________ 9,467 100,234 Lowell............................ .................... ................ 102,320 Lyn n_____________________________________ 58,036 M alden___________________________________ 7,156 Maynard__________________________________ 23,170 M elrose___________________________________ Middleborough_____ ______________________ 8,608 16,434 M ilton ................... .........................- .......... ........ NflAdham 10,845 112,597 N ew Bedford______________________________ 15,084 N ew buryport_____________________________ 65,276 N ewton *_______________ ______________ ___ 21,621 North A dam s________________ _________ _ North A ndover____________________________ 6,961 15,049 N orw ood _________ ________________________ 5,365 Orange................................................................. __ See footnotes at end o f table. Total park acreage Population Acres used to 1 acre for active recreation of park 8 5 30 1 2 9 538.5 5.7 2,410.0 4.5 26.3 250.0 121 1,764 127 1,440 1,150 134 6 1 2 71 14 1 65.0 8.0 267.0 1,606.3 235.0 56.0 354 816 94 285 326 117 5 3 1 20 2 2 4 175.0 24.0 30.0 267.4 2.0 16.0 10.0 101 1 6 3 8 2 3,474.5 15.0 30.5 35.5 60.0 55.0 8 5 8 20 20 171 5 1 5 6.8 872 5.0 5.0 15.0 484 7.0 73.5 295 37.8 61.0 410 40.0 269 2, 917.7 656. 2 48.0 327 3.0 1.0 9,055 426.0 149 376.0 126 80.5 140 70.5 90.0 508 30.0 2,142 20.5 6.0 33.4 224 25.0 40.0 322 10.0 878 10.0 30.0 374 34.6 ............34.1 139.9 ............. 824* 248.9 168 34.0 122.0 183 60.0 214.0 94 28.7 233.0 104 83.0 2.0 2.0 7,028 50.0 118 35.0 zK'o 284.4 171 231.0 244 302 28.0 28.0 38.5 145 205.1 414 88.5 110.0 85 214.1 468 189.3 2,056.0 50 60.0 744 78.0 5.5 1,301 149.9 155 25.0 344 20.2 36.2 453 27.0 400 4.0 257.8 436 46.5 323 213.2 246.3 25.0 10.0 ..........2,' m 12.0 579 42.0 357 22.0 536 10.0 9.0 28 7 2 7 3 1 5 9 21 22 U 17 13 1 10 3 25 23 5 3 24 8 46 21 15 2 15 1 6 9 16 7 31 2 4 20 2 275.0 2,410.0 4.5 21.0 128.0 111.6 175.0 98 75.0 229 20.0 195 3.0 265 12.0 4,538 837 ........~~~2.’ 6 1,545 5.0 231 569 1,235 15.0 35.5 513 198 3.0 65 GENERAL TABLES T a b le A.— Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1980, by States— Continued C ity and State Massachusetts—Continued. Pittsfield............................ Plym outh.......................... Quincy............................... R evere............................... R ockland........................... Salem................................. Somerville.......................... Spencer.............................. Springfield......................... Stoneham.......................... Taunton............................. Uxbridge............. ............. W akefield. ....................... W alpole.............................. Waltham............................ Ware................................... W atertown........................ Wellesley........................... W eym outh........................ Whitinsville...................... W hitm an........................... W inchendon..................... Winchester........................ W inthrop.......................... W oburn.............................. W orcester.......................... Michigan: A lb ion ................................ Bay C ity............................ Charlotte.......................... Dearborn........................... . D e tro it28....................... ... East Detroit........... .......... F lint. Grand Rapids., Grossej P 1 oin te.. Hamtram ck. Highland Park . H olland................... Ionia........................ Ironwood................. Jackson 88................ Kalamazoo............. Lansing................... Ludington............... Manistee................ M anistique............. M arquette.............. M arshall................. . M idlan d.................. . M ount Clemens— M ount Pleasant.... N iles.......................... P ontiac..................... Port H u r o n --........ . Royal Oak............... Saginaw.................... St. Joseph................ Sault Ste. Marie___ Sturgis...................... Three Rivers........... Ypsilanti.................. Minnesota: Albert Lea............... Chisholm ................. C loquet.................... Crookston................ D uluth— ................. E ly ............................ Eveleth..................... Fairmont.................. Fergus Falls............. Hastings— ............... H ibbing.................... International Falls _ Little Falls............... Minneapolis............. R ed W in g ................ St. C loud.................. See footnotes at end of table. um ber Population N of parks Total park acreage Population Acres used to 1 acre for active of park recreation 49,677 13,042 71,983 35,680 7,524 43,353 103,908 6,272 149,900 10,060 37,355 6,285 16,318 7,273 39,247 7,385 34,913 11,439 20,882 6,668 7,638 6,202 12,719 16,852 19,434 195,311 23 17 39 12 6 25 27 2 102 10 9 1 4 2 4 1 14 22 11 2 1 5 15 9 12 28 242.0 147.0 220.1 28.0 40.0 375.2 90.2 29.5 1,646.6 15.0 23.5 32.0 40.0 171.0 293.8 100.0 25.0 160.0 29.0 14.0 14.0 16.0 60.0 91.0 87.9 1,219.7 205 88 327 150.0 1,270 24.0 188 "§72.2 115 1,140 29.5 213 91 _ _ 670 ‘ " ‘ 8.0 1,589 193 408 42 134 74 1.0 23.0 1,390 23.0 71 717 5.0 468 13.0 545 14.0 387 ___ __ 212 15.0 184 75.0 221 . . . . . . 162 93.6 8,324 47,355 5,307 50,358 1,668,662 5,955 156,492 168,592 5,173 66,268 52,959 14,346 6,562 14,299 55,187 54,786 78,397 8,898 8,078 5,198 14,789 5,019 8,038 13,497 5,211 11,326 64,928 31,361 22,904 80,715 8,349 13,755 6,950 6,863 10,143 2 14 4 1 223 2 43 49 1 1 3 17 2 6 8 39 27 10 3 6 3 7 4 9 2 2 6 21 4 15 3 6 4 7 10 42.0 65.0 127.0 1.0 4,049.3 1.5 1,126.0 1,193.0 6.0 1.5 35.0 61.0 50.5 62.0 593.4 808.5 608.5 86.0 20.0 101.0 264.9 2.0 45.4 26.0 25.0 7.0 296.6 81.1 9.1 247.8 20.3 90.0 12.0 20.0 47.0 36.0 198 60.0 729 41 50,358 3,604.1 386 1.0 3,970 445.0 138 141 862 6.0 37,512 __ ___ 8 34.0 1,510 21.0 235 44.0 130 52.0 273 104 __________ 65 210.0 129 _____ __ 10.0 103 404 52 227.0 56 2.0 1,673 15.2 177 516 25.0 . 208 7.0 1,618 150.0 219 385 2,520 327 8.0 410 152 679 8.0 343 20.0 215 35.0 10,169 8,308 6,782 6,321 101,463 6,151 7,484 5,521 9,389 5,086 15,666 5,036 5,014 464,356 9,629 21,000 10 4 5 7 77 1 5 5 8 17 2 2 2 140 8 18 55.8 25.0 45.7 74.1 2,450.0 11.0 90.0 15.0 94.0 5.0 64.5 20.3 40.0 5,146.8 232.4 251.0 200 332 147 85 41 559 83 369 99 1,017 242 249 125 90 41 84 . 21.0 90.0 10.0 2.0 5.0 40.0 2,760.0 175.0 66 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 T a b l e A .— Park acreage in C ity and State M innesota—Continued. St. Paul...................... . South St. Paul.......... . S tillw a te r ................. . Virginia....................... W ilm ar....................... . Mississippi: Biloxi............................ Greenville................... Jackson....................... . Laurel........................... M cC om b .................... . N atchez...................... . Yazoo C i t y .- _ .......... . Missouri: Boonville.................... . Cape Girardeau......... F u lto n ......................... Joplin........................... Kansas C ity............... . Kirksville.................... M exico......................... M ob erly....................... St. Charles.................. St. Joseph.................... St. Louis...................... Sedalia.......................... Sikeston....................... Trenton. U niversity........... Montana: Bozeman............. Great Falls.......... H avre................... Lewiston............. Livingston______ M issoula.............. Nebraska: Beatrice............... Chadron.............. Falls C ity ---------Grand Isla n d .__ Lincoln................ M cC o o k .............. N orfolk................ N orth Platte___ Omaha—............. Y o rk ..................... Nevada: Las Vegas............ R e n o .,................. N ew Hampshire: • Clarem ont........... C oncord________ D erry................... D ov er................... Keene................... L a con ia ............... M anchester......... Nashua................ Somersworth----N ew Jersey: A sbury P a rk 10- . A tlantic C ity ___ B a y o n n e .-.......... Belleville » .......... B loom field37____ B ogota................. Bound Brook 10_. B ridgeton............. Cam den_________ D ov er................... . Dunellen............. . East Orange28— . East Rutherford . Elizabeth.............. Englew ood.......... . Fort L e e . . ........... See footnotes at end of table. 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1980, by StatesContinued opulation N umber o f parks Total park acreage Population Acres used to 1 acre for active of park recreation 271,606 10,009 7,173 11,963 6,139 120 8 16 2 3 2,267.3 36.0 98.5 45.1 5.0 119 277 104 265 1,228 14,850 14,807 48,282 18,017 10,057 13,422 5,579 6 3 25 8 2 5 3 300.0 16.0 304.0 288.1 35.0 250.0 9.5 49 924 159 62 285 54 587 300.0 16.0 6,435 16,227 6,105 33,454 399,746 8,293 8,290 13,772 10,491 80,935 821,960 20,806 5,676 57,527 6,992 25,809 2 3 1 9 70 2 2 2 1 15 102 2 3 12 1 8 20.1 46.5 5.0 600.0 3,401.8 7.0 89.0 326.0 35.0 960.0 2,956.3 120.0 5.5 391.9 25.0 160.5 319 348 1,221 56 116 1,184 93 42 297 84 279 177 1,062 147 280 161 15.0 6,855 28,822 6,372 5,358 6,391 14,657 4 19 4 2 4 7 28.0 702.4 83.0 17.0 38.0 54.0 243 41 77 316 168 271 10,297 5,720 5,787 18,041 75,933 6,688 10,717 12,061 214,006 5,712 5 3 2 6 17 5 3 5 38 2 100.5 75.0 22.0 22.5 1,282.3 30.0 10.0 100.0 5,600.0 35.0 102 76 263 800 59 223 1,072 121 38 176 5,165 18,529 4 12 257.0 80.0 20 231 12,377 25,228 5,131 13,573 13,794 12,471 76,834 31,463 5,680 3 14 3 6 11 7 19 15 1 55.0 101.6 63.0 110.0 323.0 55.0 233.0 173.9 12.0 225 249 81 123 42 227 329 181 473 8.5 4.6 65.5 5.0 31.0 16.0 3.0 818.0 281.3 7.5 2.5 32.0 34.0 30.4 55.0 3.0 1,751 14,390 1,360 5,393 1,225 458 2,686 19 420 1,330 2,060 2,125 208 3,750 324 2,919 14,981 66,198 88,979 26,974 38,077 7,341 7,372 15,699 118,700 10,031 5,148 68,020 7,080 114,589 17,805 8,759 2 6 2 6 2 5 10 1 1 10 5 9 4 2 6.0 100.0 28.0 7.5 'T o 7.0 89.0 163.0 6.0 2,386.3 120.0 ” ’i ’o 25.0 3.0 345.4 4.0 9.0 17.0 27.0 60.0 10.0 901.5 17.0 100.0 60.0 55.0 26.0 44.8 7.0 4.0 •21.0 4.0 3 30.0 10.0 51.0 3.0 67 GENERAL TABLES Table A .— Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1980, by States— Continued C ity and State N ew Jersey—Continued. Freehold__________________________________ Glen R idge______________ _________ ________ Hackensack ____ TTfmrninntmi H ob ok en 10- . ____ _ _____ Irvington__________________________________ Jersey C ity _________________ ____________ K ea rn y29____ ____ - _________ _____________ Leonia____________________________________ ..... ............ Long B ranch......... ........ . Madison l® _ M aplewood 10_____________________________ Millhnrn M on tclair10_________ ____ ________________ Moorestown___i __________________________ M orristown....... ............ - ..................... - ............ N ewark________ __________ _______________ Nftw B run sw ick30 _____ Nnrth PlalnfiAld N utley *•____________ _______ ________ ____ Passaic________________ _____ _____________ Paterson___________________ ______ _______ Perth A m b o y ............................................... . Pitman____ T............... ............... .......... ........ . PlftlnflAM 31 Ridgefield P a rk 10____________ ____________ R id gew ood 10__________ ____ ______________ Rutherford10____ ___________ _____________ _____________Somerville ______ _____ ______ South Orange_____________________ _______ S um m it10........ .................................................... Teaneck___________________________________ Tenafly...................................................... ......... Trenton___________________________________ Union C it y 10....................................................... Verona____________________________________ Vineland__________________________________ W eehawken_________ _________ ____ ______ Westfield_____________________________ ____ W est N ew Y o r k 10............................................. W est Orange___________ ____ __ ____ _____ W ildw ood_________________________________ W ood bridge______ ______ ________ ________ W oodbu ry________________________________ N ew Mexico: R aton ____ ____ ______ _______ ____________ Santa F e .............................................. ................ N ew York: Albany_________________ __________ _______ Amsterdam......................................................... Auburn_____ __ ____ ______________________ Batavia.............. ..................................... ............ Bronxville............................................................ Buffalo..........- ........ ........................................... Canandaigua........ ........................................... . Cedarhurst10- . .............................. ................... Corning........ ........... .......................................... Cortland............................ ................................. Dobbs F erry10................. ................................. Dunkirk.............................................. ............... Elmira » .............................................................. Fredonia............................................ ................. Garden C it y 10.................................................... Glen C o v e 10....................................................... Glens Falls *....................................................... Gloversville......................................................... Hastings ........................................................... Hempstead.......................................................... H om ell................................................................. Hudson................................................................ Hudson Falls...................................................... H untington19..................................................... Ithaca___________ ____ _____ _____ ______ Jamestown........ ............................................ . Kingston.............................................................. Lackawanna....... ................................................ Larchmont......................................................... Little Falls.......................................................... Lynbrook.............................................. .............. See footnotes at end of table. Population Number of parks Total park acreage Population Acres used to I acre for active of park recreation 1 1 9 4 4 1 0.5 5.0 63.0 39.0 8.5 33.0 90.6 43.5 10.0 12.0 6.0 75.4 15.0 65.5 10.0 170.5 38.8 104.4 .8 45.3 108.8 150.0 46.5 2.0 55.0 15.0 17.0 5.1 200.0 40.0 2.0 7.0 28.0 250.0 2.0 4.5 50.0 5.0 26.0 6.5 16.0 10.0 67.7 .8 1,379 1,473 389 196 25.0 6,960 1,719 ............20.0 3,495 44.6 993 137.5 535 5.0 1,533 6.0 1,247 283 569 10.0 642 750 88 11,403 10.0 331 19.1 13,103 455 579 20.0 924 35.0 929 18.0 2,705 627 T fifo 717 712 2,920 41 340 10.0 7,228 2,330 202 14.0 492 250.0 29,330 1,591 2.0 151 48.0 2,961 5.0 608 5,700 1,520 533 10.0 372 10.0 10,809 .8 6,090 11,176 2 3 1.6 5.0 127,412 34,817 36,652 17,375 6,387 573,076 7,541 5,065 15,777 15,043 5,741 17.802 47,397 5,814 7,180 11,430 18,531 23,099 7,097 12,650 16,250 12,337 6,449 16,820 20,708 45,155 28,088 23,948 5,282 11,105 11,993 14 4 10 10 10 172 8 250.0 131.0 38.4 3.4 2.5 1,605.8 38.5 4.0 38.0 6.0 7.0 67.6 76a 9 6.0 30.6 16.0 22.0 50.1 8.8 10.9 27.0 4.5 1.0 17.0 349.4 207.0 64.5 13.5 26.0 46.5 .3 6,894 7,365 24,568 7,656 59,261 56,733 316,715 40,716 5,350 18,399 7,481 21,321 8,548 42,017 7,500 15,197 442,337 34,555 9,760 20,572 62,959 138,513 43,516 5,411 34,422 10,764 12,188 14,915 8,255 13,630 14,456 16,513 5,669 123,356 58,659 7,161 7,556 14,807 15.801 37,107 24,327 5,330 25,266 8,172 1 4 25 13 2 3 1 2 5 66 18 1 6 24 8 5 3 3 2 1 11 2 5 2 7 2 2 9 23 2 2 8 II 2 9 2 20 27 4 6 1 9 21 3,730 2,288 509 126.0 266 955 ............18.9 510 4.0 2,560 358 193 30.0 1,266 413 ............12.‘ 6 2,507 820 263 ............25.0 *375.9 63 969 6.0 235 712 22.0 21.0 805 1,155 596 2,742 645 10.0 989 59 ..........328.2 218 64.5 435 25.0 13.5 1,770 10.0 203 238 46.5 3.998 68 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 T a b l e A . — Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1980, by States— Continued City and State N ew York—Continued. Malone........................ M am aroneck10.......... M edina..................... M ount Vernon........ Newburgh *8............. N ew Rochelle.......... N ew Y ork................. The Bronx____ Brooklyn........... Manhattan........ Queens............... Richm ond......... Niagara Falls........... North Tonawanda.. Ogdensburg.............. Oneonta.................... Ossining10................. Oswego...................... Peekskill................... Port C hester-........ . Poughkeepsie........... Rochester................. R y e ............................ Salamanca................ Saratoga Springs___ Searsdale................... Seneca Falls............. Solvay....................... Syracuse.................... T arrytow n10............ T ro y .......................... TJtica.......................... W atertown............... Wellsville.......... ....... W hite Plains w........ Yonkers.................... N orth Carolina: Asheville................... Burlington................ Charlotte.................. Durham.................... Fayetteville............. Gastonia................... Greensboro........... R ock y M ou nt_____ W ilm ington............. Winston-Salem........ North Dakota: D evils Lake............. Grand Forks............ M andan.................... Valley C ity.............. Ohio: A kron........................ Ashtabula................. B exley....................... Bowling Green........ Canton...................... C heviot____ ______ Cincinnati................ Cleveland..........— Cleveland Heights.. Columbus M............. Conneaut................. D ayton..................... D over........................ East Cleveland....... East Palestine......... Elyria....................... Fremont....... ............ Greenville.... ............ H am ilton................. Ironton...................... Lakewood................. L im a »....................... Mansfield................. See footnotes at end of table. Population N um ber of parks 8.667 11,766 10,637 6,071 61,499 31,276 54,000 6,930,446 1,265,258 2,560,401 1,867,312 1,079,129 168,346 76,460 19,019 16,915 12,636 15,241 22,652 17,125 22,662 40,288 328,132 8,712 9,577 13,169 9.690 6,443 7,986 209,326 6,841 72,763 101,740 32,205 5,674 35,830 134,646 1 6 6 12 15 103 331 77 112 98 29 15 37 10 11 4 12 6 4 13 60 2 8 2 9 4 2 99 6 27 12 2 19 Total park acreage 3.0 30.8 3.4 12.0 33.2 92.6 140.0 14,288.8 4,400. 0 3,407.4 1,802.4 2,379.0 2,300.0 400.0 59.5 57.5 155:0 14.5 20.2 80.0 50.0 119.2 1,863.6 10.0 56.0 30.0 57.4 4.0 26.0 720.0 11.0 229.4 719.1 204.4 10.5 26.8 80.0 Population Acres used to 1 acre for active of park recreation 2,888. 3.0 380 3,110 506 1,850 15.5 337 77.4 386 485 276 3,500.0 750 1,680.0 1,032 452 68 200.0 187 350.0 319 294 80 5.0 1,050 1,120 214 20.0 452 326 176 900.0 871 171 19.0 437 169 ............18.0 1,611 .3 307 2.0 290 98.6 622 317 141 157 540 10.5 1,336 1,680 10.0 50,193 9,737 82,675 52,037 13,049 17,093 53,569 21,412 32,270 75,274 11 2 7 4 1 1 25 7 6 59 335.8 10.0 310.0 74.7 149 973 267 697 335.8 3.0 300.0 6.0 20.0 480.0 20.0 315.0 353.0 850 111 1,070 102 213 10.0 10.0 18.0 112.0 5,451 17,112 5,037 5,268 1 7 2 2 40.0 208.0 120.5 30.0 138 82 42 176 30.0 255,040 23,301 7,396 47 4 2 1 12 1 101 56 1 87 1 49 2 2 2 3 16 1 42 5 3 2 513.8 9.4 7.9 59.0 222.1 12.0 3,162.4 3,160.1 180.0 1,080.5 13.5 1,252.0 2.0 12.3 4.0 131.0 30.0 28.5 255.0 3.0 45.5 97.0 102.0 497 2,480 935 113 469 670 142 285. 283 269 718 164 4,858 3,220 1,303 195 447 243 204 5,540 1,550 6,688 104,906 8,046 451,160 900,429 50,945 290,664 9.691 200,982 9,716 39.667 5,215 25.633 13,422 7,036 52,176 16,621 70,509 42,287 33,525 4 328 12.0 292.2 289.2 13.5 1,023.6 .- 5.3 90.0 12.0 16.0 97.0 12.0 69 GENERAL TABLES T a b l e A .— Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1980, by States— Continued. City and State Ohio—Continued. M arietta............ . Martins Ferry... Massillon............ Miamisburg....... M iddletow n____ Newark............... N orw ood............. Oakwood............. Paines ville.......... Parma.................. R avenna............. Reading............... St. M arys........... Salem................... Sandusky............ Shaker Heights.. S h elby............ . . Sidney................. Springfield.......... Steubenville....... Toledo................. Wapakoneta....... Warren................ Wells ville............ W ooster............... Xenia............... . Youngstown « . . . Zanesville............ Oklahoma: Anadarko............ Bristow________ Chickasha........... Durant................. El Reno— .......... E nid..................... Lawton..... .......... Oklahoma C ity.. Okmulgee______ Ponca C ity......... Sand Springs___ Tulsa_____ _____ Oregon: Albany................. Astoria................. Baker................... Bend........... ........ E ugen e8.............. Marshfield_____ M edford............... Oregon C ity........ Pendleton........... Portland-----------T he Dalles.......... Pennsylvania: Abington............. Allentown........... Altoona................ A valon................. Beaver Falls....... Bethlehem.......... Blairsville........... Bradford.............. Carlisle_________ Chambersburg.. Cheltenham____ Chester......... ....... Clairton............... Coatesville.......... Coraopolis........... E a s to n .._______ Ellwood C ity___ Emaus................. Erie............... ....... Freeland.............. Greensburg_____ Harrisburg.......... Hazleton.............. Huntingdon........ Jeannette............. Johnstown-_____ See footnotes at end of table. Population Number of parks 14,285 14,524 26,400 5,518 '29,992 30.596 33,411 6,494 10,944 13,899 8,019 5,723 5,433 35.0 3.0 134.1 8.0 71.0 12.0 19.0 5.0 78.0 15.5 .5 10.5 34.0 25.5 42.0 3.0 15.0 37.3 313.0 214.1 1.592.7 5.7 63.0 34.0 42.0 .5 1.710.8 43.0 10,622 24,622 17,783 6,198 9,301 68,743 35,422 290,718 5,378 41,062 7,956 10,742 10.507 170,002 36,440 5,036 6,619 14,099 7,463 9,384 26,399 50.0 200.0 62.0 12.0 12,121 185,389 17,097 16,136 6,674 141,258 5,325 10,349 7,858 8,848 18,893 5,287 11,007 5,761 6,621 301,815 5,883 18,648 92,563 82,054 5,940 17,147 57,892 5,296 19,306 12.596 13,788 15,731 59,164 15,291 14,582 10,724 34,468 12,323 6.419 115,967 7,096 16.508 80,339 36,765 7,558 15,126 66,993 Total park 56 6 9 1 161 3 10 2 8 1 3 12 3 4 56 2 3 8 16 1 10 11 1 4 2 2 2 3 1 4 1 11 2 2 13 1 3 6 1 1 1 8 45.0 292.5 4.027.0 3.410.0 137.0 175.0 .1 3,139.5 43.0 48.2 10.5 576.0 35.0 181.0 2.365.0 15.0 39.1 2.292.0 22.0 15.7 489.9 53.5 3.0 7.4 149.0 3.0 3.5 7.0 55.0 11.0 119.1 98.0 12.1 47.0 100.8 60.0 5.0 219.0 8.3 118.0 1.052.0 3.8 8.0 5.0 222.3 Population Acres used to 1 acre for active of park recreation 406 4,841 200 690 422 2,550 1,759 1,259 139 890 16,038 544 159 416 586 5,928 413 249 220 165 182 947 650 234 254 21,014 100 100 33 226 90 3 54 128 Q9 66,740 45 125 214 747 15 29 4 384 170 133 268 1,185 189 1,532 1,980 2,320 388 1,765 5,610 1.799 249 1,410 496 155 1,205 228 344 205 1,282 525 860 139 76 9.800 945 3,025 300 3.0 1.0 20.0 17.5 5.0 50.0 10.0 9.0 '15.6 3.0 18.0 225.0 113.3 5.7 4.0 36.0 .5 300.0 4.0 50.0 120.0 12.0 45.0 10.0 67.0 12.8 100.0 374.0 42.0 300.0 35.0 "T o 7.0 5.0 435.0 4.1 489.9 20.0 3.0 "149.0 2.0 1.0 12.1 10.0 219.0 3.0 4.0 7.0 70 PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 T a b l e A . — Park acreage in 898 municipalities unicipalities of c 5,000 and over, 19S0, by States— ~ ntii ' Continued. C ity and State Pennsylvania—Continued. Lancaster * ...................... Lehighton........................ Lock Haven.................... Lower M erion—............. M cKeesport.................... M eadville........................ Mechanicsburg............... M ilton .........................— M onongahela8________ Morristown...................... Nanticoke........................ N anty G lo....................... N ew Castle...................... Norristown...................... Oil C ity ............................ Philadelphia * ................ Pittsburgh » .................... Pottsville.......................... Rankin— ........................ Reading............................ Rochester......................... Scranton........................... Sharon.............................. Sharpsville....................... Steel ton............................ Taylor............................... Titusville......................... Tyrone............................. Vandergrift...................... Warren............................. W est Chester........... ....... W est Y o rk ....................... Wilkes-Barre................... W illiamsport................... Y ork .......................... ..... R hode Island: B ristol8............................ Cranston.......................... N ew p ort39....................... Providen ce40................... Warren........................... W oon sock et---............... South Carolina: Charleston « ................... Chester............................. Colum bia......................... Darlington....................... Florence........................... Greenville........................ N ew berry........................ Orangeburg...................... Spartanburg.................... U nion............................... South Dakota: Huron............................... Lead................................. M itchell........................... R apid C ity...................... Sioux Falls...................... W atertow n42................... Tennessee: Athens.............................. Bristol.............................. Chattanooga.................... Dyersburg....................... Harriman........................ H um boldt........................ Knoxville—...................... M em phis......................... Nashville— .................. Texas: Amarillo.................. ........ A ustin.............................. Beaumont................ ....... Bryan............................... Cisco......................... ...... Dallas............................... Denton............................. Eagle Pass....................... Bee footnotes at end of table. Population Num ber of parks Total park acreage Population Acres used to 1 acre for active recreation of park 59,949 6,490 9,668 35,166 ~ 54,632 16,698 5,647 8,552 8,675 5,368 26,043 5,598 48,674 35,853 22.075 1,950,961 669,817 24,300 7,956 111, 171 7,726 143,433 25, 908 5,194 13, 291 10,428 8.055 9,042 11,479 14,863 12,325 5,381 86,626 45,729 55,254 7 2 2 5 8 8 1 4 3 1 1 1 7 2 1 172 59 2 2 14 2 12 2 1 1 1 4 1 8 6 2 1 22 3 5 177.0 3.0 8.0 14.7 9.2 28.5 25.0 10.0 6.0 45.8 1.0 5.0 186.0 53.8 48.0 7,858.7 1,868.6 .5 9.0 599.6 5.0 221.1 5.5 1.0 12.0 5.0 10.5 5.0 20.0 70.0 10.0 1.0 360.0 180.0 67.0 117 26,043 1,119 262 670 458 248 358 45,850 234 185 1,545 647 4,690 5,194 1,107 2,085 767 1,808 573 213 1,232 5,381 242 252 825 11,953 42,911 27,612 252,981 7,974 49,376 1 4 17 89 3 4 2.0 6.5 54.3 1,108.0 9.8 109.0 6,600 509 252 813 452 62,265 5,528 51,581 5,556 14,774 29,154 7,298 8,776 28,723 7,419 19 1 10 1 2 7 2 2 16 3 549.7 40.0 188.7 5.0 29.5 329.0 12.0 20.0 286.1 10.0 113 138 274 1,111 501 89 608 438 100 742 ........ 10.0 23.0 9.0 10,946 5,733 10,942 10,404 33,362 10,214 7 1 10 3 11 87.0 5.0 200.0 19.8 470.4 125 1,147 55 527 71 7.0 6.0 190.0 2.0 306.8 5,385 12,005 119,798 8,733 5,500 5,700 105,802 253,143 153,866 1 1 26 3 5 3 20 33 23 2.0 6.0 486.0 40.0 25.0 15.0 298.0 1,359.7 3,217.1 2,692 2,001 243 218 220 380 355 186 48 43,132 53,120 57,732 7,814 6,027 260,475 9,587 £,059 6 32 21 3 3 61 674.0 199.5 766.0 14.0 150.0 6,202.0 24.0 1.0 64 267 75 558 40 42 399 5,059 3 1 339 2,163 1,208 2,390 5,920 583 226 855 177.0 14.7 12.0 20.0 6.0 6.0 1.0 3.0 147.9 53. 2.0 3 146.3 862.0 9.0 5.0 221.1 5.5 3.0 4.0 __ 7.0 5.0 9.0 1.0 300.0 67.0 2.0 6.0 3 7.1 458.0 _____ 50.0 199.9 5.0 29.5 20.0 -- 6.0 423.0 ___ 25.0 12.5 165.0 365.5 617.7 20.0 _ 12.0 __ 5,976.0 1.0 71 GENERAL TABLES T a b le A . - Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1980, by States— Continued C ity and State Texas—Continued. Fort W orth......... Galveston............ Greenville............ Highland P a rk .. Houston............... Huntsville........... Kingsville............ L u b b ock.............. Lufkin_________ Luling.................. Mercedes............. . M idland.............. . N ew Braunfels... Orange.......... ....... Port Arthur........ . San A n ton io43__ Sequin................... Sulphur Springs.. S w e e tw a te r ____ Taylor.................. . W aco.................... . W ichita F a lls..... Utah: Logan.................... P rovo................... . Salt Lake C it y ... Tooele.................. . Vermont: Barre..................... Brattleboro______ St. Albans............ St. Johnsbury___ Virginia: Bristol................... Charlottesville.... Clifton Forge____ Danville......... ...... L yn ch b u rg45....... Martinsville......... Newport N e w s ... Norfolk.................. Petersburg............ Portsmouth_____ Richm ond............. Roanoke................ Staunton............... Washington; Aberdeen.............. Anaeortes............. Bellingham........... Bremerton............ Oentralia............... Everett.................. Hoquiam............... Longview_______ Olympia................ Seattle................... Spokane................ Tacom a................. Walla Walla......... Wenatchee............ Yakim a................. West Virginia; Charleston............ Elkins.................... Grafton................. Huntington.......... Morgantown........ Wellsburg............. Wheeling.............. Wisconsin; Appleton............... Baraboo................. Beloit..................... Eau Clair®............ Fort Atkinson___ Green B ay............ Janesville.............. Kenosha................ La Crosse.............. See footnotes at end of table. opulation Number of parks Total park acreage Population Acres used to 1 acre for active of park recreation 163,447 52,938 12,407 8,422 292,352 5,028 6,815 20,520 7,311 5,970 6,608 5,484 6,242 7,913 50,902 231,542 5,225 5,417 10,848 7,463 52,848 43,690 42 5 2 33 44 1 4 6 4 6 1 3 7 1 24 93 5 1 3 1 12 15 4,300.0 219.0 55.0 46.0 2,700.0 5.0 4.6 75.0 90.0 135.0 1.5 7.2 30.0 4.0 130.4 2,739.4 7.0 72.0 125.0 90.0 698.0 600.0 9,979 14,766 140,267 5,135 2 6 24 2 55.0 250.0 4,156.2 15.5 181 58 34 331 3,000.0 7.5 11,307 8,709 8,020 7,920 8 5 3 2 600.0 7.0 113.0 3.0 18 1,244 72 2,640 10.0 .5 15.0 3.0 8,840 15,245 6,839 22,247 40,661 7,705 34,417 129,710 28,564 45,704 182,929 69,206 11,990 3 5 1 3 9 2 2 30 9 5 27 7 4 6.2 113.3 18.0 109.0 118.0 16.0 70.0 368.2 1,006.0 170.0 884.3 110.0 163.0 1,463 139 379 203 345 481 492 338 29 269 206 629 73 21,723 6,564 30,823 10,170 8,058 30,567 12,766 10,652 11,733 365,583 115,514 106,817 15,976 11,627 22,101 13 5 26 4 4 5 5 1 3 152 45 20 5 6 10 51.3 1,275.0 263.0 35.0 48.1 160.5 3.0 3.3 264.0 2,559.0 2,430.0 1,450.0 75.0 23.6 69.3 423 15.3 5 117 13.0 288 4.0 167 10.0 190 4,255 1.0 3,260 44 10.0 145 600.0 48 485.0 73 1,190.0 212 — _____ 492 17.0 319 3.5 60,408 7,345 7,737 75,572 16,186 6,398 61,659 15 1 2 30 3 1 5 27.0 6.0 10.0 225.0 60.4 2.0 1,93.0 2,220 1,224 774 336 268 3,199 69 25,267 5,545 23,611 26,287 5,793 37,415 21,628 50,262 39,614 7 2 27 13 7 12 9 27 11 136.0 25.0 283.1 364.0 27.2 334.5 327.0 422.5 634.3 185 221 83 72 213 112 66 119 62 38 100.0 242 10.0 226 30.0 183 40.9 108 900.0 1,006 1,480 273 81 2.0 44 135.0 4,400 _ 760 To 208 ____ 1,978 ............4.0 392 17.0 84 352.4 746 4.0 75 86 ..........l66."6 82 35.0 76 65.5 73 600.0 5.3 12.0 19.0 6.0 ’ "357.2 5.0 170.0 73.3 35.0 150.0 26.0 6.0 5.0 4.5 893.0 136.0 5.0 200.0 9.0 21.0 46.7 312.0 211.2 72 T able PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 A .—Park acreage in 898 municipalities of 5,000 and over, 1980, by States— Continued i C ity and State um ber |Population N of parks W isconsin—Continued. Marshfield........................................................... Menasha.............................................................. Menomonie......................................................... M errill................................................................. ! 1 M onroe ________________________________1 Neenah................................................................. Oconto................................................................. Oshkosh............................................................... Portage _________ - - _____________________ 1 Racine..................................................................!i Rhinelander........................................................ Rice Lake.....................- ..................................... Sheboygan........................................................... Shorewood................. .................... - ................. Superior ______ __________________________ T w o Rivers____ - _________________________ W atertown________________________________ Wausau................................................................ Wauwatosa.................................... .................... West Allis........................................................... j Whitefish B ay.................................................... ! Wisconsin Rapids________________ __ _____ j W yom ing; Cheyenne_________________________________ ! Laramie............................................................... ! R ock Springs______________________________ ! Sheridan.............................................................. ! Total park acreage Population Acres used for active to 1 acre recreation of park 134 70 125.0 139 35.0 103 55.0 26 328.0 464 2,000 269 8.0 503 5.0 50.0 178 315 113 125.0 20.0 178 ___________ __________ 35.6 174 225.3_ 864 15.5 11.0 276 131.7 95.3 105 504 21.0 107.4 162 146.3 20.0 422 50.0 10.0 16.0 2,180 255 21.0 21.0 62 140.0 22,963 8,778 9,062 5,595 8,458 578,249 5,015 9,151 5,030 40,108 6,308 67,542 8,019 5,177 39,251 13,479 36,113 10,083 10,613 23,758 21,194 34,671 5,362 8,726 9 3 14 5 4 63 1 5 1 9 6 20 2 3 36 15 8 13 8 23 2 3 3 13 171.6 125.0 65.0 55.0 328.0 1,292.4 2.5 34.0 10.0 225.0 20.0 599.9 45.0 17,361 8,609 8,440 8,536 5 4 11 7 606.0 90.0 23.0 64.5 28 95 367 134 10.0 20.0 1Including 12 areas totaling 22.8 acres under recreation department. 2Including 51 areas totaling 164.6 acres under playground and recreation department. * Recreation acreage not reported b y park department. 4Including 19 areas totaling 528.6 acres under recreation department. ‘ Including 10 areas totaling 75 acres under recreation department. 6Including 33 areas totaling 136.2 acres under playground commission. 7Information submitted b y the Colorado Association; includes 10,987.5 acres in 44 mountain parks. 8N o park report received. Figures represent areas under recreation department. 9Including 5 areas totaling 24 acres under recreation department. *° N o park report received. Acreage reported b y Regional Plan Association (Inc.) of New York. 11Including 4 areas totaling 161 acres under recreation commission. m N o park report received. Acreage reported b y Regional Plan Association (Inc.) of N ew York, includ ing 1 area of 30 acres under recreation commission. 13Including 1 area of 400 acres under Mohegan Park Commission. h Including 3 areas totaling 13.5 acres under recreation department. u Including 1 area of 1.5 acres under recreation commission and 1 area of 720 acres under Bacon Park Commission. 18Including 4 areas totaling 69 acres under recreation department, w N o park report received. Acreage reported b y Chicago Regional Planning Association. 18Including 5 areas totaling 12 acres under playground board. 19Including 3 areas totaling 10 acres under recreation department. 20N o park report received. Acreage reported b y Chicago Regional Planning Association, including 3 areas totaling 11 acres under recreation department. 21 Including 17 areas totaling 36.6 acres under playground community service commission, 1 area of 1,426.7 acres under city park association, and 53 areas totaling 143 acres under parking commission. 22Including 3 areas totaling 33 acres under recreation department. 28Including 39 areas totaling 547.1 acres under recreation department. 24Including 1 area of 34 acres under recreation commission. 28Including 1 area of 530 acres under Ella Sharp Park Board. 28Including 1 area of 4 acres under recreation department. 27Including 4 areas totaling 21 acres under recreation commission. “ Including 5 areas totaling 30 acres under recreation department. 29Including 8 areas totaling 37.5 acres under recreation department. 80Including 4 areas totaling 14 acres under recreation department. 81N o park report received. Acreage reported b y Regional Plan Association (Inc.) of New York, includ ing 10 areas totaling 30 acres under recreation department. 82Including 16 areas totaling 375.9 acres under recreation commission. 88Including 4 areas totaling 51 acres under recreation department. 84Including 18 areas totaling 156.1 acres under recreation department. 88Including 1 park of 1,278 acres under township park board. 88Including 3 areas totaling 17 acres under recreation association. 87Including 43 areas totaling 146.3 acres under bureau of recreation and 96 areas totaling 268.5 acres under bureau of city property. 88Including 41 areas totaling 162 acres under bureau of recreation. 88Including 2 areas totaling 7.1 acres under board of recreation commissioners. * Including 30 areas totaling 108 acres under recreation department. 41Including 1 area of 115 acres under municipal golf committee. 42Number and acreage of parks not reported. 48Including 20 areas totaling 339.4 acres under recreation department. 44N ot including 2 areas totaling 2,556 acres owned b y the city for impounding water but used for recre ation. 48Including 3 areas totaling 17 acres under recreation department. 73 GENERAL TABLES T able B.— Cities reporting no parks, 1980, by States Alabama: New Jersey: Alabama City. Audubon. Homewood. Bergenfield. Lanett. Caldwell. Opelika. Cranford. Arizona: Globe. Dumont. Arkansas: Gloucester. Conway. Guttenberg. Van Buren. Haddonfield. California: Hawthorne. Hawthorne. Highland Park. Maywood. Hillside. Orange. Lodi. San Gabriel. Manville. South Gate. Morris Plains. Colorado: North Bergen. Englewood. Paulsboro. Walsenburg. Pennsgrove. Connecticut: Pensauken. Southington, Princeton. Windsor. Prospect Park. Georgia: Roselle. Lagrange. Roselle Park. Sayreville. Moultrie. Illinois: South Amboy. Beardstown. South Plainfield. South River. Carbondale. Harrisburg. New Mexico: Gallup. New York: Madison. Baldwin. Zion. Beacon. Indiana: West Lafayette. Kentucky: Kenmore. Nyack. Catlettsburg. Frankfort. Tupper Lake. North Carolina: Harlan. Asheboro. Hazard. Canton. Jenkins. Elizabeth City. Winchester. Henderson. Louisiana: Opelousas. Lenoir. Maine: Morganton. Brewer. Reids ville. Presque Isle. Shelby. Maryland: Annapolis. Thomasville. Massachusetts: Agawam. Washington. Wilson. Auburn. Ohio: East Weymouth. Berea. Foxboro. Randolph. Bridgeport. Coshocton. Tewksbury. Euclid. Michigan: Garfield Heights. Berkley. Jackson. Dowagiac. Kent. Ferndale. Maple Heights. Hillsdale. Nelsonville. Ishpeming. New 3oston. Lincoln Park. Uhrichs ville. Monroe. Wellston. St. Clair Shores. Wilmington. Mississippi: Greenwood. Pennsylvania: Missouri: Aliquippa. Columbia. Bangor. Kirkwood. Berwick. Maryville. Blakely. Warrensburg. Brackenridge. Webster Grove. Pennsylvania—Contd. Braddock. Centerville. Charleroi. Collingdale. Conenaugh. Crafton. Darby. Dickson City. Ephrata. Frackville. Franklin. Jersey Shore. Kulpmont. Landsdowne. Larksville. Latrobe. Lewistown. McAdoo. Media. Millvale. Minersville. Oakmont. Old Forge. Pottstown. St. Clair. St. Marys. Shenandoah. Throop. Uniontown. Upper Darby. Westview. Yeadon. Rhode Island: Barrington. BurrillviUe. Coventry. Warwick. Westerly. West Warwick. South Carolina: Anderson. Hartsville. Laurens. Tennessee: Columbia. Kingsport. Rockwood. Springfield. Texas: Longview. Vermont: Bennington. Winooski. Virginia: Covington. Harrisonburg. Waynesboro. Winchester. West Virginia: Beckley. Keyser. Richwood. Weirton. Weston. T a b l e C .— Recreation facilities and buildings in cities of 10,000 and over, 1980, by States C ity and State 1 1 2 1 12 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 ARIZONA Phoenix....................................................... ARKANSAS Fort Sm ith_____________ _____________ Little R ock ................................................. 1 r> 3 1 1 1 6 2 5 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 7 2 11 1 12 1 4 1 12 1 7 2 4 11 1 1 41 2 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 44 3 12 2 2 1 10 6 1 4 * 1 1 2 1 ______ i______ 5 2 1 25 2 4 10 18 8 1 24 6 1 5 13 66 1 8 14 1 2 1 1 5 16 2 1 2 14 1 5 7 2 1 1 12 1 1 3 14 11 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 1 6 1 2 8 4 7 1 2 7 1 2 4 1 3 1 1 i 1 i 4 2 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 IN 1930 1 1 1 AREAS _______________ __________ 3 1 1 1 2 3 1 CALIFORNIA Alameda_____________________________ 4 A n a h e i m _______________ Bakersfield Berkeley_____________________________ 1 2 1 Beverly H ills_________________________ I Brawley___________. . . ________________ 1 Burbank ___ _ _ _ ! Burlingame___ _______________________i______ Eureka_______________________________t _____ Fresno: | Park danartment Recreation department___________ 10 Glendale _ _i Huntington Park_____ _______________i ______ Long Beach__________ _______________i _____ Los Angeles: j Park denartment Playground and recreation de partment_______________________ 1 « M odesto__________ __________. ___„ ____i Oakland: Park department_________________ 3 Recreation department _ _ _ _ Ontario Palo Alto I l Pasadena - - - __ „ _____________________ j Redlands 16 4 6 7 RECREATION Band stands PARK ALABAMA. Birmingham _________________________ Fairfield...................................................... M obile_____ __________________________ M on tg om ery __________ Selma________________ ____ ' Base Chil Minia Recre Golf Golf IceTour ball Bathing Boat dren's Dance ation Sta Swim Tennis Tobog gan courses, courses, skating ture Picnic ist dia beaches houses play pavil places build diums ming courts slides golf ions 9-hole 18-hole rinks camps pools monds grounds courses ings A th letic fields 98621°—32- Riverside____________________ Sacramento_________________ San Bernardino........................ San Buenaventura____ _____ San Diego: Park department..... ........ Recreation departm ent... San Francisco: Park department.............. Playground commission.. San Jose____________________ San Leandro_____ ____ _____ San M ateo............. ................... Santa Barbara______________ Santa C ru z ............................... Santa M onica............... ............ South Pasadena........................ S tock ton ......................... .......... W hittier..................................... 1 15 15 11 14 .... 1 30 1 2 2 19 12 1 2 2 17 2 2 26 45 11 2 2 6 --2 10 .... 4 63 5 4 GENERAL 4 1 22 TABLES 27" 3 30 COLORADO 1 1 1 Colorado Springs.. D e n v e r ................. Fort Collins........... Grand Ju n ction ... Pueblo.................... Trinidad............... 38 3 21 1 4 9 100 5 8 12 2 CONNECTICUT Ansonia: Recreation department........ Bridgeport................................................ East Hartford............................................ Fairfield___________ __________________ H artford______ ______________________ Manchester_____ ______ _____________ Meriden: Park department. ........................... . Recreation department............. ...... M ilfo rd .—................................................ . N ew B ritain............................................. . N ew H aven.............................................. . N ew London.......... .............................. . Norwalk: Recreation department____ N orw ich............ ............................... ........ Shelton...................................................... . Stamford____________ ________________ Torrington.................................. ............. Wallingford................................................ W aterbury................................... ........... . West Hartford.......................................... West H aven.............................................. 11 2 10 1 23 5 1 17 22 2. 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 ..... 17 21 9 18 1 <1 Ox T a b le •<1 O C.— Recreation facilities and buildings in cities of 10,000 and over, 1930, by States— Continued C ity and State A th letic fields Band stands Base Chil Recre Golf Golf Ice- Minia ball Bathing Boat dren’s Dance Sta Swim Tennis Tobog Tour pavil courses, courses, skating ture Picnic ation ist golf build diums ming courts gan dia beaches houses play places ions 9-hole 18-hole rinks courses slides camps pools grounds ings monds DELAWARE 1 18 2 28 20 2 5 10 W ashington__________________________ FLORIDA Jacksonville__________________________ Orlando______________________________ St. Augustine_____ — ________________ Sanford_______________________________ Tallahassee___________________________ Tam pa: Park department_________ - ______ Recreation department___________ 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 1 12 G 1 1 1 1 1 4 18 4 2 75 1 7 2 1 2 1 24 5 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 | 3 3 4 a 3 7 3 I I 1 1 4 2 12 1 34 4 3 4 3 1 ! 3 3 1 I 6 1 i........... 1 2 1 1 1 11 1 57 8 4 5 9 2 4 1 IDAHO . . . . . . . ___ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ___ _____________ - ___________ ILLINOIS A lton: Park d ep a rtm en t_____ . . . . . . . . . __ Recreation department Aurora ____. . . . . _ . . . . _ Belleville Cairo Canton _ ....... Centralia: Recreation department------ 11 4 1 1 2 1 IN 1930 Boise Pocatello 10 2 1 3 1 5 1 1 1 1 2 4 2 3 3 5 6 3 1 2 1 3 3 2 2 1 4 12 1 12 1 1 4 8 12 1 1 4 1 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 i 1 AREAS GEORGIA A t la n t a ____________________________ A u g u s t a ______—____________________ B ru n sw ick _________________________ C o lu m b u s ___________________________ M aeon__ _____________ _______________ Savannah* Park department___________ _____ Bacon Park Commission_________ Recreation department___________ V a ld o s ta _- _____________________ ____ 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 RECREATION 3 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PARK W ilm ington, ....................................... 4 5 2 1 4 7 4 1 1 i 30 37 1 9 6 12 1 8 3 1 5 5 c> 1 4 1 3 3 2 5 ............. I............ 1 ............. !............ 4 1 ______ 1 5 3 1 1 1 2 11 11 1 4 2 1 3 1 4 1 1 5 1 3 2 1 ______ ! 1 18 16 2 1 4 1 5 4 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3 4 25 15 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 13 1 4 1 5 3 1 2 6 3 2 7 4 4 2 4 7 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 6 1 i ! 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 1 16 4 18 398 128 1 3 1 7 2 6 9 1 16 1 13 1 1 1 14 8 6 14 2 6 10 2 5 2 9 2 28 12 6 2 4 1 2 15 2 2 48 6 40 1 1 5 3 16 63 1 15 14 1 1 2 2 40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 1 1 1 7 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 1 1 INDIANA Bedford: Recreation commission. Bloom ington..................................... Crawfordsville..................... ........... East Chicago..................................... 1 4 1 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 2 24 1 1 1 TABLES 1 1 6 4 1 16 23 16 3 6 3 1 9 4 3 GENERAL Chicago: Bureau of parks, recreation, a n d aviation________________________ Calumet Park district______ ____ _ Edison Park district....................... . Irving Park district______________ Lincoln Park district_____________ Northwest Park district____ ____ _ N orwood Park district........ ........... Old Portage Park............................ . Ridge Avenue Park d istrict......... . R iver Park district........................... South Park commissioners............. W est Park district............................ Chicago Heights....................................... Cicero: Cicero Park district........................ . C lyde Park district.......................... Hawthorne Park district_________ Decatur.................................................... . East M oline............................................. . East St. Louis______________________ _ E lgin.......................................................... . Elm hurst.................................................. . E vanston......................................... .......... Galesburg.................................................. Highland Park.......................................... Joliet.......................................................... . Kankakee................................................... Kewanee........... ........................................ M ayw ood .................................................. M oline....................................................... . Oak Park: Park district..................................... . Playground board............................. Park R idge............................................... . Peoria: Park district..................................... . Recreation department.................. R ockford................................................... . R ock Island.............................................. Springfield................................................ Sterling-Rock Falls__________________ Streator..................................................... Urbana...................................................... . W aukegan: Recreation departm ent... T a b l e C .— Recreation facilities and buildings in cities of 10,000 and over, 1930, by States— Continued A th letic fields C ity and State 00 Recre M inia Chil Base Swim Tennis Tobog Tour IceGolf Golf Dance Sta Band ball Bathing Boat dren’s pavil courses, courses, skating ture Picnic ation gan ist courts slides camps build diums ming places golf play stands dia beaches houses pools 18-hole rinks courses 9-hole ions ings grounds monds Indiana —continued ........ 6 5 1 2 1 1 8 1 2 7 9 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 __ KANSAS Coffeyville D odge C ity N ewton Pittsburg Salina Topeka W ichita....................................................... 2 1 1 1 11 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 1 g 2 1 1 1 1 8 5 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 2 5 11 4 4 1 2 4 3 6 1 1 1 1 2 5 3 1 1 1 4 2 8 8 3 1 1 1 1 2 7 3 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 4 5 8 2 32 1 3 2 1 4 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 3 14 56 14 16 6 76 2 19 2 5 1 10 10 31 4 1 1 1 3 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 50 17 5 15 10 6 1 1 1 1 2 1 8 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 212 6 1 1 1 5 5 4 3 2 4 32 12 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 1 2 2 1 8 5 1 1 2 1 8 1 1 1 1 • 3 IN 1930 __ _ ____ _ 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 4 1 AREAS _ 4 12 15 6 12 3 46 I 1 2 « _ 1 8 1 1 1 IOWA Ames Boone Cedar Rapids Davenport D es Moines D ubuque Fort Dodge Iowa C ity Keokuk M ason C ity Muscatine N ewton Oskaloosa Sioux C ity W aterloo 2 6 8 9 10 1 23 1 RECREATION K okom o La Porte N ew A lbany N ewca stle South Bend Terre Haute Vincennes 1 4 PARK Elkhart C ovington. Louisville.. P a d u ca h ... 8 1 7 1 1 1 6 2 6 12 66 1 1 6 6 1 24 1 21 2 8 6 LOUISIANA Alexandria..................................... ............ M onroe............... ..... .......... ...................... N ew Orleans: C ity Park Improvement Associa tion.................................................. . Playground com m unity service commission..................................... Shreveport............................— . . . . ____ 2 6 1 1 1 17 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 12 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 8 1 1 1 1 MARYLAND 19 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 24 8 1 1 6 104 1 6 2 2 1 3 MASSACHUSETTS A thol: Recreation commission_____ B e lm o n t................................................ Beverly........................ ......................... . Boston............. ............ ......................... . Braintree___________________________ Brockton........... ................................... Cambridge............................................ . Chelsea................... —............................ Chicopee................. ............................... Danvers....... .............................. ........... E asth a m p ton ....................................... Everett: Playground com m ission.... Fall R iver............................................. . Fitchburg.............................................. . Framingham............... .......................... Gardner______ ____________________ Gloucester: Recreation department................ Park commission........................... Greenfield: Recreation commission.. Haverhill__________________________ H olyoke_______ . . . . . ___. . . . . _______ 5 1 12 2 1 57 3 11 17 2 1 1 27 6 1 1 14 13 86 5 1 2 3 1 8 9 9 4 4 1 3 2 1 1 2 4 2 2 1 1 4 1 5 1 4 5 5 i 1 2 4 6 6 13 1 1 1 4 2 1 5 2 3 7 2 2 1 1 1 1 TABLES Baltimore.............................................. Cum berland.......................................... Frederick: Playground commission.. Hagerstown............................................ GENERAL Augusta___ P ortla n d ... Sanford___ W aterville. 1 1 T a b l e C .— Recreation facilities and buildings in cities of 10,000 and over, 1930, by States— Continued C ity and State A th letic fields Band stands 1 3 4 9 1 2 1 1 2 Chil Base Tobog Tour Golf Ice- Minia Picnic Recre Golf ation Sta Swim Tennis gan ball Bathing Boat dren’s Dance ist pavil courses, courses, skating ture golf places build diums ming dia beaches houses play pools courts slides camps 18-hole rinks courses ions 9-hole ings grounds monds Massachusetts—continued I 1 25 2 10 3 14 4 1 1 1 4 2 3 14 1 1 3 g 3 2 4 3 2 3 20 1 1 1 23 16 9 10 2 2 1 13 1 5 1 1 1 6 1 I 1 2 2 1 8 33 10 22 7 4 1 2 1 20 1 2 1 2 o 5 2 4 2 1 2 19 1 13 10 20 1 3 1 3 1 1 5 7 18 12 2 2 1 1 8 2 5 2 2 2 3 1 I 3 13 2 1 1 24 17 9 19 7 150 6 21 17 3 1 2 8 1 1 1 1 8 3 1 4 1 10 7 4 2 42 1 3 6 4 7 27 2 2 6 1 5 8 45 47 19 25 1 1 1 3 2 1 6 5 1 4 12 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 4 4 12 1 1 1 MICHIGAN B ay C ity Detroit: Recreation department Park department Flint . _______ _______________ Grand Rapids __ _________ __ _ _ Hamtram ck Holland lronw ood.................................................... 9 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 2 12 4 3 1 2 1 1 4 1 1 IN 1930 4 1 2 9 5 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 AREAS 1 2 1 5 4 8 7 6 1 RECREATION 1 1 2 3 3 l 3 6 2 7 14 11 7 4 4 1 8 PARK _______ Lawrence __ _________ _ Lowell____ _________________________ "Lynn , ,, M alden______________________________ Melrose______________________________ M ilton_______________ _ N eedham _____________ ___________ N ew Bedford „ ___ N ew bury p o r t __ ______ _ _______ N ewton: Playground commission _ North Adam s___ _____________________ N orwood _________________________ _ Pittsfield ___ Plym outh _ ___ ! Q u in c y ____ ___________ Revere __ __ _ 1 S a le m __ ________________________ Somerville _______- ________________ Springfield Stoneham _ _____ Wakefield ______ ____________ _ W altham ______________ ___ i W atertown __ _ i W elleslev - _______________________ _____ _____ W eym outh Winchester ____ _____________ W in th r o p _______________________ W obu rn. __ __ ___________________ W orcester__________________________ Jackson: Park department___ Ella W. Sharp Park.. Kalamazoo___________ 5 “Lansing___________ 25 Marquette............... ..... Mount Clemens_______ Niles............................ Pontiac. ............... ........ Port Huron............... ... Saginaw................ ........ Ypsilanti....................... MINNESOTA 2 4 1 45 2 28 13 11 1 1 ~Z2 5 34 2 1 13 9 60 1 34 1 16 3 11 150 111 1 10 3 4 1 5 10 Cape Girardeau.. Joplin— - ......... . Kansas City...... Moberly........... . St. Charles____ St. Joseph_____ St. Louis______ Sedalia________ Springfield____ .... 1 11 2 1 41 2 2 34 3 9 1 9 600 ..... 2 5 110 1 12 1 TABLES Biloxi........ Greenville.. Jackson__ Laurel....... Natchez__ 7 ~32_ GENERAL Albert Lea... Duluth........ Hibbing....... Minneapolis. St. Cloud___ St. Paul____ Virginia........ 4 20 3 Great Falls.. Missoula__ NEBRASKA Beatrice..___ Grand Island. Lincoln.......... Norfolk.......... North Platte— Omaha______ 11 1 35 16 18 5 OO T a b l e C .— Recreation facilities and buildings in cities of 10,000 and over, 1980, by States— Continued A th letic fields C ity and State Band stands Chil Dance Recre Base Tobog Tour Golf Golf Ice- Minia Sta Swim Picnic ation ball Bathing Boat dren’s pavil courses, courses, skating ture ist ming Tennis gan build diums pools courts slides camps golf places dia beaches houses play 18-hole rinks courses ions 9-hole ings grounds monds NEVADA R eno__________ ____ . Clarem ont__ _________________________ C oncord___________ D over________________ Keene_________ Laconia___ __ * Manchester_____ __________. . . . _ N a sh u a.. _ 4 1 1 1 12 1 i 4 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 9 1 2 2 1 3 2 9 12 4 3 4 8 1 1 7 1 1 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 i 2 2 1 1 NEW JERSEY 4 1 1 2 2 1 10 21 5 1 4 7 7 1 3 10 4 3 1 i 5 3 2 1 4 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 2 5 25 1 3 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 4 4 4 3 6 3 1 1 9 2 6 ! 11 !.............. 23 6 16 6 4 4 5 3 4 21 1 1 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 i Passaic Paterson Perth A m b oy Plainfield: Recreation commission-----South Orange . - ... ... Trenton-------------- -— ------------------------- 2 i 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 1 1 9 9 12 15 10 1 1 2 12 20 ______ _____ _ 35 IN 1930 Tfonraatinrt r io n o rfrn o n t P a r t ^ A n a rh n A n t 2 3 2 AREAS Atlantic C ity _ _ Bayonne Belleville* Recreation department Bloom field: Recreation commission Department of public grounds Bridgeton Camden East Orange: Board of recreation com missioners Elizabeth _ E n g lew ood -__ . . . ...... Irvmgton . ..... . . . . . . Jersey C ity Kearny* Recreation commission IjQng Branch M orristown N ewark N ew Brunswick: RECREATION 2 PARK ..._ NEW HAMPSHIRE W eehaw ken.. W estfield____ W est Orange.. W oodbridge— 24 1 1 21 1 65 .... 11 4 2 23 .... .... 3 ..... .... 1 L. "T i 24 40 35 24 10 .... * 5 1 ’ l6‘ 36 16 7 10 13 12 12 81 395 46 38 14 28 7 5 6 1 2 1 8 10 4 4 4 2 I ’ l7~|........ 5 3 12 1 !....... ...J 2 1 3 1 4 12 TABLES 24 GENERAL NEW YORK A lb a n y............................................... ...... A m sterd a m .......................................... A uburn............................................ ....... Batavia.................................................... Buffalo..................................................... Corning......................... ........................ D u nkirk____________________________ Elmira: Recreation commission............. ... Park commission............................ Glens Falls: Recreation commission. Gloversville............................................ Hornell..................................................... H udson.................................................... Ithaca....................................................... Jamestown............... ........... ................. Kingston.................................................. Lackawanna.......... ............................... Little Falls...................................... ....... Massena.................................................. M ou nt Vernon..................................... . Newburgh: Recreation com m ission.. N ew Rochelle........................................ N ew Y ork C ity: Bronx____________ ______________ B rooklyn___________ ____ ______ Manhattan_____________________ Queens.............................................. R ichm ond....................................... Niagara Falls.......................................... Oneonta................................................... Oswego..................................................... Peekskill.................................................. Port Chester........................................... Poughkeepsie.......................................... Rochester................................................ Syracuse.................................................. Tonawanda.............................................. T roy ......................................................... . U tica_______________________________ W atertown_________________________ Yonkers_____________________________ 10 7 6 2 6 10 22 4 21 25 00 CO T a b l e C .— Recreation facilities and buildings in cities of 10,000 and over, 19301 by States— Continued C ity and State A th letic fields Band stands 2 4 1 2 Recre Chil Dance Base Tobog Tour Golf Ice- M inia Golf Sta Swim ball Bathing Boat dren’s pavil courses, courses, skating ture Picnic ation ist ming Tennis gan build diums pools courts slides camps places golf houses play dia beaches 9-hole 18-hole rinks courses ions ings grounds monds NORTH CAROLINA 2 4 1 1 5 2 10 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 5 7 5 19 1 9 2 1 1 1 1 ............. t.............. ! 1 1 2 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 12 2 1 4 6 3 5 8 32 1 11 3 1 1 NORTH DAKOTA Grand Forks .................... 1 1 1 1 3 P a in A S v ille 1 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 14 2 4 55 11 3 1 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 73 14 2 4 1 1 1 5 1 8 7 1 1 27 21 3 1 2 7 3 2 35 2 2 5 7 1. 1 1 2 2 ! 1 3 1 3 3 1 i 2 2 1 6 3 ______ !________ 1 o i 4 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 1 1 3 9 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 7 79 6 1 45 53 1 6 5 3 9 4 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 Rati r in s lrv Springfield Steubenville . . . . . Toledo ... ... ... . ...... Warren_______________________________ 1 2 1 4 1 3 1 5 19 3 1 1 1 4 2 5 22 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 9 1 4 4 7 3 1 8 6 2 31 10 2 2 1 1 1 IN 1930 Akron Canton Cincinnati Cleveland Cleveland Heights . Columbus D ayton ...... East Cleveland Elyria Fremont Hamilton . Lakewood Lima* Recreation department Mansfield Marietta Massillon M iddletow n Norwood 1 AREAS 13 OHIO RECREATION 1 1 2 1 14 3 PARK W"inston-Salem 2 3 1 2 2 15 3 1 2 6 W ooster_________ . . . _____________ Youngstown: Township park com m ission.. Park department...................... Zanesville_________ ______________ 8 10 2 36 OKLAHOMA Chickasha______ E nid___________ Law ton................ Oklahoma C ity . Okmulgee........... Ponca C ity _____ Tulsa__________ 3 10 3 4 13 8 173 4 24 3 5 27 OREGON 2 1 1 1 5 5 24 13 59 PENNSYLVANIA 12 2 21 14 1 2 1 .... 1 10 2L 1 1 3 11 4 TABLES A llentow n_______________________ A ltoona______ ____________________ Bethlehem________ _______________ Bradford____ _____________________ Carlisle................................................. Chester................................................ Clairton____ ______________________ Coates ville........ ..................... ............ Easton.......................... .............. ......... E llw ood C ity ........ ........... ........... . Erie...................... ................................ Harrisburg........................................... Johnstown_________ ______________ Lancaster: . Recreation Association_______ Park departm ent..................... Lower M erion____________________ Meadville_____________ ___________ Nanticoke____________ ____________ N ew Castle........................................ N orristown......................................... Oil C ity ............................................... Philadelphia: Bureau of recreation__________ Bureau of city property______ Fairmount Park Comm ission. Pittsburgh: Bureau of recreation__________ Bureau of parks_______ . . . ____ GENERAL Astoria........... . .................................. . Eugene: Playground commission. M edford............................................. . Portland............... ............................. ‘ l2' 10 8 11 12 4 1 29 .... 1 1 30 3 24 4 14 18 10 ~~2 "75‘ .... 33 5 00 Ol T a b l e C .— Recreation facilities and buildings in cities of 10,000 and over, 1980, by States— Continued C ity and State A th letic fields Band stands Chil Base Swim Tennis Tobog Tour Ice- Minia Picnic Recre Golf Golf ation Sta ball Bathing Boat dren’s Dance gan ist ming pavil courses, courses, skating ture places build diums pools courts slides camps golf dia beaches houses play ions 9-hole 18-hole rinks ings courses grounds monds PENNS YLVANIA—continued 1 5 2 2 1 1 2 1 5 3 12 1 3 2 2 2 1 12 3 5 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 6 4 2 5 1 1 1 1 19 1 9 1 1 RHODE ISLAND 1 1 1 5 4 1 2 7 5 1 4 2 16 10 1 3 1 5 3 a i 1 x 4 2 1 l i i 1 1 1 1 5 4 1 4 1 1 9 5 1 1 4 26 4 20 7 1 2 1 1 2 27 37 4 8 20 3 3 1 IN 1930 1 AREAS Bristol! Recreation department Cranston ___ ____ ______________ Newport: Board of recreation._____ ________ Park commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ Providence: Board of recreation . _____ _ r Board of park commissioners ___ W oonsocket ......... SOUTH CAROLINA Charleston: M unicipal golf co m m itte e _______ Board of parks and playgrounds Columbia ____ _ __________ Florence_____. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __________ Greenville . _ Spartanburg 1 1 5 10 1 6 7 1 10 10 3 1 1 4 2 1 1 3 1 6 7 6 SOUTH DAKOTA Huron M itchell R apid C ity Sioux Falls . ______ .. . ... 3 2 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 6 9 5 RECREATION Warren____ ______ __ _______ W est Chester ______ __ _______ Wilkes-Barre ___ _ Williamsport ___ _ ____ _____ York ___ __ ______. . . ___ _______ 2 1 PARK R id in g . . . . . . ficr«ntnn ..... .. ....... .. _ T aylor_______________ ________________ 1 1 TENNESSEE 3 Chattanooga. Knoxville____ M em phis____ N ashville------ 3 6 7 10 48 5 3' 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 6 2 8 4 54 42 2 2 7 1 1 1 3 2 2 I 1 9 1 1 1 1 1 5 3 2 1 3 2 5 15 1 1 1 1 1 5 26 7 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 10 3 3 28 4 1 3 1 1 8 7 1 1 2 18 6 29 32 6 6 13 72 25 "Y 33 4 9 12 UTAH Provo.................. Salt Lake C ity.. 1 2 8 2 1 TABLES Barre. 1 3 VIRGINIA D anville........................................ Lynchburg: Recreation department___ Park forestry department Newport N ews............................ N orfolk........................................ Petersburg.................................... Portsmouth_______ ___________ R ichm ond____________________ R oanoke___________ __________ Staunton....................................... 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 11 4 1 3 15 1 17 18 2 1 1 WASHINGTON A b e r d e e n ... Bellingham. B rem erton.. E verett........ H o q u ia m ... L on g v iew ... Seattle.......... 2 2 4 1 2 21 35 1 2 15 10 1 14 GENERAL Am arillo.................................................... . Austin: Recreation department______ Beaum ont................................................. . Dallas________________________________ Fort W orth________ _________________ Galveston...... ............................... ........... Greenville................................................. . H ouston...................................................... Lubbock................. ................................. . Port Arthur................................... ........... San Antonio: Recreation department. Sweetwater............................................... . W aco________________________________ W ichita Falls........................................... . 2 2 82 T a b l e C . — Recreation facilities and buildings in cities of 10,000 and over, 1980, by States— Continued C ity and State A th letic fields Band stands 88 Chil Recre Base Tobog Tour Golf | Ice- Minia Golf Sta Swim Tennis gan ture Picnic ation ball Bathing Boat dren’s Dance ist pavil courses, courses, skating golf places build diums ming courts slides camps dia beaches houses play 9-hole 18-hoie rinks courses pools ings grounds ions monds Washington—continued 1 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 12 2 3 1 4 1 9 S 1 3 12 20 1 4 1 2 2 2 1 ! 1 4 1 1 WEST VIRGINIA Charleston___________________________ Morgantown_________________________ W heeling_____________________________ 1 3 2 1 1 2 7 2 4 12 5 1 6 8 4 6 19 1 1 2 2 5 2 4 1 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 6 4 1 1 1 1 l 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 1 2 1 i! i ! 1 i ! 7 i 7 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 7 3 4 2 5 8 5 14 2 5 4 2 1 1 3 4 1 12 8 5 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 5 3 3 52 1 1 2 1 3 ' 2 o 2 CO 4 0 2 1 f. 2 5 9 11 1 2 3 1 29 4 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 5 9 8 1 2 70 3 13 8 1 Report received too late to include in summary. 1 1 3 1 3 1 2 i l 5 1 i 3 1 1 1 5 4 6 8 WYOMING Cheyenne-__________________________ 1............ 2 l i i 1 IN 1930 2 3 2 2 1 11 1 3 5 AREAS WISCONSIN Appleton______________________ _______ Beloit____ ____________________________ Eau Claire___________________________ Green B ay___________________________ Janesville_____________________________ Kenosha______________________________ La Crosse____________________________ M anitow oc___________________________ M ilwaukee___________________________ Oshkosh_____. . . ______________________ Racine______ . . . ______________________ Sheboygan___________________________ Shorew ood______________________ _____ Superior1____________________________ T w o Rivers___ ______. . . . . ____________ W atertown____ _______________________ Wausau_______ _______________________ W auwatosa____ - ___ ________________ West A ll i s ... . . . ____ - __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 RECREATION 1 37 10 7 3 3 1 PARK Spokane______________________________ Tacom a____ __________________________ Walla W alla............................................... Wenatchee___________________________ Yakim a______________________________ T a b l e D .— Park construction and maintenance in cities of 20,000 and over, 1930, by States C ity and State 362 240 Num ber Number N um ber N um ber of acres o f trees of plants o f trees graded set out trimmed sprayed 340 1,000 Parkways Number Roads con and boule Walks con of acres structed structed vards con planted structed 8.2 4,360 Miles 27.0 20 500 26,015 82,109 62,736 24,591 142,032 1,238,048 284,063 761,086 20,804 29,696 147,995 33,613 37,146 47,963 200 640 15,000 200 1,000 27,338 500 5,084 300 1,906 2,000 3,000 9.000 1.000 500 4,620 3,000 45,902 10,000 11,395 150 5,951 5,678 732 4,000 1,250 33,237 50,096 143 81 20 12,982 8,144 250 150 5 1,000 500 50 5.000 25,000 3.000 80,000 125,000 500 1,800 25 300 70 5.0 90.0 .1 5.0 75.0 1,000 2,300 5.0 5.0 1.0 .3 1.1 1.0 1.5 4.0 4.0 4.0 146,716 164,072 21,950 38,481 68,128 29,640 23,021 46,346 99,902 25,808 7,420 10,000 100,000 1,364 2,500 20,000 3,000 1,000 5,000 3,297 500 30,506 1,000 40,000 1,300 30.000 40.000 600 2,131 1.0 5.0 1.0 7.0 0.3 2.0 10.0 2,422 1,000 98 2,000 500 51.0 22.0 25.0 7.0 41.6 10.0 12.0 3.5 2.0 40 500 2,000 125 10,000 300 6,500 1,000 1,800 300 50 800 375 106,597 150 250 300 101,161 3,103 543 270 270,366 60,342 53,829 85,024 218,797 200,000 50,259 5.000 25,795 37,500 1,500 10,000 1.000 24.0 600 5,559 Miles 2.0 6.0 81,679 5,100 Miles TABLES 48,118 Number Number Number of trees of shrubs of bulbs planted planted planted 5.5 1,500 180 100 125 600 100 6.0 8.0 60.0 500 200 646 1,800 4,320 12,000 1.2 1.5 .2 .1 15.0 .8 3.3 2.3 .3 6.0 3,845 2,000 25.0 GENERAL Arizona: Phoenix______ ___________________________ Arkansas: Little R ock ____________ - ________________ California: Bakersfield. ............................... ^ , . . . . B e r k e le y -—. - _______ —- ________________ Glendale________________________________ TTjint.ing+.nn ParkLong Beach_____________________________ Los Angeles_____________________________ Oakland ............... .......... ......._................... Pasadena____- ___________________________ Pom ona_____ ____________________________ Riverside________________________________ San Diego____________________ ________ _______________________ Santa Barbara Santa M onica___________________________ Stockton _ ______ Colorado: Colorado Springs________________________ Pueblo_______________________ _________ Connecticut: Bridgeport______________________________ H artford________________________________ Manchester_____________________________ M eriden_______________- _________________ N ew Britain_____________ '______________ N ew London____ ______________________ N orw ich____ ____________________________ Stamford____ ____________________________ W aterbury______________________________ W esthaven______________________________ Delaware: W ilmington __________________ Florida: Tam pa______ —__________________________ Georgia: A t l a n t a ... ..___________________________ Augusta___ ^ _ M a con __________________________________ Savannah................. ........... ................ .......... Population 1.0 CO T a b l e D . — Park construction and maintenance in cities of 20,000 and over, 1930, by States— Continued C ity and State Number of plants set out 175 3,850 5,000 3,638 46,606 "2,‘ i65 300 35,0C0 38,466 400 20,000 200 1,000 300.000 100.000 131,420 7,800 368.000 300.000 242,839 5,600 8,000 1,000 5,000 75,000 Number Number of trees of trees trimmed sprayed Parkways Number Num ber Roads con and boule Walks con of acres of acres structed vards con structed planted graded structed Miles 21,544 250 250 2,700 15.0 15.0 100.0 320.0 7,500 75.0 120.0 37.0 1.5 100 200.0 203.0 Miles Miles 3,376,483 56,097 60, 751 142, 559 41, 679 21, 895 46, 391 20,155 64,120 65, 252 307, 745 33,541 250 110 100 200 500 2,500 450 300 150 5.000 8.000 2,000 4.000 30.000 110 15.000 46.000 30.000 10.000 2,000 100 300 575 460 200 100 20,000 3,000 2,500 52,000 2,500 300 4^260 10,000 9,200 2,000 22,119 20,000 201,400 3,000 1,000 1,200 3.500 1,000 ' 44' ooo" 50 400 47 300 1,000 13,800 10,000 50,000 51,397 1,700 200 100 625 1,399 25.000 3,000 400 25,000 4,500 200 500 10.000 350 500 1.500 5,000 500 200 2.500 9,100 600 5,000 1.500 500 5,000 2,500 2,830 300 1,100 1,000 2,802 500 100 1,100 ICO. 0 1,000 500 5,620 500 5.000 1,560 5,000 16,200 20 6.0 200 2,000 5.000 11,867 3.000 814 200 2,654 900 6.0 6. 0 8.0 2.5 4.0 4.0. 2.0 'io.‘6' .3 15.0 15.0 3.0 17.0 2.6 ‘ To’ .5 1.0 2.0 "I6.'5‘ 300.0 16.0 491 100 400 65 3.0 3.5 2.1 2.0 1.0 .5 .5 5 IN 1930 54, 784 32, 949 100,426 64,560 364,161 32,843 25,819 104,193 62, 810 2,000 7,500 2,700 0.6 1.5 5.0 5 .0 156 155' 2,500 509 3.0 11.0 11.0 50.0 50.0 1.0 6.0 .5 AREAS 66,602 57, 510 28,830 42, 993 20,620 32, 236 63, 982 39, 953 71,864 u.3 .5 46,589 RECREATION Number Number Number of trees of shrubs of bulbs planted planted planted PARK Idaho: Boise............... ................................. Illinois: Aurora_________________________ Chicago— Lincoln Park commissioners. South Park com m issioners.. West Park district.................. Other park districts................ C icero............ ................................. Decatur............................................. Galesburg......................................... Joliet........................... .............. ....... Kankakee......................................... M oline.............................................. Oak Park......................................... R ock Island..................................... Springfield........................................ Indiana: East Chicago................................... Elkhart............................................. Gary.................................................. H am m ond....................................... Indianapolis.................................... K okom o........................................... N ew A lb a n y.................................... South B end..................................... Terre H aute..................................... Iowa: Cedar R apids.................................. D avenport....................................... Des M oines..................................... D u bu qu e.......................................... Fort D od ge...................................... W aterloo..................................... — Kansas: Salina................. - ............................. T opeka............................................. K en tu cky: Covington.......... ............................. Louisville......................................... Paducah........................................... Population O 1.0 98621°—32-------- 7 Louisiana: Alexandria___ Monro'e............ New Orleans.. Maine: Portland.......... M aryland: Baltimore____ C um berland.. H agerstow n... Massachusetts: B elm ont_____ Boston............. Brockton_____ Cambridge___ Chelsea............ Chicopee.......... Fall River____ Fitchburg........ Fram ingham .. L ow ell............. L y n n .............. . M alden............ Melrose............ N orth Adam s. Quincy............. Revere_______ Salem............... Springfield____ T aunton.......... W altham ......... W eym outh___ Worcester........ M ichigan: D etroit_______ Flint................. Grand Rapids. Kalamazoo___ Lansing............ Port H u r o n ... Minnesota: D uluth....... . M inn eapolis.. St. C lou d ........ St. Paul........... Mississippi: Jackson______ Missouri: Joplin............... Kansas C ity ... Springfield___ M ontana: Great Falls___ 23,025 26,028 458,762 150 200 600 1,250 70,810 218 500 804,874 37.747 30,861 894 21.748 781,188 63,797 113,643 45,816 43,930 115,274 40,692 22,210 100,234 102,320 100 2,000 700 3.0 500 10,000 13,000 50 550 4,000 934 100 300,000 4,633 13,163 5.0 5.0 12.0 12.0 1.0 1,000 50 250 1,319 28.0 250 100 200 3 350 50 1,462 300 23,170 21,621 71,983 35,680 43,353 149,900 37,355 39,247 20,882 195,311 119 14,500 1,084 320 384 200 50 400 2,848 250 54,500 15,000 100 14,740 15,000 1,000 500 60.0 40 7.5 300 25 1.0 100 1,323 20.0 300 150.0 50 2.0 50 24 1.3 56 400 2,500 50.0 12 12 98 2.0 20,000 ” "25, 500 2,200 ..........2. 6" 1,000 100,000 3,000 50 3.000 5.000 12 1,206 100 382 40,104 ,568,662 156,492 168,592 54,786 78,397 31,361 4,342 1,000 65 450 1,600 101 9,130 1,200 450 2,000 127,336 9 101,463 464,356 21,000 271,606 1,047 6,280 260 2,105 2,591 100 48,282 200 200 400 50,000 33,454 399,746 57,527 300 950 1,000 1,200 2,000 5,000 500 800 1,000 200 28,822 508 450 34.000 175 1,000 2,000 15.0 4.5 67.0 13,000 42 75 50 20 100 "656’ 20.0 25.0 8.0 100.0 4.0 16.0 .5 2.0 .3 .1 3.0 100 28,301 4,600 1,332 10,666 30,500 54,324 5,000 270 4,310 54,324 100 5.000 500 200 200 300 2.000 356 84,674 35.000 50.000 40.0 50.0 20.0 3.0 1.5 1,500 24.0 13.5 16,000 300 2.0 3.0 60.2 * 4.0 5.0 100 20,000 42.0 7.0 4.0 2.0 T a b l e D .— Park construction and maintenance in cities of 20,000 and over, 1930, by States— Continued C ity and State Nebraska: Population 75,933 N ew Jersey: VTatw T l m n c w i / ' l r P q c c q I^ Portb AnihftV W a a/ ) Ki*i H cro N ew York: A lh ftn v T fb a p ft T om a cfaw ti N ew York C ity— 'R r n n l r l v n O cw ocm P a i i ctVi 1roOT\G1 £k Syracuse T T t in a W o tftftn w n N orth Carolina: W i l m i n nrtAn A X Ti'n cf A r i - Q o l i i m Ohio: P o n tA ti flin^innati C olumbus......................................................... 500.0 Miles 10.0 .3 .4 76,834 31,463 500 400 900 200 250 2,000 4,500 2,500 15,000 500 15,000 200 10.0 2.0 10.0 .3 56,733 316,715 442,337 34,555 62,959 138,513 43,516 123,356 25,266 200 1,500 933 64 1,000 2.500 1.500 97 350 5,000 3.000 6.000 6,000 1,000 12,000 6,200 6,769 500 65,000 24,000 15.0 10.0 15.0 8.0 3,000 95,000 300 5,000 20,000 120 3,025 2,374 40,000 350 40,000 800 60 127,412 36,652 573,076 47,397 23,099 20,708 45,155 28,088 54,000 726 300 7,000 10 8,000 25,181 225 5,000 139 1,700 500 17,565 2,000 200 420 55,000 100 65,000 500 500 75,000 200 65,000 265 150,000 550 300,000 15.0 6.0 18.6 10.0 15.0 2.0 3.0 10,000 400 840 400 129 75 35.0 2.0 20.0 10,000 23,660 3,000 19,000 2,560,401 22,652 40,288 328’ 132 209,326 101,740 32,205 9,282 7,112 100 800 25,000 12,000 72,000 193,000 44,313 1,064.0 20.2 12.0 25,000 69,900 121,000 9,000 30.000 71.000 200,000 10,635 117 1,200 14,411 800.0 70.0 500.0 70.0 .5 2.0 2.0 .5 32,270 75,274 3,500 520 60,000 700 30.000 1,000 3,000 104,906 451,160 900,429 290,564 5,000 3,296 1,673 150 10,000 12,958 12.000 130,100 50,000 25,000 84,966 39 200 304 450 2,595 600 2,766 4,500 1,000 17,808 60,000 500 200 475 1,987 Miles 0.1 .3 .1 4.0 .5 .3 2.5 24.0 19.0 .3 !i 2.0 I I,~5o5" 2,140 200 10.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 25,356 7.0 i 2.0 j .5 5.0 15.0 100 1,064 806 Miles 7.0 2.0 1............................... .3 3.0 1.0 .6 IN 1930 T T in o r c tA n XT a h t P a a Vi a I I q 800.0 10,000 5,278 AREAS U n fffllA T r im ir Q 5,000 39,439 RECREATION XTowarlr Num ber of acres graded PARK N ew Hampshire: Parkways Num ber Roads con and boule Walks con of acres structed vards con structed planted structed Number Number Number N um ber Number N um ber of trees of trees of shrubs of bulbs of plants of trees set out trimmed sprayed planted planted planted 185,389 141,258 92,563 82,054 57,892 34,468 66,993 26,043 48,674 35,853 22,075 2,475 350 1,000 11,000 250 5,400 5,000 217 50 1,800 175,000 20,000 750 3,250 600 1,300 1,000 1.500 3.500 8,000 1,200 7,500 30.000 75 10,000 100 500 3.000 8.000 25.000 1,600 10.000 500 300 8,500 500 110,000 106, 308 } 50,000 100,000 250,000 40,050 25,200 10,000 3,500 50,000 60,000 300 1,950,961 669,817 111, 171 143,433 86,626 45,729 10,618 2,500 42,911 252,981 49,376 10 5,000 1,500 20,000 2,000 62,265 29,154 28,723 1,200 500 6,000 25,000 4,000 500 500 1,248 100 30 60 14,906 10.0 11.0 8.0 1.0 .1 .5 .5- 3.0 2.3 2.0 .5 1.5 1.5 4.0 2.0 1.0 .8 500 2.0 14.0 8.0 40.0 .5 60 150 600 1,713 66,000 2.0 1.9 65.0 1,000 1,000 20.0 90.0 20.0 5,400 500 51 500 350 500 51 100 45.0 12.0 45.0 20 40 50 400 20 2.0 .4 8.0 7.0 700 500 600 5.000 1.000 150,000 150,000 1.0 .5 1.0 4.0 50 400 1,200 1,500 1.4 . 1.0 2.0 3.0 8.0 5.3 2.0 40.0 5.0 5.0 .5 5.0 20.0 6.0 150 119,798 253,143 500 5.000 124,032 53,120 57,732 260,475 163,447 2,600 2,660 6.000 2,384 3,666 1,000 . 13,978 20 100 20,000 1,000 15.0 7,000 150 10,000 200 200 3,100 10,000 267 500 19,901 10,000 19 8.0 8.0 212 20,000 166.0 165.6 10.0 5.0 id TABLES 200,982 39,667 25,633 52,176 70,509 26,400 29,992 33,411 24,622 68,743 35,422 290,718 41,062 GENERAL D a y ton ............................................... East Cleveland................................. Elyria................................................. H am ilton........................................... Lakewood.......................................... Massillon........................................... M iddletow n__________________ N orw ood............................... ............ Sandusky............................ .............. Springfield......................................... Steubenville...................................... Toledo................................................ Warren.........- .................................... Oklahoma: E nid ........................ .......................... Oklahoma C ity ............................ Tulsa............ ..................................... Pennsylvania: Allentow n.......................................... Altoona.............................................. Bethlehem......................................... Easton................................................ Johnstown........................................ Nanticoke...................... ................... N ew Castle....................................... Norristow n........................................ Oil C ity.............................................. Philadelphia— Bureau of city property_____ Fairmount Park Commission Pittsburgh......................................... Reading.............................................. Scranton............................................. Wilkes-Barre..................................... W illiamsport..................................... R hode Island: Cranston................................... ......... Providence........................................ W oonsoeket....................................... South Carolina: Charleston......................................... Greenville.......................................... Spartanburg...................................... South Dakota: Sioux Falls......................................... Tennessee: Chattanooga..................................... M em phis________________________ Texas: Austin________ _______ __________ Beaumont.......................................... Dallas................................................. Fort W orth....................................... . T able D . — Park construction and maintenance in cities of 20,000 and over, 1980, by States— Continued JO = = = sssae Population C ity and State Parkways Num ber Roads con and boule Walks con o f acres structed vards con structed planted structed ____. . . . . . 300 250,000 1,250 180 200 50 2,000 1,000 800 500 40,661 129,710 28,564 182,929 69 206 509 3,538 50 2,006 85 307 13,000 4,062 13,988 337 886 17,850 75 9,644 4.0 460 4,000 3,000 35 6,517 100 365,583 106,817 300 2,445 200 25,400 20,000 45,600 20,000 1,445 1,500 36.0 36.0 1,000 75,572 61,659 12,000 2,500 10,000 10,000 50,000 23,611 37,415 21 628 50*262 39,614 22,963 40 108 67*542 39,251 36,113 23,758 34,671 115 5,500 4,500 6.0 4.0 20.0 1,600 15,154 7,000 23,005 30^000 15.0 18.0 250 300 50 25,000 4,500 3,130 1,300 1001,200 2,500 3,700 2,901 400 40 253 75 500 100 125 500 2,000 1,000 2,742 780 1,000 5,000 10 2.0 0.5 1.0 .5 2.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 .5 1.0 .1 1.5 1.0 1.0 800 4,200 6,000 2.5 3.0 3.0 650 Miles Miles 0.5 15,000 5.0 1.0 35.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 50.0 .5 2.0 .5 IN 1930 . 10,000 AREAS Tr r 350 RECREATION ... 2.0 2.0 5.0 25.0 ........ 1 5.T 8.0 4.0 52,938 292,352 50,902 22,247 PARK H ouston__ __ . . . . . . . . _ ______________ N um ber of acres graded Miles Texas—Continued. Danville Virginia: Lynchburg N orfolk Petersburg._. . . . . . Richm ond P aqtioIta W ashington: Seattle Tacom a W est Virginia: Huntington WhAAlintf Wisconsin: Beloit Or Aftn BftV TanoQTrilla "FTatinsha T.q flrnsKA M anitowoc rtshtnsh RflAins Rhfthnvmn finnariftr Wausau ., West Allis Number Number Number Num ber Num ber Num ber of trees of trees of shrubs of bulbs of plants of trees set'out trimmed sprayed planted planted planted T a b l e £•— Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1930, by States Expenditures, 1930 C ity and State $1,396.00 8,023 6,006 48,118 5,517 3,309.00 31.429 81,679 35,033 10,995 26,015 82,109 17.429 10,439 16,662 13,270 6,299 7,961 8,014 12,516 5,425 5,669 6,050 15,752 52,513 62,736 5,000 24,591 Salaries and Interest and wages sinking funds $55,814.54 $88,006.34 6,493.95 12,285.94 14,163.96 30,132.50 300.00 B ond issues, 1926-1930 $185,064.58 2,000.00 20,657.91 43,814.44 750.00 1.050.00 300.00 54.00 150.00 3,740.00 450.00 600.00 24,450.00 754.00 750.00 31.499.00 7,537.93 22,424.16 7,596.50 24.800.00 19,784.00 8,095.74 16,500.00 6,000.00 7,535.28 28,395.23 1,350.00 8,042.66 1,772.91 1,000.00 28,727.49 21.200.00 27,000.00 38,772.90 56,643.02 5,475.00 27,986.84 8,727.75 4,000.00 600.00 3,000.00 1,008.00 822.02 379.86 5,085.00 4,604.09 1, 686.98 8,250.00 4,770.00 13,241.00 6,135.09 45,076.00 250.00 8,000.00 15,999.00 295,958.15 850.00 8,699.1'6 2,277.40 7.500.00 54.820.66 $27,550.00 4,530.00 212.19 Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 Total 66,607.23 37.700.00 41,000.00 62,307.18 408,546.40 7.675.00 44.728.66 17,231.06 5.000.00 15, 541.00 6,026.11 5,066.84 14.335.00 1.000.00 207.22 6,347.28 63.087.00 77,711.62 11.753.01 6,000.00 $198,115.50 9,500.00 21,787.62 3,500.00 4,000.00 2,145.00 24.639.00 12,368.15 $50,000.00 1,120,000.00 50.000.00 35.000.00 227,454.26 53.625.00 50.000.00 26.390.00 890,720.63 2,000.00 8,699.16 10.000.00 6,000.00 18,000.00 TABLES See footnotes at end of table. 259,678 11,059 68,202 66,079 18,012 7,596 6,814 Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous GENERAL Alabama: Birmingham ........................... ............................................... Fairfield..................................................................................... M obile........: .............................................................................. M ontgom ery............................................................................ Selma........................ ................... ............................................ Talladega___________________________ _________________ T roy ............................................................................................ Arizona: Bisbee................................ ....................................................... N ogales..................................................................................... Phoenix.,.______________________________________ ______ Prescott________________ . . . .......... ...................................... Arkansas: Fort Smith..................................... ....................................... Little R ock ______________________________________ ____ California: Alam eda______________________ _______________________ Anaheim _____ ________________________________________ Bakersfield____________________________________________ B erkeley______________________________________ _______ Beverly H ills_____________ '_________ ________ ________ B raw ley__________________ _________________________ _ Burbank______________________________________________ Burlingame___________________________________________ Calexico_______________________________________________ C hico____________________________________ ____________ C olton ________________________________________________ Com pton_____________________________________________ C oronado____________ ________________________________ Culver C ity_____________________________________ _____ Dunsm uir.................. ................ ..................... ........................ Eureka________________________________________________ Fresno________________________________________________ Glendale______________________________________________ Hermosa Beach_______________________________________ Huntington Park.................................................................... Population Land, build ings, and im provements CO C* T a b l e E .— Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1980, by States— Continued Expenditures, 1930 C ity and State Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous $486,502.40 $8,700.00 166,694.43 <8,674.79 3,956.23 14,373.96 284.85 8,950.44 1,480.73 843.70 3,998.07 1,500.00 5,200.23 64,240.09 $82,900.00 873,892.81 17,471.44 6,334.25 4,000.00 3,636.60 1,491.00 $23,250.00 1,702.70 698.66 4,175.00 2,750.00 100.00 21,857.02 2,572. 00 748.94 13,627.12 16,700.00 2,820.00 32,511.19 14,417.02 3.900.00 2.400.00 4,469.07 1,883.50 8.925.00 5.100.00 2,356.87 45,622.50 21,800.00 5,780.00 656.33 1, 000.00 2,158.65 1, 000.00 4,600.00 2,843.42 10, 000.00 14,232.00 3,500.00 5,666.66 5*412.00 B ond issues, 1926-1930 Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 Total $91,600.00 1,550,339.64 26,145.23 10,390.48 20,076.66 5,402.18 11.285.14 224,943.71 19,096.29 2.900.00 71,987.91 474,332.49 4,487.57 11,994.90 104,261.21 26,846.35 8.500.00 66.925.14 151.356.67 19,113.77 12,000.00 234,408.70 1,619,005.00 52,975.47 2.800.00 16,022.00 3,668.94 82,412.33 600.00 2.400.00 58,447.50 29.300.00 13,262. 27 107.010.67 5.600.00 5,002.07 19.500.00 19.644.00 $1,051.750.00 2 $240,000.00 »4,820,476.64 100,000.00 30,000.00 100,000.00 76,237.89 12,165.30 «430,771.47 167,411.08 546,500.12 14,000.00 32,965.33 40,000.00 54,803.10 10,860.20 24,000.00 102,885.20 7 3,217,632.89 43,687.88 200.00 2.750.00 2.750.00 104,123.15 33,802.72 61,500.00 50,000.00 10, 000.00 IN i930 15,098.22 2.400.00 26,536.44 193,868.28 6 3,887.57 4,469.99 32,129.39 17,095.01 5.500.00 40,228.64 118,005.51 14,574.84 5,000.00 170,776.95 694,375.00 Interest and sinking funds AREAS 40,251.24 215,525.46 600.00 6,250.35 ........1,274.56" 72,131.82 9,751.34 3,000.00 15,807.89 10,888.61 26,383.92 6,966.24 4,538.93 7,000.00 57,970." 55* 5,661.20 447,749.00 446,881.00 Salaries and wages RECRfiATlON 142,032 1,238,048 13,842 5,408 9,141 6,437 7,301 284,063 13,583 6,285 13,652 76,086 8,245 9,610 20,804 14,177 9,347 29,696 93,750 37,481 11,603 147,995 634,394 57,651 11,455 13,444 30,322 33,613 6,303 14,395 37,146 13,730 6,193 47,963 7,271 5,830 7,263 14,822 Land, build ings, and im provements PARK California—C ontinued. Long Beach___________________________________________ Los Angeles___________________________________________ M od esto____ _ _ _______ M on tebello____ ___ ____________ M onterey_____________________________________________ Napa .. _ ^National C ity _. _____ O akla n d .. __ _________________ Ontario . . . ___________________ Oxnard Palo Alto Pasadena.. ___ _ . . _______________________ Petaluma __ ________ P ittsb u rg .. _____________________ Pomona Redlands . . . __ __ Redondo Beach Riverside____ _____ _ _ ______ __ __________________ Sacramento San Bernardino San Buenaventura .. San Diego . _________ San Francisco. . _ _ . __________ San Jose______ _ . _ ±. .......................... ..... San Leandro_ _ __ _______________________________ San M ateo____ . . __________________________________ Santa Ana _ ________ Santa Barbara _ _ _ _____ Santa Clara _ _ __ _________ Santa Cruz Santa M onica South Pasadena South San Francisco . . . . . __________ Stockton . _ Torrance Upland Visalia__ ______________________________________________ W hittier..................................................................................... Population 13,851.67 64,570.21 3,333.83 4,850.25 2,211.62 14,369.14 1,940.00 415.14 1, 200.00 11,832.50 11,698.87 6, 000.00 40,844.21 3,800.00 3,934.52 5,720.27 42,050.00 133.70 69,934.50 576.80 116,160.00 722.82 1,658.16 4,400.00 8,281.00 5,100.00 2, 000.00 63,818.64 ........7,595.55" ........... 459.'45" 2,500.00 8,000.65 66,464.47 30, §61.29" 3,000.00 35,454.44” 960.00 93,008.42 849,133.00 1, 200.00 15,166.33 27,144.67 8,211.62 91,077.24 9,200.00 4,349.66 111,389.88 4,500.00 3,000.00 35,000.00 6,418.75 2,500.00 20, 000.00 6,430.77 228,144.50 4,618.63 2.500.00 400.00 708,195.49 10,661.96 9.500.00 10, 000.00 160,784.40 2.500.00 377,000.03 30,056.00 200, 000.00 •240.000.00 5,000.00 272,203.02 5,000.00 •74,000.00 19,000.00 680,000.00 992,580.01 10, 000.00 1, 606.66 2, 000.00 1,509.16 5,590.84 2, 000.00 712.80 435.21 8,090.80 1,315.46 34,350.00 35,000.00 2, 000.00 2, 666.00 9,900.00 3, 066.66 6,300.00 78,487.43 49,954.50 58,326.85 1.050.00 8. 100.00 4,000.00 1.500.00 2,463.47 43.440.00 6.601.00 1,040.53 40.000.00 18.200.00 i° 5,260.00 186,768.78 388,344.10 3,000.00 3,015.56 486,000.00 5,000.00 35.000.00 14.000.00 15.000.00 226,000.00 1,217,085.90 1,126.56 1,804.00 4,561.60 8,196.00 1,411.84 3,111.93 13,210.13 3,350.00 10,950.00 5,419.06 1, 200.00 61,230.00 24,829.22 1,750.00 5,600.00 2.750.00 5,688.18 15.600.00 76.000.00 17,733.90 » 87,850.00 75.530.00 30, 248.28 2.950.00 451.00 251,014.68 5,678,413.63 40,000.00 60,000.00 862,000.00 go, oo5.65 2,491,742.60 862,000.00 48,000.00 i,665.o5 TABLES See footnotes at end of table. 14,686.54 GENERAL Colorado: Colorado Springs.................... ............ D en ver................................................... Durango................................................ Fort Collins........... .............................. Grand Junction.................................... Longm ont............................................. Pueblo........ ........................................... Sterling................................................. Trinidad_____ ___________________— Connecticut: Ansonia (recreation department) — Branford................................................ Bridgeport............................................. East Hartford....................................... Fairfield................................................ H am den............................................... Hartford................... ............................ Manchester........................................... M eriden................................................. M ilford.................................................. N ew Britain........ ................................ N ew Canaan......................................... N ew H aven........................................... N ew London......................................... N orwalk (recreation commission) _. N orw ich ________ __________________ Mohegan Park Commission___ R ockville.............................................. Seymour................................................ Shelton.................................................. Stamford____ •_...................................... Torrington............................................. W allingford........................................... W est H artford..................................... West H aven......................................... Wethersfield......................................... Delaware: W ilm ington........................................... District of Columbia: Washington.......................................... Florida: A von Park............................................ Bradenton............................................. Clearwater............................................ Coral Gables...... .................................. Fort Lauderdale.................................. Jacksonville.......................................... M iam i.................................................... Orlando.......................... ...................... Palatka..................................... ........... R iver Junction..................................... T a b l e E . — Park expenditures vn 762 cities, 1930, by States— C o n t in u e d Expenditures, 1930 C ity and State $2,832.96 $25,200.00 2,890.30 $2,300.00 $50,055.00 5,700.00 19,853.68 100,625.41 4,777.44 136,876.89 13,704.00 31,785.71 2,115.85 4,196.80 36.40 4,417.33 6,119.64 6,220.39 945.46 10,021.65 367.61 500.00 9.400.00 21,210.92 16,521.75 3.500.00 10, 000.00 252.89 4,665.50 1,313.74 21,224.50 3,026.11 7,000.00 12, 000.00 3,000.00 750.00 13,482 30,151 5,045 28,425 13,532 11,718 12, 583 3,376,483 257,355.98 17,481.44 10 5,000.00 43,923.21 367.61 4,733.20 13,817.33 28,180.56 22,742.14 4,445.46 108,934.00 7,500.00 i 5,000.00 8,379,560.97 15,000.00 3,644.51 724, 530.29 2,381,'846.05 3,500.00 5,000.00 7,000.00 8,261,351.46 7,248,212.63 2,770.20 3,373.10 « 126,282.74 "762,5l4.~7i” 2,080,400.00 II, 998.22 130.456.26 5,159.35 5,116.65 2, 000.00 5,000.00 2,224,917.35 Norwood Park district Bavenswood M anor and Gardens Park district_____ $8,766.13 6,600.00 5,548.40 1013,500.00 75,255.00 10,890.30 $1, 110.00 576.19 Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 $232,500.00 $251,500.00 u 77,871.00 300,000.00 68, 000.00 100, 000.00 62,234.29 8,606.81 150,000.00 750.00 155.000.00 150.000.00 19,500.00 34,000.00 122,934.00 7.500.00 1.500.00 5.500.00 22, 000.00 100, 000.00 » 120,934.00 7.500.00 1.500.00 27,079,899.41 911,721.00 42,311.00 21,786.03 981,269.29 5,164,760.76 63,781,000.00 1,500,000.00 37.000.00 4,592.74 8, 000.00 22. 000.00 2.400.00 26,825.00 10,846.34 30,000.00 9,000.00 100, 000.00 27.000.00 1.325.000.00 15,350,000.00 2.650.000.00 85.000.00 90,000.00 2, 000.00 . 63,619,602.34 1, 200, 000.00 22,644.51 M 1,231,076.18 13,122,013.45 2,836,235.39 1930 21,544 0,403 8,206 16,471 8,787 B ond issues, 1926-1930 Total IN $2,714.44 Interest and sinking funds AREAS 270,366 60,342 14,022 43,131 6,681 8,624 53,829 85,024 Salaries and wages RECREATION W inter Haven Georgia: Atlanta .... Augusta ..... Brunswick Columbus . . . . . __ . ____ _________________ Dublin Gainesville - ... . M acon Savannah . — Bacon Park Commission Valdosta . . . . __ __________. . . _ Idaho: Boise ........ . . . . . . . . ______ . . . __. . . . . __________ Lewiston N am pa . ______________________ Pocatello __ Tw in Falls Illinois: Alton _ ... . _. ______________________ Batavia - - . Belleville „ ..... Cairo __ _ ________ Canton________________________________________________ Centralia (recreation department) C h ic a g o ______________________________________________ Bureau of Darks, recreation, and aviation Calumet Park district Edison Park district_______________________________ Irving Park district_______________________________ Lincoln Park com m issioners.. . . . ____ . . . . _______ 12, 111 10,100 5,597 10,700 101,161 7,130 Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous Land, build ings, and im provements PARK Florida— Continued. Population 12,979.00 22,849.50 1,149,599.57 333,025.28 5,242.87 55,000.00 6,931.41 33.75 26,918.11 2,904.31 3,500.00 176,043.26 150.00 10,883.83 17,996.86 21, 221.13 1,400.00 1,425.00 45.500.00 17,398.84 48.435.00 4,500.00 25,735.98 45,700.00 54,936.75 39,400.00 60,000.00 3,424.13 53,253.00 2,000.00 296,289.97 10,000.00 10,000.00 5,577.46 24,822.00 500.00 37,416.18 24,500.00 30,256.88 3,491,266.35 2,500,715.79 8,647.50 9,250.00 55,795.00 5,735,860.00 1,299,742.50 22,552.60 2,500.00 47,394.26 4,645.22 7,000.00 34,259.76 9,201.74 1,000.00 2,000.00 148.729.00 108,901.38 15,204,183.09 4,458, 566.52 38,942.97 io 66,830.89 15.000.00 74.500.00 115,503.54 16,785.02 10.758.41 4.650.00 457,128.79 5.400.00 50,101.82 »• 88,572.34 2.825.00 130,000.00 52.136.41 172.210.00 4.500.00 150.000.00 830.000.00 29.750.000.00 12.114.000.00 70,000.00 428,042.90 27,825.30 135,365.89 33.248.50 1.500.00 26,618.90 201,963.43 70,136.77 1,000,000.00 67,000.00 2,664.32 7,639.25 1,687.97 18,800.00 11,482.63 15.487.50 274,851.15 18,434.38 6.500.00 222,732. 42 24.500.00 8,226.97 186.300.00 27,402.37 6,500.00 io 4,858.39 40,235.46 125,893.13 100,977.48 19,958.01 8,813.41 2,771.65 10,000.00 6,495.18 15,575.00 4,023.66 7,922.50 167,672.99 1,500.00 5,827.55 5,504.74 14,225.00 28,462.89 43,780.78 25,851.25" 2,300.00 4,600.00 ” 7,"587."55" 1,000.00 40,137.82 ~~5, ‘656."66‘ 35,000.00 4,691.59 2,800.00 1,356.00 500.00 87,829.98 4,860.75 852.00 27,500.00 5,619.53 1,200.00 22,253.85 1,919.08 1,358.06 281.35 200.00 1,244.08 6,000.00 12,000.00 92,100.30 687.00 105,000.00 5,608.62 4,000.00 10,125.61 2,342.13 2,971.40 10.000.00 1,000.00 250.000.00 60,000.00 382.000.00 89,000.00 700,000.00 500.00 500.00 500.00 2,016.26 700.00 3,541.69 200,000.00 120,000.00 36,300.00 11,750.00 552,186.83 1,500.00 160,000.00 625.00 150.000.00 155.000.00 332.000.00 150.000.00 30,000.00 118.000.00 225,000.00 200,000.00 46,198.30 170,800.00 250.000.00 1,000.00 894,781.36 150.000.00 150.000.00 120,299.73 202,000.00 i< 24,000.00 70,000.00 15430,338.51 255,767.38 ■"i2,"455."55 74,620.95 7,000.00 8,000.00 io 71,000.00 5,619.27 115,000.00 1,003,039.89 33,772,407.10 10,317,185.82 131,010.67 TABLES See footnotes at end of table. 102,000.00 4,827,457.17 325,082.95 2,500.00 GENERAL Ridge Avenue Park district____ River Park district........................ South Park commissioners_____ West Park district......................... Chicago Heights.................................... Cicero_____ ________________________ Clyde Park district........................ Hawthorne Park district............. Decatur.................................................... Des Plaines............................................. Dixon....................................................... East M oline......................................... East St. Louis........................................ Edwardsville.......................................... Elgin........................................................ Elm hurst.............................................. Galena....................................... ............. Galesburg..................................... ......... Glen E llyn_____ ____________________ Highland Park....................................... Hinsdale.................................................. Hoopeston............................................... Joliet......................................................... Kankakee................................................ Kewanee................................................. Lom bard................................................. M etropolis.............................................. M oline..................................................... Niles Center........................................... Oak Park................................................ Olney....................................................... Park R id ge............................................. Peoria....................................................... River Forest........................................... R iverside............ ................................... R ockford................................................. R ock Island............................................ St. Charles...................... ...................... Springfield.............................................. Sterling-Rock Falls............................... Streator................................................... Taylor ville............................................ Urbana............ ....................................... Waukegan (recreation department).. W heaton_____ _____________________ W ood R iver_________________ !______ Indiana: A uburn.................................................... Bedford (recreation commission)___ Bicknell.......................................... ........ Brazil....................................................... 150,000.00 "125,055755" 100,000.00 1,400.00 4,000.00 ”5,‘656.‘o6 co CO T a b le I-*- E . — Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1980, by States— Continued 2 Expenditures, 1930 C ity and State Population Land, build ings, and im provements $1,268.97 40,000.00 92,450.76 27,821.47 9,762.90 110.92 1,007.52 161,556. 39 1,173.30 10,465.25 109,239.00 42,519.50 190.00 4,281.95 290,639.88 1,170.60 905.00 20,004.42 382.74 150.00 100.00 771.55 200.00 4,000.00 6,600.00 300.00 900.00 102,402. 33 4,580.62 932.80 481.35 3,277.20 111, 629. 91 27,439.65 3,400.00 1,755.15 5,420.92 80,561.88 43,083.00 4,065. 00 1,851.90 2,839.33 1,290.05 247.40 3,694.06 726.16 2,376.00 5,330.61 5,930.00 569.33 1,214.16 23,130.89 39,037.98 2, 000.00 4,296.46 30.000.00 690.00 2,023.95 70,098.34 99,591.04 16.000.00 $64,810.54 168,856.78 41,536.47 229.04 2,422.89 246,126.83 325.00 67.11 21,910. 00 612.58 29,710.42 36,617.75 8, 000.00 $274,019.23 530.00 1,800.00 185.00 1,600.00 1,982.29 10,892. 50 29,315.00 $1,540.80 1,157.50 77.000.00 13,050.00 192,102.46 167,727.55 305,917.25 93,818.87 529.96 7,712. 36 972,342.33 2,668.90 2,915.75 20,909.42 19.000.00 1, 221.40 350.00 4,000.00 28, 510.00 300.00 1, 000. 00 W2,250.00 214,032. 24 75,103. 27 8,397.80 4 ,08& 40 12,067.45 5,231. 51 6,764.65 10, 538. 23 38,306. 00 2,859. 33 5,832. 98 134,642.15 204,561. 77 26.000.00 714.14 $6,550.94 $65,000.00 50,000.00 402,000.00 158, 698.00 629,487.13 309,948.00 921, 200.00 9,400.00 1,061,002.63 1, 000.00 100, 000.00 5,000.00 15,000. 00 600.00 228,757.86 41,000.00 20, 000.00 3,000.00 20, 000.00 30,000. 00 3,000.00 149,639.15 175,000.00 67.000.00 IN 1930 10,261 11,886 7,362 56,097 8,147 8,615 60,751 142,559 41,679 6,619 $271.83 37,000.00 Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 AREAS Fort W ayne _ __________ G ary_______________ ___________________________________ H am m ond_____ ______ ________________________ Hartford C ity - ____ Huntington _ ___________ Indianapolis___________________________________________ Jeffersonville -____ _ ______________________ __________ Kendall ville K okom o La Porte ____ ___ Linton ____ _ ____ _______________ M ount Vernon __________ N ew A lbany Newcastle ____ ________ Plym outh Rush ville __ - _________ Seymour ____ _______________ South Bend _ _ __ ____________ Terre Haute -- - _ Vincennes ________ ____________ Wabash Warsaw _ _ _ _____ _______________ Iowa: ATTlAg ______________ Boone ________ Cedar Falls _ __________________________________ Cedar Rapids ______ Centerville __ __ ___________ Creston ..................... Davenport ___ ___________________________________ D es M oines____ _______________________________________ Dubuque ____ Fairfield..................................................................................... 7,936 10,355 54,784 32,949 102,249 114,946 100,426 64,560 6,613 13,420 364,161 11,946 5,439 32,843 15,755 5,085 5,035 25,819 14,027 5,290 5,709 7,508 104,193 62,810 17,564 8,840 5,730 Bond issues, 1926-1930 Total RECREATION East Chicago_____ __________________________________ TCllrhflrt Salaries and Interest and wages sinking funds PARK Indiana—Continued. Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous Fort D o d g e .. . Iowa C ity........ Keokuk............ M ason C it y ... M uscatine____ N ew ton............ Oelwein............ Perry..............j Sioux C ity ___ Spencer............ W aterloo_____ W ebster C ity . 1,977.68 4,504. 61 5,278.65 600. 00 1,398.44 279.23 3, 526.13 1, 200.00 2,628. 75 500.00 930.00 6, 000.00 400.00 1, 000.00 19,066. 00 1,600. 00 770.00 15,290. 00 841.94 3,628. 44 1,720.00 4,835. 51 1,072. 00 1,150.00 6,021.96 100.00 3,343.84 1,839.15 2,500. 00 8,674.18 14,777.91 9, 766. 50 40,603.83 1,481.41 11,882.00 7,805.37 5,908. 03 10,562. 75 w 10,979.83 7,553. 32 2,079. 23 2,414.40 101,881.42 2, 700.00 40,356. 00 2,500.00 10, 000.00 18,000.00 10, 000. 00 25,000.00 11, 625. 00 13,625.00 3,000.00 130,732.10 500.00 3.500.00 4,000.00 2,561. 94 9,945.36 1.800.00 5,500.00 4,331.52 6, 929. 74 10,342. 74 10, 000.00 900.00 2,600.00 5,000.00 11,773.00 31,956. 00 500.00 100.00 36,060.00 300.00 300.00 88,734 00 800.00 600.00 5,449. 24 1,372.47 1,843.00 35,992.14 16,000.00 7,000.00 604,329.51 716,945.71 900.00 1.736.00 2,911.15 3,650. 00 18,039. 98 1° 11,440.00 75,148. 24 312,934.79 21,604. 00 340,642.19 900.00 12,600. 00 15,000. 00 8.130.00 W28,200.00 100,678.46 105,404.00 48,729.00 11,177.12 48,800. 00 1,600.00 1, 000.00 116,854.66 W300.00 io 700.00 3,215.47 1,406,067.36 16,000.00 7,900.00 22 5,505.55 ,555.55 5,500.00 1.072.00 1.150.00 650.00 637,860.00 620,084.07 1, 500,000. 00 1,512,224.80 1,600.00 45,000. 00 1,800, 000. 00 i« 2,130,413.10 75,000.00 26,476. 00 130, 000. 00 2,138,124.14 16,000.00 7,000.00 137,241.69 15,555.55 TABLES 1,740.00 1.403.42 3.306.42 GENERAL Coffeyville.............................................................. Concordia............................................................... Dodge City............................................................ Hays.......... ................................................. ......... Iola........................................................................ McPherson....................................................... ..... Newton________________ _________ __________ Pittsburg....................................... ....................... Salina.................................................................... Topeka................................................................ Wichita................................................................ Kentucky: Covington.............................................................. Louisville.............................. ................................ Ludlow.............................................. ................... Newport................................................................. Paducah..... ........................................................... Louisiana: Alexandria.............................................................. Monroe.................................................................. New Orleans (City Park Improvement Association) _ Parking commission....... .................................. Shreveport.............................................................. West Monroe......................................................... Maine: Augusta.................................................................. Belfast.................................................................... Portland................................................................ Rockland............................................................... Sanford.................................................................. Waterville.............................................................. Maryland: Baltimore.—........................................................... Cambridge...... ............................ ......................... Cumberland........................................................... Frederick (playground commission)......................... Hagerstown...... ........... .......................................... Salisbury................................................................ See footnotes at end of table. 10,142.00 T a b l e E .— Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1980, by States— Continued Expenditures, 1930 C ity and State Salaries and Interest and sinking funds wages $36.02 5,050.00 $952.59 5,990.00 514,236.68 1,261,756. 31 900.00 1,635.55 2, 777.19 5,127. 63 4,039. 22 2, 000.00 5, 928. 93 63,900. 59 17,774.46 3,000.00 5,815. 72 52.02 217. 00 5,054.91 21,533. 96 8,930.61 43,659.40 100.00 15,625. 00 3,431. 24 12,302. 00 16,043.46 9,230. 00 5, 900. 00 504. 00 47, 024. 38 5, 763. 96 57,297.16 42,495. 43 41,421. 00 10,900. 00 14,184.00 53,816.00 9,550.00 64,538. 00 1,492. 90 $20,876. 50 Total $1,752.61 48,290.00 14,695.21 2,960,048.24 900.00 100.00 42,221.87 146,942. 69 181,896.03 27,020. 00 6, 719.46 10, 000.00 364.80 650. 00 69,028. 22 22,431.40 8, 000.00 19, 798. 92 9,000.00 269.02 102,800.00 13,985. 52 68,493.36 1,800. 00 604. 00 62,649.38 18,850.32 78,900.42 154,738.89 50,651. 00 16,800.00 5.710.00 4.185.00 68, 000.00 2, 000.00 131,074.40 1,492.90 $3,227,192.25 150,000.00 $106,000.00 285,431.80 22,300.00 25,000.00 364.80 150.00 59,452.88 15,400.00 8,624.88 « 35,000.00 2, 000.00 44,140.00 64,634.10 206,983.93 309, 758. 93 24, 712. 51 194, 569. 93 130,350. 00 16,711. 51 26,000. 00 is 63, 546. 00 1930 8,381.36 102,625.15 Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 IN 3,840.51 18,967.17 Bond issues, 1926-1930 AREAS 5,888 $764.00 21,748 37,250.00 25,086 781,188 1,184,055.25 15,712 9,055 63,797 30,000.00 47,490 113,643 39,427.21 45,816 7,477 2,306.72 12,957 8,778 364.80 11,323 115,274 40,692 617. 72 3,000. 00 22,210 8,054.27 19,399 24,204 7,028 5,934 15,500 48,710 3,300. 00 56,537 8,469 5,599 85,068 9,467 ........9,655.12' 9,301. 26 100, 234 96,200.00 102,320 58, 036 23,170 16,434 10,845 112,597 15,084 56,986.4t> 65,276 21,621 Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous RECREATION Bridgewater Brockton Brookline Cam bridge____________________________________________ Chelsea Concord Danvers Dartm outh East TTn.mpt.nn Fall R iver _ _ ■ __ Fitchburg Framingham Gardner Gloucester Grafton Great Barrington Greenfield (recreation commission) Haverhill H olyoke__ ________________________________________ - ___ Hudson Ipswich Lawrence ____ ______________________ Lexington Lowell ____ - __ Lynn Malden Melrose M ilton_____ __________________________- ...........—- ............ N eedham .................................................................................... N ew Bedford............................................................................. N ew buryport............................................................. - .........— N ewton (recreation com m ission)......................................— North Adams___________ ______________________________ Land, build ings, and im provements PABK Massachusetts: Population See footn otes at emd o f table. 1,500.00 4,000.00 1,478.66 500.00 9,000.00 5,019.00 11,583.00 3,560.00 8,778.66 4, 111. 51 4,000.00 2,360.00 145.64 21,128.30 23,188.24 24,960.00 12, 000.00 16,000.00 5,240.00 1,825.05 37,189.50 33,292.11 250.00 2,318.00 300.00 5,918.96 600.00 11,830.96 4,955.55 1,500.00 11,331.29 34.54 1,203.82 3,079.19 1,500.00 10,503.72 1,500.00 83.162.00 1.700.00 36,046. 00 17.500.00 24.000.00 7.700.00 3,449. 37 58,189. 50 56,480.35 510.00 402,777.97 1,400. 00 17,749.92 50.00 1.500.00 16,28fi. 84 6,304.74 1,238.36 4.750.00 13,582.91 12. 000.00 66.13 4,181.58 375.00 719.87 77,446.94 633.25 10,144.15 5,100.00 4,149.84 142,614.73 1.493.00 699.38 32,730.10 5.475.00 4,869.71 273.574.81 260.00 55,500.00 63,000.00 5,000.00 10, 000.00 300,000.00 15,301.27 12.956.00 14,969.41 54.700.00 » 3,310,690.00 12, 000.00 6,765.00 7,500.00 15,700.00 53,513.14 2,704.37 697,645.24 35,770.32 98,490.00 191,068.77 7,660.00 870,382.20 112,076.00 79,500.00 4,000.00 933.75 9,358.98 7,000.00 1,147.71 851.55 3,706.00 3,395.73 10,420.69 28,952.32 150.00 7.500.00 1,589.75 1,515.44 4.860.00 42,173.70 26,788.81 110,532.48 580.00 2, 000.00 3,000.00 35,000.00 500.00 2, 000.00 200.00 250.00 5.000.00 716.00 1. 000.00 29,162.30 3,072.32 14,298.25 4,633.69 15,500.00 9,635.94 ”"“ "45,"852.‘ 43_ 22,046.26 27,130.04 1,875.00 450.00 2.300.00 10, 000.00 i® 1, 100.00 1,838,596.21 155, 508.32 254.714.82 12, 000.00 20.500.00 3,671.21 13,600.97 8, 566.00 91,421.86 59,705.76 167,114.84 730.00 2.500.00 10, 000.00 35.916.00 1.750.00 1, 000.00 58,960.55 17.341.95 32,500.00 57,575.00 260,176.76 8,990,000.00 20 4,463,022.40 202,882.00 377,800.00 14,000.00 11, 000.00 45.850.00 11, 000.00 189.172.00 5,000.00 8,500.00 1,687.25 69,162.30 64,000.00 TABLES M ount Pleasant.. Niles...................... Pontiac................. Port H uron.......... 63,000.00 GENERAL N o rw o o d ........................... Orange................................. Pittsfield.................______ Plym outh........................... Q uincy................................ Revere................................. R ockland............................ Salem................................... Somerville.......................... S p en cer.............................. Springfield.......................... Stoneham............................ T aunton.............................. Uxbridge............................. Wakefield........................... W alpole............................... W a lt h a m .......................... W are.................................... W atertown......................... Wellesley-........................... W eym outh......................... W hitinsville____________ W hitm an............................ W inchendon...................... Winchester......................... W inthrop............................ W oburn............................... W orcester......................... M ichigan: A lb ion ................................ . B ay C ity ............................ Charlotte............................ Detroit............................... . Flint.................................... Grand Rapids.................... Grosse Pointe.................... Holland____ ____________ Ionia.................................... Ironw ood............................ Jackson............................... Ella W . Sharp Park. Kalamazoo.......................... Lansing............................... Manistee............................. M anistique......................... M arquette.......................... T a b le E .— Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1980, by States— Continued Expenditures, 1930 Population Land, build ings, and im provements C ity and State St. Joseph _______________ 16,227 33,454 100.00 154.60 3,000.00 1,326.50 5,000.00 600.00 1,900.00 2,0">2. 50 1,172.33 49,947.76 1,496.25 1, 511.05 29,816.25 3 .100.00 7.800.00 5, 587. 71 2,453.87 79,492.97 1,700.00 50.00 4,000. 00 300.00 $50.00 2,250.00 2,209.40 200.00 96.860.00 25.621.00 2,300.00 251,711.73 886, 595.00 4,181.00 2, 000.00 61,733.76 726,083.00 1,600.00 6, 000.00 168, 628.15 600,044.00 104,422.92 755.00 $16,000.00 $67,608.00 4,341.30 6,983.10 1.615.00 1, 581.10 8, 000.00 5.600.00 7.800.00 9,146.46 7,346.65 159,256.98 3,000.00 59, 542.08 2.751.00 5, 700.00 350.00 68,003.78 200.00 500. 00 21 2,309, 582.00 31.402.00 10.300.00 586,496.55 666.66 755.00 27,918.64 io 1, 200.00 4,796.51 7,500.00 $125,000.00 7,256. 58 5,194.46 410,150.76 25,000.00 51,000.00 1, 835,950.00 875,000.00 2, 000.00 2,295,528.00 26.147.00 17.500.00 1,016,510.97 6,300.00 6,500.00 5,000.00 500.00 200.00 2, 500.00 25.700.00 70.000.00 2,843.75 400.00 25, 000.00 300.00 100.00 3, eoo. 00 6 5,470.00 21,287.00 3, 725.00 12.795.00 42,193.93 75,000.00 75,000.00 20, 000.00 180,000.00 IN 1930 14,850 14,807 48,282 18,017 13,422 5,579 $18,882.00 1,657.12 2,393.59 4,547.48 Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 AREAS 10,169 8,308 6,782 6,321 101,463 6,151 7,484 5,521 9,389 5,086 15,666 5,036 5,014 464,356 9,629 21,000 271,605 10,009 7,173 11,963 6,139 $44,476.00 434.18 42.03 $4,200.00 B ond issues, 1926-1930 Total RECREATION Y psilanti _ _ __________________ Minnesota: Albert Lea Ohisholm Oloquet _ _ _________ Crookston _ ___ __________ D u lu th________________________________________________ E lv ____ ' ........................................................ Eveleth _ _________ Fairmont Fergus Falls _ _ ____ ___________________________ Hastings H ibbing International Falls - Little Falls ....................... M inneapolis___________________________________________ Ked W ing St. Cloud __ _____________ ________________________ St. Paul. _________________________________________ __ South St. Paul __ - ____________ Stillwater Virginia - W ilm ar _ ____ _____ Mississippi: Biloxi Greenville Jackson ______________________________________________ Laurel Natchez Yazoo C ity Missouri: Cape Girardeau Joplin.................... ...................................................................- 80,715 8,349 13,755 6,950 6,803 10,143 Salaries and Interest and sinking funds wages PARK M ichigan—C ont inued. Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous 6,855 28,822 6,372 5,358 6,391 14,657 10,297 5,720 5,787 18,041 75,933 6,688 10,717 12,061 214,006 5,712 18,529 257,474.85 521,804.46 200.00 2,000.00 43,883.19 1.980.00 2.400.00 60,243.50 383.80 15,021.37 529.22 321.06 26,126.70 2.019.00 2,760.00 21,007.26 2,846.44 350.00 5.875.00 17,740.25 1,433.74 1.589.00 2,178.39 4,095.00 2,100.00 900.00 52,932.84 2,000.00 9,563.34 65,543.82 1,000.00 2,000.00 95,600.00 800.00 1,000.00 3,000.00 ®158, 543.63 2,500.00 80.00 9,000.00 49,156.18 558.26 1,200.00 2,944.41 12,377 25,228 5,155.02 13,573 13,794 897.09 12,471 76,834 31,463 ........2,998.40" 5,680 66,198 26,974 38,077 15,699 118,700 10,031 5,148 68,020 7,080 114,589 17,805 8,759 860.00 104,670.88 , , 300.00 38,295.30 764.00 8,000.00 3.000.00 3.000.00 V, 000.00 128,040.00 3.000.00 4.000.00 6.000.00 254,143. 63 3.600.00 23,952.32 5,159.18 773.11 94.81 3,531.00 679.33 12,128.18 2,322.12 116.83 35,197.06 9,158.22 1,068.90 8,879.92 8.500.00 9,459.13 1,671.23 1.400.00 47,325.24 14,478.74 1,249.63 14,880.64 37,086.42 51,967.06 3,565.00 5,550.00 366.00 500.00 2 0 0 .0 0 , 1 2 0 0 .0 0 25.00 250,000.00 11,000.00 40,000.00 818,000.00 409,018.00 10,000.00 . 8.635.00 38, 747.51 5,480.18 2, 703.00 6,284.55 6,273.39 776.33 1 0 0 0 .0 0 20 0 0 0 .0 0 36,210.00 779,279.31 700.00 2,260.00 13,400.00 140,336.69 1,123,379.86 5.018.00 704.86 128, 599.55 3,106.48 54,156.18 5,500.00 4,300.00 10,000.00 17,000.00 10,000.00 150,000.00 3,000.00 15,000.00 191,286.10 500; 000.00 450,000.00 4,500.00 2,500.00 11,300.00 162,500.00 , 164,458.38 10,000.00 110,000.00 10 0 0 0 .0 0 161,480.82 300.00 1,500.00 542,669.89 27,500.00 21,400.00 25,115.50 350,000.00 2, 566.06 410,000.00 TABLES See footnotes at end of table. 399,746 8,290 13,772 10,491 80,935 821,960 20,806 5,676 57,527 6,992 GENERAL Kansas C ity................................................................. M exico............. - ........................................... - .............. M oberly.................................................. .................... St. Charles................................................................... St. Joseph.................................................................... St. Louis................................... - .................................. Sedalia........................................................................... Sikeston__.................................................................... Springfield....................................- .............................. Trenton............................................ - .......................... M ontana: Bozeman....................................................................... Great Falls................................................................... H avre............................................................................ Lewistown_____________________________________ Livingston................................................................... Missoula........................................................................ Nebraska: Beatrice......................................................................... C hadron........................................................................ Falls C ity........................................ ............ ................ Grand Island. ............................................................. Lincoln......................... ................................................ M cC ook ........................................................................ Norfolk........................................- ................................ N orth Platte................................................................ Omaha........................................................................... Y ork............................................................................... N evada: R eno.................................................................... N ew Hampshire: Claremont.................................................................... C o n c o r d ...................................................................... D over............................................................................ Keene............................................................................. Laconia.......................................................................... Manchester.................................................................. Nashua.......................................................................... Somersworth................................................................ N ew Jersey: Atlantic C ity..... .......................................................... Belleville (recreation departm ent)......................... Bloomfield (recreation com m ission)— ................... Bridgeton...................................................................... Cam den........................................................................ D over............................................................................. Dunellen............................................................. ........ East Orange (board of recreation commissioners) East Rutherford..... .................................................... Elizabeth..................... ................................................. Englewood.............................................. .................... Fort Lee........................................................................ T a b le E . — Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1980, by States— Continued Expenditures, 1930 Population Land, build ings, and im provements C ity and State ...... ............ .............. ............ ... _ _ ___ _______________- _________- __ - 3,500.00 250.00 2,933.79 3,477.94 46,153.53 43,962.22 8,587.00 3,000.00 15,000.00 6,958.85 6,201.59 $8, 100.00 14,027.08 42,205.18 2,008.70 55,929.56 8,208.86 79,073.89 250.00 1,600.00 4.500.00 2.730.00 11.400.00 19.885.00 2, 000.00 302.59 300.00 600.00 1, 000.00 500.00 2, 200.00 12,550.00 193,834.51 900.00 927,662.67 278.000.00 15.000.00 33.250.00 15.000.00 900.00 1,579,837.43 100.00 35,000.00 18,500.00 $100.00 296.61 12.400.00 375.000.00 2.400.00 13.600.00 2, 000.00 17,787.37 3.050.00 15.000.00 192,582.96 64,948.15 48,406.77 94,551.90 150.000.00 700.00 « 23,000.00 1.500.00 10,217.56 143,590.45 250.00 4,495.75 15.000.00 16.000.00 24.385.00 19.730.00 75.000.00 302.59 458,340.25 $450.00 32,000.00 114.000.00 175.000.00 «50,178.79 40,000.00 44,000.00 110, 000.00 900.000.00 « 46,662.22 110. 000.00 $124,046.00 200, 000.00 13,000.00 46,000.00 133,000.00 ........................00 35.000.00 35.000.00 25.000.00 12. 000.00 30,000.00 50,000.00 12, 000.00 359,500.00 16,000.00 300,000.00 1930 . 127,412 34,817 36,652 17,375 6,387 573,076 $75,000.00 10, 000.00 200, 000.00 2.400.00 1.750.00 2, 000.00 11,375.64 133,000.00 1,500.00 15,721.75 15.000.00 40,421.75 19.000.00 456,406.66 456,466.00 IN "RrnriYvillA Buffalo........................................................................................ 6,090 11,176 $100.00 $2,400.00 100, 000.00 Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 AREAS Leonia____ _______. ____________________________________ L ong Branch M illburn M oorestown Morristown Newark ________ _ _ N ew B ru n sw ick __ ___________________________________ Passaic_____ . __________________________________________ Paterson Perth A m b oy Pitman South Orange ..... Teaneck T en a fly ' Trenton Verona Vineland W eehawken __ . . . . . Westfield W est Orange W ild w ood.. _ _____________ __________ W oodbridge W ’oodbury N ew M exico: Raton - ----------------Santa Fe N ew York: Alhanv Arn^tArdam A uburn . . . . . . _. . . . . . _____________- - - - - __. . . . . . . Batavia __ .. 7,365 7,656 56,733 316,715 40,716 5,350 18,399 8,548 7,500 15,197 442,337 34,555 62,959 138,513 43,516 5,411 13,630 16,513 5,669 123,356 7,161 7,556 14,807 15,801 24,327 5,330 25,266 8,172 Bond issues, 1926-1930 Total RECREATION Irvington ......... Jersey C it y .—. —. Salaries and Interest and sinking funds wages PARK N ew Jersey—Continued. Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous 98621°— 32----------- 8 900.00 4,003.50 300.00 500.00 2,500.00 100.00 1.980.00 6.600.00 2, 100.00 6, 200.00 12, 000.00 76.00 288.80 895.34 2,700.00 3,386.06 400.00 464.00 6,444.72 9,209.21 1,630.02 1, 200.00 1,800.00 321.86 1,600.00 1,218.00 19,684.60 11,639.64 8,450.30 5.600.00 1, 000.00 1,977.21 780.00 512.00 1.368.00 24,600.00 2,880.00 10,503.50 2.400.00 6.700.00 39,000.00 175.00 15,000.00 6, 000. 00* 260.00 3,138.00 "122,065.88 855,453.86 212,291.11 247,254.74 2,163,200.05' 312,968.00 82,940.00 6,485,608.51 1,697,025.98 1,840,132.22 2,316,506.31 631,944.00 10, 000.00 1.700.00 1.300.00 28,131.12 86,303.79 6, 000.00 19,000.00 400.00 1, 200.00 11,500.00 929.92 24,119.08 125,982.65 3,315.00 38,689.20 602,068.01 3,605.00 88,767.00 400.00 500.00 180,413.00 22,018.20 2,472.90 72.60 68,435.00 14,775.79 650.65 14,879.75 2,163,200.00 "3,'556."55' 3,000.00 176,761.00 7,865.00 "i,“ol9."oo‘ 3,040.00 2,700.00 , 8 000.00 185.00 23, 582.00 7,484.19 3,884.14 3.000.00 2. 000.00 1,682.00 26,129.22 24,134.81 10,080.32 9.740.00 8.800.00 2,299.07 780.00 772.00 4,506.00 2,824.19 50,000.00 225,000.00 31,570.02 136,945.63 9,503,262.36 28 28,990.516.00 1,918,317.09 2« 4,605,250.00 4,240,586.96 *« 6,830,375.00 2,629,474.31 2*8,960,000.00 714,884.00 2*4,480,000.00 «« 4,214,891.00 230,000.00 124,434.91 5.300.00 4,000.00 12.500.00 17.900.00 28.200.00 19,000.00 27,353.95 63.718.20 628,050.66 10.005.00 23, 582.00 363,250.00 400.00 3.500.00 12, 000.00 444,941.00 976,876.12 74.069.00 9,000.00 88.308.20 82,500.00 17,248.69 1,741.65 61,960.15 9,579.75 17,029.45 50,000.00 6, 000.00 2,098.14 •43,446.45 103,446.05 15,867,020.72 27 881,001.00 5,413,364.55 2» 1,711.033.46 2» 5,070,646.53 2,790,975.18 236,000.00 2,740.00 6, 000. 00. 65,000.00 292,195.00 14,800.00 7,000.00 870,613.72 110, 000.00 82,500.00 12,589.84 1,019.00 1,362,947.00 TABLES See footnotes at end of table. 7,641 16,777 16,043 17,802 47,397 5,814 18,531 23,099 12,650 16,250 12,337 6,449 20,708 45,156 28,088 23,948 5,282 11,106 11,993 10,637 6,071 .61,499 31,275 64,000 6,930,446 1,265,258 2,560,401 1,867,312 1,079,129 158,346 75,460 19,019 16,916 12,636 22,652 17,125 22,662 40,288 328,132 9,577 9,690 6,643 7,986 209,326 7?.763 101,740 32,205 5,674 134,646 GENERAL Canandaigua............................ . . .......... Corning.................................................... Cortland.................................................. D unkirk.................................................. Elm ira....................................................... Fredonia.............................................. . Glens Falls (recreation com m ission). Gloversville............................................. H e m p ste a d .................................. ......... Hornell........................... ............... ......... H udson.................................................... H udson Falls_______________________ Ithaca...................................... ................. Jamestown.............................................. . Kingston.......................... ...................... . Lackawanna________________________ Larchmont............................................... Little Falls............................................... Lynbrook................................................ . Massena................... ............................... M ed ina................... ...................... ......... M ou n t Vernon....................................... . Newburgh............................................... . N ew Rochelle.......................................... N ew Y ork C ity _____________________ T he Bronx______________________ B rooklyn______________________ M a n h a tta n ................................... Queens.......................... .................... R ichm ond......................................... Niagara F a lls .-- ..................................... N orth Tonaw anda................................. Ogdensburg.............................................. Oneonta____________________________ O s w e g o .--................... .......................... . Peekskill.................................................. . Port Chester_____ __________________ Poughkeepsie......................................... . Rochester................................................ . Salamanca............................................... . Scarsdale................................................... Seneca Falls— . ..................................... . S olvay....................................................... Syracuse.................................................... T roy ......................................................... . Utica.......................................................... W atertown............. ................................ Wells ville___________________________ Y onkers................................................... . T a b le £ .— Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1980, by States— Continued QC Expenditures, 1930 C ity and State 5,451 17,112 5,037 5,268 Salaries and Interest and sinking funds wages $6,800.00 $26, 299.00 471.32 1,147. 00 3,000.00 ” 4~666."66' 2, 200. 00 1,192.14 4,269.62 525. 00 1,085.44 3,425.11 15,639.64 2,614.25 3,411.78 3,753.79 18, 804.06 3, 208.89 2,076.30 3,053.95 19, 519.60 4,000.00 2,899. 51 23,249. 86 1,269.34 10, 000.00 151,601.00 7,282.28 3,000.00 1,900.00 3,193.75 4,000.00 2,266.25 190.00 174,385.70 584,806. 53 15, 500.00 42,714. 20 279,889.00 881.25 8,818.34 7,000.00 4,098.20 3,314.57 2,500.00 19,500.00 585.00 11,568.10 2,427.57 2,480.00 400.00 310.00 156.89 $65,000.00 78.774.00 100.00 2.858.43 4.014.43 9, 200.00 13,000.00 16.375.00 $3,827.09 4,076. 25 2,040.00 300.00 5, 300.00 "4," 796.66" ” 3,’o5o."oo’ 7.220.00 1. 200.00 6, 000.00 2,111.95 2,800.00 Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 12,198.13 42, 789. 57 8, 388.14 6,873. 52 22, 573. 4.000. 4,168. 40, 819. 1. 000. 1,152,564. 1,711, 527. 44, 890. 49,034. 318,003. 881. 24,090. 14.000. 6,364. 5,404. 10 27,477. 22. 000. 18,200. 3,585. 7,885. 21,215. 1, 200. 11,590. 2, 668. >9,249.00 100.00 14,000.00 4, 500.00 $5,000.00 30.000.00 10,688.76 1,557.40 5,890.34 20, 000.00 20. 000.00 46.150.00 15.405.00 35,000.00 5.850.000.00 7.145.000.00 329.000.00 8,700.00 190.000.00 47.850.00 215.405.00 10.500.00 2,731, 225.69 5,255,828.00 329,000.00 1,690.06 546.601.00 62,000.00 40,000. 00 101,142.00 40,000.00 1,900.00 10, 000.00 22, 000.00 22, 000.00 "26,"66o.‘ 66‘ 7,885.37 18,568.10 6, 000.00 23,000.00 400.00 IN 1930 926,320.77 996,057.38 25,000.00 7,569.70 51,857.97 130,663.46 4,390.25 6,320.14 38,114.00 Bond issues, 1926-1930 Total AREAS 255,040 7,396 6,688 104,906 8,046 451,160 900,429 50,945 290,564 200,982 9,716 39,667 25,633 13,422 7,036 52,176 70,509 33,525 14,285 14,524 26,400 5,518 29,992 30,596 $45,675.00 100.00 1,240.00 Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous RECREATION 50,193 82,675 52,037 17,093 53, 569 21,412 32,270 75, 274 Land, build ings, and im provements PARK North Carolina: Asheville...............•_ Charlotte..... ........... Durham ................. Gastonia................. G reensboro-.......... R ock y M ou n t____ W ilm ington........... W inston-Salem . _ _ N orth Dakota: Devils Lake........... Grand Forks........ . M a n d a n .--............ Valley C ity ............ Ohio: A kron...................... B exley..................... Bowling Green----Canton.................... Cheviot................... Cincinnati________ Cleveland-............. Cleveland Heights. Colum bus.............. D a y t o n ................. D o v e r .................... East ClevelandElyria...................... Frem ont................. Greenville............... H am ilton................ Lakewood............... Mansfield............... M arietta............... . Martins Ferry____ M assillon................ M iamisburg........... M iddletow n........... Newark__________ Population ' i ............... f 1 ..................... , 14,000.00 317.16 500.00 379.97 300.00 1, 000. 00 1,124. 29 500.00 3,000. 00 15,600.37 2,525.00 500. 00 3,488.68 5,782.85 4,110.00 475.00 4,000.00 1,500. 00 15,390.40 18,333.90 64,300.00 925.00 12, 000.00 1,709. 38 3,006.74 4,519.01 128,164.90 68,018.16 15,549.30 39,240.56 90,023. 80 106,142. 59 27,812. 50 245.00 3,450.00 7,245.00 800.00 1, 500. 00 35,125.00 68,300. 00 23,252. 55 71,747.45 50.00 300.00 64,625.00 69,085.23 10,280.16 104,445,54 4,399.16 40,388.00 908.47 2,800.00 100.00 1,142. 50 124,186.28 470,976. 66 34,480. 74 16,585.49 2,610.00 335.90 839.47 2,400.00 1, 500.00 10.940.00 10 5,000.00 2,300. 00 3.150.00 639,026. 66 6,499.13 15.000.00 95.000.00 20, 000.00 15.000.00 25.000.00 25,000.00 14,000.00 20, 000.00 165,000.00 333, 000. 00 25,000. 00 1,284.00 1, 200.00 10, 000.00 20, 000.00 333,000.00 877,733.57 25,000.00 50,000. 00 50,000.00 4, 710,000. 00 4,601,133.04 1, 100, 000.00 54,000.00 752,997.15 14,000.00 300.00 6, 000.00 4,000.00 700.00 3,330. 00 523, 538.80 10,280.16 196,040.35 25,923.18 46.741.00 22.500.00 2,083. 84 5.200.00 3,000.00 169,000.00 12, 000.00 350.00 500.00 3.500.00 600.00 2,187. 50 330,267.29 57,514.07 4,938.53 2,479.00 5.600.00 1,524.55 2.150.00 300.00 15.500.00 1,821.87 15.000. 00 9,610. 90 2, 500.00 21,879. 08 39,717.12 70.935.00 1,400. 00 16.000.00 1, 000.00 9,235.13 25.00 233, 738.00 241,213.81 7,450. 00 450,378.00 25.000. 00 40.000.00 30,352.82 104,445.54 27.500.00 40.368.00 3,000.00 10, 000.00 TABLES See footnotes a t end o f table. 5,000.00 ................. 233.00 GENERAL N orw ood............................................. Painesville........................................... P a rm a................................................. R avenna................................... ......... R eading.______ ___________________ Salem................................................... Sandusky............................................ Shelby.................................................. Sidney......................................... ......... Springfield........................................... Steubenville....................... ............. . T o le d o ................... ............................ Wapakoneta ................................... W arren............................................... W ellsville............................................ W ooster................................................ Xenia................................................... Y ou ngstow n-..................................... Township park district_______ Zanesville............................................. Oklahoma: Anadarko........................................... Bristow....................................... ......... Chickasha........................................... E l R eno....... ........................................ E n id ..................................................... Law ton............................................... Oklahoma C ity .................................. O km ulgee........................................... Ponca C ity......................................... Tulsa................................ ................... Oregon: A lb a n y............................................. Baker.................................................... B end....... ............................................. Eugene (playground commission) . Marshfield.............................. ........... M e d fo rd ......... ................................... Oregon C ity ______________________ Pendleton............................................ Portland.............................................. Pennsylvania: A bington..................... ............. ......... A llen tow n -......................................... A ltoona............................................... A valon........... ............. ....................... Bethlehem........................................... Blairsville............................................ Bradford.............................................. Chambersburg.................................... T a b l e £•— Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1980, by States— Continued Expenditures, 1930 C ity and State $2,500.00 484.88 $2,525.00 1,957.42 $3,910.00 5,007.42 30,000. 00 500.00 500.00 3,428.41 3,835.00 173.27 36,755. 61 14,935.78 10,500. 00 766. 75 2, 000.00 696.28 2,714.00 1,054,241.00 99,652.98 11,611.92 1,296.87 72.65 1,833.01 804.50 506.66 9,434.60 1,500.00 14,290.08 2,500.00 15,954.00 211,894.00 » 755, 650. 00 **1,643,450.00 134,074.28 413,099.15 18,600.12 48,799.75 150.00 80.00 3,000.00 900.00 1,083.87 4,734.53 1,512.85 - - 975 39 834.14 $12,166.09 8,488.68 8,965.00 12,040.72 13,350.92 31,000.00 1,585.84 61,954.00 1,680.00 4,055.16 2,333.32 25,829.13 40,097.76 $4,591.00 Bond issues, 1926-1930 52.10 15.08 8,910.93 Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 Total 83.440.00 18,364.19 14.335.00 1,636.30 2, 000.00 31,273.31 13,945.24 10 4,100.00 3,181.98 2,226.52 2, 000.00 23,724. 68 10, 000.00 2,500. 00 230,562.00 3,462,151. 93 646,826.41 750.00 4.200.00 93.229.00 75.146.00 3.230.00 900.00 41,118.63 5,704. 92 2,346.99 $70,000.00 $100, 000.00 30,000.00 30,500.00 45,000.00 432,229.00 8, 000.00 13,000.00 250,000.00 30 14,420.00 29,759.51 140,000.00 6,642.96 5,000.00 50,000.00 30,991.59 100, 000.00 5,000.00 31 983,363.81 9,954,022.29 33 1,739,652.98 128,805.23 70,000.00 58,066.07 IBo. 65 IN 1930 1,334.29 Salaries and Interest and wages sinking funds AREAS 669,817 24,300 7,956 111, 171 143,433 10,428 8,055 11,479 14,863 12,325 5,381 Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous RECREATION 15,731 59,164 15,291 14,582 10, 724 34,468 12,323 6,419 115,967 16,508 80,339 66,993 59,949 6,490 9,668 35,166 54,632 16,698 5,647 8,552 8,675 26,043 48,674 35,853 22,075 1,950,961 Land, build ings, and im provements PARK Pennsylvania— Continued. OhflltATihftrn .. ....................... ...... ..... Chester__ _________ _ __ __ _______________________ C la irton ______________________________________________ Coatesville____________________________________________ Pnr^npnljs. , , Easton______________________________________________ Ell wood C ity __________________________________________ E m a u s __ ________ ________________ _ _________ Erie ___________ _____ _____________ ___________ Greensburg____________________________________________ Harrisburg___________ ________________________________ Johnstown____________________________________________ Lancaster___ ____________ __________________________ r ifthightoTi Lock H aven__________ _____ _________ _____ Lower M erion .__ ________________________________ _ M cK eesport__________________________________. _______ M ead ville____________________ . ________________________ Mechanicsburg_________________ _______________________ M ilton _____________________________________ __________ Monongahela (recreation commission) ____ ________ N an ticok e...___ — _____ . ___—________________________ N ew Castle____________________________________________ Norristown________________________ ___ Oil C ity...................................................................................... Philadelphia (Bureau of C ity Property)_______________ Fair mount Park C om m ission.. . ____. . . ______ Pittsburgh_________________ _________________________ Potts ville_____________________________ ______________ R ankin_____________________________________________ R e a d in g ___ ______________ ____________ ____________ „ Scran to n , ^ T ......, .......... ..................................... Taylor _________________________________ ____________ Titusville Vandergrift___ . . . _______. . . . _____. . . ___. . . ___ ________ Warren .... . . . W est Chester. ______ . . . _. . . West Y ork................................................................................. Population 10, 000.00 200, 000.00 168,000.00 ........K o o o ........85066' 7,900.00 25,499.64 13,319.19 1,296.34 300.00 1,004.50 29,933.20 6,081.08 1,300.00 3,000.00 25,000.00 !_. 244,000.00 1,645.50 4,100.00 3,157.66 4,000.00 8,500.00 ’l7,"666.'66' 2,820.71 "12, 964. 99 1, 000.00 5,271.63 4,127.00 5,055.66 6.400.00 2, 000.00 12,179.27 3.116.00 26,555.16 224,175.00 72, 940. 91 6,634.92 10,775.00 128,322. 92 27,262. 83 25, 085. 00 260,066. 70 9,091.16 16,200.16 1, 000.00 104,668. 85 2,382.42 500.00 1,500. 00 106,199. 72 ’ n3,"l33.’ §8 32,306. 06 26,329. 89 1,675. 00 5,000.00 186,903.65 14,217. 93 1,535.00 800.00 645.13 10, 000.00 49, 957.87 3,114. 97 200.00 2,710.70 41,444.44 115, 069. 68 3,240. 00 2,500,00 11,651. 03 150,887. 53 5,792.36 3,090,29 1,935.49 200.00 60,000.00 45,654.98 14.000.00 540,000.00 13,755.86 612,000.00 4,926.09 9.300.00 M7,155.00 *« 618,542.25 43,252.39 32,877.06 300.00 8,049.22 6.800.00 10. 000.00 32,607.23 40,000.00 42,503.19 40,000.00 52,299. 08 260,035. 00 498,382.46 418,592.34 . 8,900.00 153,411.24 13,086. 26 5,833.33 85, 000 146, 050. 53, 812. 175. 500. 559, 647. , 873. 2, 000. 186, 587. 7, 889. 3, 500. 20 840. , 331. 949. 10, 818. 200. 2 , 202 . 2, 000. 1, 000. 26, 767. 50,000.00 110, 000.00 83,415.00 1, 000.00 6,400. CO 3,000. 00 20,271.61 7,243. 00 44,575. 81 1915,526.43 37,051. S 40,000.00 8, 000.00 13,589.33 225.000.00 350.000.00 975.000.00 132.000.00 444.175.00 379.275.00 1,031,498.14 25,000.00 750.000.00 175.000.00 150.000.00 400.000.00 146,058.57 20, 000.00 550,000.00 85,000.00 478,320.99 95,000.00 500.000.00 300.000. 00 628,000.00 200, 000. 00 85,000.00 16,172.05 2,600.00 000 10,882.16 51,817.36 90.00 1,029.63 910,00 5,480.55 9,375.00 216, 817. 30,000.00 550,000.00 14,882.16 *61,022,890.00 TABLES See footnotes at end of table. 25,000.00 GENERAL Wilkes-Barre______ ___________ Williamsport_________________ Y ork .............................................. . , R hode Island: N ewport....................................... . Providence................................... . Warren......................................... . Woonsocket................................. . South Carolina: Charleston..................................... Municipal golf com m ittee.. Darlington............................ ........ Florence.......... .............................. Greenville_____........................... . Orangeburg................................... Spartanburg................................ . U nion............................................ . South Dakota: H uron........................................... . Lead.............................................. . M itchell......................................... R apid C ity .................................. . Sioux Falls.................................... W atertown.................................... Tennessee: C hattanooga.............. ................ K n oxville-............... .................... M em phis_____________________ Nashville.................................. . Texas: A m a rillo.......... ............. ............. Austin......................................— Beaum ont.................................... . Bryan............................................ . C isco............................................... Dallas............................................ . D enton........................................... Eagle Pass..................................... Fort W orth................................... Galveston..................................... . Greenville...................................... Highland Park............................. H ouston.................................. . . . . Kingsville...................................... L ubbock........................................ Lufkin........................................... Luling............................................ N ew Braunfels............................. Orange............................................ Port Arthur................................... San A ntonio.................................. T a b l e E . — Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1930, by States— Continued tc Expenditures, 1930 C ity and State 5, 10, 7, 52, 43, Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous Salaries and Interest and wages sinking funds $113. 25 $1,439. 04 26,538. 36 38, 000. 00 $4, 255. 66 Bond issues, 1926-1930 $2,900. 00 1,552.29 10 2, 200.00 io 45, 091. 07 68, 794. 02 $15,500.00 14,500. 00 228,685. 48 300.00 65,000. 00 150,000.00 100, 000. 00 111, 685. 48 300. 00 11, 5,000.00 2, 000.00 2, 000. 00 7, 79.01 645. 25 15, 6, 400.00 1, 000. 00 234. 71 250.00 500.00 6, 000.00 1,329. 05 1, 005. 00 8, 075. 00 19, 718. 00 6, 291. 50 8,699. 47 1,500.62 4,650. 00 38,000.00 2,080. 00 1,481. 00 2,398. 50 53, 973. 27 5,639. 38 8,307. 00 112,476. 00 6,810. 00 4.744.00 690.00 672. 74 7, 140. 00 12, 957.00 156, 676.00 13, 197.00 225.00 1, 700.00 4.770.00 584.25 636. 95 3,247. 72 1,175.19 801. 02 143,520. 61 43,756.67 30,400. 00 2, 990. 32 1, 200.00 12,415. 50 700.00 3,174. 62 450.863. 89 115.863. 50 470.00 >.81 400.00 904.58 407. 59 508. 36 925.19 975. 64 1,099, 018. 72 199, 572. 29 22, 40, 7, 34, 129, 28, 45, 182, 69,206 11,990 21, 6, 30, 10, 8, 30, 12, U, 365, 115, 6, 200.00 4,307.00 4,000.00 330. 01 1, 570. 64 2,093. 72 2,050.00 497,514.64 39,952.12 1, 200. 00 87.50 1, 000. 00 2,751. 42 7,119. 58 10, 200. 00 600.00 1, 500. 00 724. 26 $25, 000. 00 563. 76 742. 50 575.00 718.00 24,000. 00 18, 560. 00 50,000. 00 « 31,000. 00 700.00 14, 000. 00 3,000.00 6,500.00 54,091.22 ’555. 00 " 9, 89,000. 00 5.000.00 2. 000.00 2,833,365.76 136,186.19 IN 1930 $17,000.00 AREAS 14, 140, 5, 8, 8, Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 Total RECREATION Land, build ings, and im provements PARK Texas—Continued. Sulphur Springs. Sweetwater......... T a ylor........ ......... W aco.................... W ichita F a lls .._ Utah: Provo................... Salt Lake C it y .. Tooele C ity ____ Verm ont: Barre................... Brattleboro____ St. Albans.......... St. J ohnsbury... Virginia: Charlottesville. . Clifton F o rg e .. . D anville........ . Lynchburg_____ M artinsville____ N ew port N ew s.. N orfolk________ Petersburg-------Portsmouth____ R ichm ond.......... Roanoke.............. Staunton............. 'W ashington: Aberdeen.......... . Anacortes............ Bellingham......... Bremerton.......... Centralia............. E verett________ H oquiam ............. Olym pia........ . Seattle............. Spokane.............. Population 106,817 15,976 11.627 22,101 60,408 7,345 7,737 75,572 16,186 61,659 19,917.69 78,081.51 93,053.00 2,857.36 10,399.19 10,500.00 473.00 2, 000.00 8,815.78 10, 000.00 3,388.00 2,696.31 1,527.94 100.00 3, 500. 00 100.00 2, 500. 00 5,775. 75 150.00 550.00 19,200. 00 40,000. 00 6,500.00 1, 000. 00 19,712. 42 10,242.19 4,400.00 9,365.56" 4,126.40 7,920.15 19,284.63 12,426. 55 43,778.93 ........7,’ 670."55" 13,365.55 4,000.00 900.00 1,500. 00 687,553.95 755.55 5, 415.15 14,793.10 1,344. 60 62,417.90 1, 000.00 63,228.28 8.500.00 18,971.09 3.000.00 4, 111. 92 9,249.51 14,500.00 30,865.96 4.000.00 4000.00 300.00 5, 500. 00 2,630. 00 4,000.00 184,333.00 10, 000.00 150.00 750.00 25,200. 00 2, 000.00 173,000. 00 12, 000.00 15,900. 5,000. 73,215. 14,368. 2,901. 84,968. 35,826. 119,606. 27,377. 13,365. 5,708. 12.500. 1,600. 2.500. 2,367,376. 400. 17,834. 863. 26, 793. 2,083. 125,125. 9,700. 100,511. 14,750. 25,610. 10,850. 6, 741. 12, 000. 37,000. 49,775. 23.500. 6.500. 15,300.00 2,500.00 350,000. 00 31,000.00 15.000. 00 70.000. 00 2,904. 24 3,000.00 25,000.00 ~ 77,900. 00 249,600. 00 22,802.73 15,000.00 75,000.00 1,263,840." 83 2, 000.00 i, 482,269. 55 38,465. 92 2, 500. 00 26,000.00 100, 000. 00 160,883. 77 8,500.00 115,727. 96 108,000.00 TABLES 25,267 5,000.00 2, 500.00 1,500. 00 5,545 29, 784. 95 23,611 14,353.03 26,287 * 5,793 37,415 33, 518. 64 24,244.67 21.628 23,400. 00 50, 262 52,427.10 16,330.30 39, 614 22,963 8,778 2, 000. 00 9,062 5, 000. 00 100.00 5,595 600.00 8,458 578,249 1,281,962.57 397,659. 75 5,015 8,022. 54 9,151 4, 111. 99 5,030 488.00 40,108 8, 000.00 4,000.00 6,308 73a 63 67,542 62,708.00 8,019 8,500.00 200.00 39,251 19,591.70 17,391.66 13,479 6,250.00 36,113 ........6,639.68" 10,083 350.00 2, 000.00 10,613 23,758 287.46 2,463.03 18,000.00 21,194 4,600.00 2,500.00 34,671 16,409.35 5,362 15,000.00 500.00 2, 000.00 8,726 500.00 193,909.56 17.300.00 19,687. 97 25.888.00 GENERAL Tacom a............................................ W alla W alla.................................... W enatchee...................................... Yakim a..................................... ...... W est Virginia: Charleston________ ____________ Elkins.............................................. Grafton............................................ H untington..................................... M organtown................................... Wheeling......................................... Wisconsin: Appleton............................. ........... Baraboo............................... ........... Beloit................................................ E au Claire....................................... Fort A tkinson.......................... . Green B a y...................................... Janesville........................................ Kenosha........................................ . La Crosse...................................... . M anitow oc...................................... Marshfield..................................... . Menasha......................................... M enominie____________________ Merrill............................................ M ilwaukee............. ......................... M onroe.......................................... Neenah.......... ............. ................. . Oconto............................................. Oshkosh......................... ................. Portage.......................................... . R acine.............................................. Rhinelander.................................. . Sheboygan..................................... . Shorewood..................................... . S uperior81....................................... T w o Rivers..................................... W atertown...................................... Wausau............................................ W auwatosa..................................... W est Allis......................... - ............ Whitefish B a y ................................ Wisconsin R apids.......................... 21,500.00 15,000.00 45,873.40 91.000.00 51,343. 00 15.000.00 15.000.00 See fo o t n o t e s a t en d o f table. CO T a b l e E .— Park expenditures in 762 cities, 1980, by States— Continued HP* Expenditures, 1930 C ity and State Supplies, equipment, and miscel laneous $500.00 $500.00 94.34 1,125.00 8,440 8,536 Capital expend itures, 1926-1930 $1,700.00 2,294.34 6,125.00 $3,600.00 IN 1930 Includes $'199,578 spent for park improvements. 28 Includes $2,700 spent b y recreation department. u Includes m oney spent for salaries and wages. 2« M ostly m oney allotted by board of estimate and apportionment for purchase of parks and playgrounds “ from bond issues and from tne real estate fund.” 27 Funds spent for purchase of land and for improvements in bureau of recreation, 1928-1930. 28 M oney allotted b y board of estimate and apportionment for purchase of parks and play grounds “ from bond issues and from the real estate fu n d /’ 29 Expenditures for land only. so includes $5,420 spent b y recreation department. « Includes $873,186.81 spent b y bureau of recreation. * Am ount appropriated, and not actual expenditures. 88 Includes $1,240,000 spent b y bureau of recreation. m Spent b y board of recreation commissioners. m Includes $333,542.25 spent b y board of recreation. « Includes $472,890 spent b y recreation department. 8? Spent b y recreation department. m Report received too late to include figures in summary tables. AREAS $1,200.00 1,700.00 5,000.00 Bond issues, 1926-1930 Total RECREATION 1 $8,000 was spent b y recreation department. 2 $240,000 was spent b y recreation commission. * Includes $2,847,106 spent b y playground and recreation department. 4 Includes expenditure for land, buildings, and improvements. * Includes $75,000 spent b y recreation department. * Includes expenditure for supplies, equipment, and miscellaneous. * Includes $786,176.89 spent b y playground commission. * Includes $50,000 spent b y recreation department. * Spent b y recreation commission. 10 Receipts. Expenditures not reported. » Includes $50,000 spent b y recreation department. « Includes $12,000 spent b y recreation department. 18 For 2-year period only, w Spent b y playground board. Includes $50,000 spent b y recreation department. *• Includes $67,460.60 spent b y playground com m unity service commission. 17 Includes $20,000 spent b y recreation department. 11 For new construction only. Represents increased assessed valuation rather than expenditures. * Includes $1,246,433.46 spent b y recreation department. Salaries and Interest and Sinking funds wages •PARK W yom ing: Laramie_____ R ock Springs. Sheridan____ Population Land, build ings, and im provements GENERAL TABLES 115 T able F.—Gifts for park purposes in 189 cities, 1926 to 1980, by States C ity and State Value of land donated for parks Alabama: Talladega Arizona: Phoenix $4,600.00 20,000.00 Fort Smith........ ............ Little H ock.................... CJfilifornia; Berkeley_____________ Culver C ity __________ Eureka_______________ Glendale................. . . . Los Angeles M odesto______________ M onterey_____ . . ___ Oakland _ ...................... P asadena..................... Pfttaliima Pomona______________ Redlands_____________ San Buenaventura____ San Diego_____ ______ San Francisco________ Santa Barbara________ Upland_______________ C o lo r a d o : C o lo r a d o Springs_______________ Connecticut: Bridgeport..................... East Hartford............. *. Putnam........................ . Rockville_____________ Torrington........ ............ Wethersfield.................. Delaware: W ilmington__ Florida: M iam i............................. Palatka........................... St. Augustine................ Tallahassee___________ Georgia: Atlanta........................... Savannah....................... Idaho: Twin Falls........... Illinois: Chicago— Lincoln Park com missioners............... South Park commis sioners...................... Chicago Heights........... Des Plaines.................... Downers Grove............ Glen E llyn.................... 20,000.00 75,000.00 $2,600.00 1,500.00 Arfrfwifwis: 500.00 25,000.00 10,000.00 542,925.00 2,000.00 10,000.00 870,000.00 25,000.00 13,000.00 3,750.00 10,000.00 26,500.00 18,000.00 12,948.09 4,000.00 350.000.00 250.000.00 40,000.00 1,200.00 500.000.00 200.000.00 47,467.69 2,500.00 50.00 4,000.00 10,000.00 3,000.00 1,000.00 30,000.00 12,030.00 3,500.00 134,100.00 5,000.00 1,250.00 26,926.16 2,000.00 75.000.00 19.000.00 800.00 50,000.00 500,000.00 1,600.00 50,000.00 45, 55o. 55 2,160.00 T C iriQ rla la Lom bard........................ 100,000.00 R ockford_____________ 127,500.00 R ock Island............. Sterling........................... W ood River................... i 100,000.00 Indiana: Bloomington................. Jeffersonville_________ 1,000.00 f i n n t h T^fvnH 4,500.00 Valparaiso...................... Warsaw 2,000.00 Iowa: Cedar Rapids 5,000.00 Creston_______ Davenport..................... Des M oines................... Dubuque....................... 22,000.00 N ew ton.......................... 100.00' Kansas: Pittsburg........... Maine: Sanford........................... 20,000.00 Water ville...................... 10,000.00 Maryland: Baltimore. 300,000.00 Massachusetts: Brockton........................ 500,000.00 Fall River...................... 2,500.00 Gardner.......................... 150.00 1Includes value of other gifts. Value of other gifts 600,000.00 5,000.00 556.66 200,000.00 46,000.00 5,000.00 35,000.00 500.00 10,000.00 4,806.11 1,000.00 12,304.91 1,100.00 2,000.00 250,000.00 City and State Value of land Value of donated for other gifts parks Massachusetts—Contd. Lexington____________ $7,050.00 $2,500.00 Lowell ______________ 600.00 4,531.78 M ilton ..................... ...... 1,800.00 N ew Bedford_________ 11,350.00 2,500.00 N ew ton______________ 100,000.00 15,000.00 Quincy_______________ 100.00 Rockland_____________ 5,000.00 Spencer_______________ Springfield____ ______ 1312,425.95 W are_________________ ' " ‘ 2,’ m o o Wellesley_____________ , 5,000.00 W hitman_____________ 187655756 17,300.00 Worcester................. . Michigan: 397,100.00 D etroit_______________ Flint................................ 6,500.00 10,000.00 Kalamazoo___________ 30.000.00 Lansing______________ 70.000.00 20,000.00 Marquette____________ 5,000.00 1,000.00 Marshall_____________ 35,000.00 Port Huron____ ______ 600.00 Ypsilanti_____________ 1,500.00 Minnesota: Cloquet______________ 3,730.10 Duluth_______________ 67,400.00 20,763.92 Minneapolis__________ 107,427.00 33,600.00 St. Paul______________ 30,000.00 South St. Paul.............. 3,000.00 Stillwater____________ 20,000.00 Missouri: Joplin________________ 25,000.00 Kansas C ity__________ 300,000.00 Montana: Livingston. _. 2,200.00 5,000.00 Nebraska: Lincoln_______________ 75,000.00 North Platte_________ 1,500.00 N ew Hampshire: Manchester___________ 5,270.00 Nashua_______________ 1,000.00 2,000.00 Somersworth_________ 500.00 N ew Jersey: M orristown__________ 8,000.00 Newark______________ 900,000.00 Teaneck______________ 15, 000.00 Tenafly _____________ 362.00 W oodbridge.................. 4,000.00 N ew Mexico: Raton 250.00 N ew York: Auburn 1,000.00 Batavia 15.000.00 Buffalo............................ 10.000.00 Corning.......................... 14,786.34 Glovers ville................... 1 104,000.00 Little Falls----------------10,000.00 Lynbrook....................... 2,000.00 150.00 \TAffVi Hq ••• XNUi til TXatiqwqti UllctWauUa. 1,500.00 O t lP flT ltft 12,000.00 Peekskill......................... 5,500.00 S f t i ftrno n pa 27665766 Scarsdale........................ 8,500.00 North Carolina: Charlotte........................ 43.000.00 Durham..................... 30.000.00 4, 000.00 Greensboro..................... 60.000.00 W ilm ington................... 250.00 1, 000.00 Ohio: Akron_________ __ 15,000.00 C a n to n ___ 200, 000.00 Dayton 77,600.00 Greenville 1,000.00 900.00 Hamilton................ ....... 35,000.00 Marietta 250.00 Paines ville 25.000.00 Shelby............................ 5.000.00 10.000.00 Wapakoneta....... .......... 2.000.00 1,250.00 Wells ville 1,000.00 Xenia 2,500.00 5,000.00 Youngstown.................. 6.000.00 116 T able PARK RECREATION AREAS IN 1930 F.— Gifts for park purposes in 189 cities, 1926 to 1980, by States— Con tinued C ity and State Oklahoma: AriRHarko nhictftsbft ... Olrlfthnnift C ity Springs Tulsa_________________ Oregon: Albany. . ____ _ Pendleton____________ Pennsylvania: A ltoona______________ A valon_______________ Blairs ville____________ Bradford_____________ Philadelphia ______ Titusville_____________ Wilkes-Barre................. R hode Island: Provi dence_________________ South Carolina: Charleston____________ Florence______________ Tennessee: Hum boldt __ Knoxville____________ M em phis_____________ N a sh v ille____________ Texas: Amarillo________ ____ Austin______________ Beaumont_______ ____ Dallas______ _____ ___ Fort W orth Galveston_______ _____ Highland Park_______ Value of land donated for Value of other gifts parks ...... $250.00 300.00 6,000.00 $7,500.00 10,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00 2,500.00 1,000.00 100.00 900.00 15.000.00 2,000.00 25.000.00 150,000.00 2,640.00 100.00 50,000.00 34,500.00 5,800.00 1,500.00 21,200.00 300,000.00 193,600.00 800.00 1,750.00 65.000.00 20.000.00 8,000.00 4,440.00 16,000.00 302,500.00 35,000.00 5,900.00 10,000.00 42,000.00 2,000.00 10,000.00 * Reported b y 134 cities. City and State Value of land Value of donated for other gifts parks Texas—Continued. $90,000.00 Houston______________ 7,000.00 Kingsville____________ W aco_________________ Utah: Salt Lake C i t y - - . . 35,000.00 Virginia: Charlottesville________ 1,000.00 12,000.00 Clifton Forge____ ____ Washington: Anacortes_____ ______ 20,000.00 3,000.00 Seattle________________ 15.000.00 Spokane______________ Tacom a______________ 10.000.00 West Virginia: 3,800.00 Morgantown________ Wheeling_____________ 1,000,000.00 Wisconsin: Baraboo_____________ 1 2,500.00 Beloit________________ 26,650.00 Eau Claire___________ 450.00 Green B ay___________ 2,928.00 Janesville_____________ 45,000.00 Kenosha______________ 73,019.50 La C ro s s e ________ __ M anitowac___________ 5,000.00 Menasha_____________ Merrill............................ Neenah_______________ 25,000.00 Racine_______________ 100,000.00 77,225.00 Wausau______________ Wisconsin Rapids____ W yoming: Sheri den____ 6,000.00 $15,000.00 6,000.00 14,000.00 25,000.00 250,000.00 500.00 30,000.00 22,000.00 800.00 5,000.00 T otal........................ 88,568,257.08 34,248,082.44 * Reported b y 101 cities.