Full text of Park Recreation Areas in the United States, 1930 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 565

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 mant
y
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
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

Total, all groups...........

309

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..

117,499.85

Educational-recreational

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

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

31

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

24
60
51
113
17
12
64
38

101

Total
acreage

4
5
1
15
9
12
20
2

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......... .

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

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.............

Band stands

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

5

Dance
pavilions

202

367

Golf courses,
18-hole
16

10
37
43
23
14
9
4

Total, all groups

1,138

123

231

Miniature
golf courses

85
108
150
153
95
145

Swimming
pools
105
41

Tennis
courts

64

100

663

480

167

Picnic places

135

70

88

90
65

129

16
40
59
65
106
98

5
8
23
53
85
85
121

88
122

282

Golf courses,
9-hole

17
35
42
48
43
87
62

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...............

8

21

360
238
498
605
533
388
347

Ice-skating
rinks




Bathing
beaches

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

Baseball
diamonds

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

100,000

2 ,171,515

794
235
200
186
681
180
52

75,000

117

1,000,000

2,600
120
20

2, 500. 000
15,000

83
60
208
58
12
70
10
70
36
500

500
5

3
61

15
10
134
101
64
214

60,000
33, 767
50.000
30.000

___JL_______

889,845
52,000

552
100
971
2
12
338

12
50

150

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

4
5
10
1
10
5
2
3
1
2
8
4
10
2

6

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

Num ber of
visitors

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

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
W in­
Ath­ Band Chil­ Flow­ iday ture
Pag­ W a­ ter
con­ dren's
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

Year
round

379
250

50
150
35
6
75

Seasonal

2
1
9
34
3
2
1 15
6

2
2
9
52
19
4
116
9

1
18
16
2
11
3
1

76 ,

5

42

4
57
100

T«tal

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

Kenosha, W is. (population,
50,262; park acreage, 422.47)

313

1
*10
66

i Including horticulture.

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

1,340.50
26. 63
324.20
660.80
1,170.00
689.95
579.15
253.85

185 |

i

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 expend1kures, 1930
1

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

COLORADO

165.00

18
2
1

15
2
15
2
4
9

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

535.00

1

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

225,000

100.00

1
1

387,775.00

Pueblo

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.

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 "

AREAS

Los Angeles______________
Merced
Orange
San D iego________________
San M ateo
Santa Barbara............. .........
Santa Clara
Tulare....................................
V ent lira

165.00
535.00

RECREATION

2
1
3

PA K
R

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




791,948.87

1,672,002.13

3,961,669.28

32,910.69

980,053.26

111, 499.92

852.32
48,000.00

852.32
106,056.00

17,000.00

65,000.00

15,000,000

173,000.00

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.

I 1930
N

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..........

194.03
240.00
20.00
856.09
64.50
397.00

1, 000.00

2,871.54
9,000.00
4,270.21

35,000.00

200.00

10.00

17,500.00

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

PA K
R

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

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.

18,000

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

i
Kenosha
____ 1
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

Do.

600.00

1
1,700.00

1,700.00
,

22,088.20

811.71 i..........................
280,971.80 |
199,050.72

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.

I
N

Galveston
L u b b ock _________________

WYOMING

98621’

Natural Bridge.....................

to

4*

2

80.00

Total............................

415

108,484.94

33,773. 66

1,000.00

N um ber of counties re­
porting................................

73

72

49

15,192,440.04
42

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

PA K
R

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

I
N 1930

GEORGIA

1

DItttiti 2
ILLINOIS

Cook
Piatt
Will
W innebago................ ............

25

10

5

12

2

20

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)

1
1
1
1

1
7
1
1
I
1
1
1

1

5

2
7
1 ............1

2

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

1

COUNTY

Ram sey...................................
W inona......... ........................

2

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

3
3
6

I
1

7
19
10

1
1
5

2
3
2

20
1

l
l
1

1
12

1
4

2

1

1

2

i
2

0)

4

1
1

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 courses,
Picnic
dia­
courses, mg rinks places
stands
beaches facilities play­ pavilions
monds
18-hole
9-hole
grounds

Athletic
fields

Swim­ j Tennis
ming
courts
pools

Stadi­
ums

T

«

^ Tourist 1
-

slides .

i

Allegheny________________

(i)

TEXAS
Galveston___________ ______
Lubbock _________________

.........

1

1

6

1

5

1

6

;
ii
i
i
I
1

50

1

1

1

1
4

1

4

2

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

0)

2
5
1
7

1

1
1
2
1

i

1

3

;

W YO M IN G

Natural Bridge___

3

j1

WISCONSIN

26

1

i
4

3

_______

2

1
!
4 !............... 1
;
6
51

1

_

10
3
3
14

1 ............... |

3

1

.........

i
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!

6 4 4

(i)
1

3
1

i

i
1 !
91 |

(0

2 j
2
3
(
5

1
56 I

•

1
423 |!
1i

1

1
1

23

8

1

30

865

11

760

I
8

12

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
<5
3
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 1 ......................................
3
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 1 ....................................................
7
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 1 ...........................................................
7
Highland Park.................................................
Hindsdale..........................................................
Hoopeston......................... ...............................
Joliet...................................................................
Kankakee..........................................................
Rewanee...........................................................
Lake F orest17...................................................
Lom bard............. ..............- ..............................
M ayw ood........ ..................................................
Melrose Park 1 .................................................
7
M etropolis.........................................................
M oline................................................................
M orris1 .............................................................
7
N aperville1 ........................... .........................
7
Niles Center......................................................
North Chicago..................................................
Oak Park 1 ........................................................
8
O lney.................................................................
Park Ridge........................................................
P eoria1 .............................................................
8
R iver Forest......................................................
Riverside...........................................................
R ockford............................................................
R ock Island......................................................
St. Charles........................................................
Springfield.........................................................
Streator..............................................
Taylorville........................................
Urbana...............................................
W aukegan2
0......................................

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

6.0

1 .6
2

60.0
78.0

1 .0
2

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

2
0
47
6
7
17
39

1
2
1
2
2
0
2
1
0
4
2
2
3
6

21
0

32.0
1.341.0
18.0
269.3

66.0
70.2
1 .0
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

21
1
8
?fi

587
1,230
75

566

20."6

15.0
588.2
350.5

842
1,850

6
6

605
47
8,977
316
55
346
137

22
1

901
521
57
69

11
1

2,339
43
277
129
30
241
143
41
364
5,165
5,370
223
181
265
568
70
169
809

12
0

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

1 .8
0

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

20
1

2,866.7
1.381.9
447.6
26.5
36.1
862.1
14.5
213.3

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

12
1
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 1 ...........
7
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

1 .0
0

45.0
87.6

100.0
305.0
1, 200.0

423
‘ ""347"
65
228
882
191
437
267
155
161
193

21
2

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

11
,0 2
127
402
1,833
255
615
247
207

22
0
20
1
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
__________________ ___________ d low
L u ____
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
Gloucester2 _______________________________
2
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 it2 ....................... ...
8
East Detroit........... ..........
F lint.
Grand Rapids.,
Grosse P oin te..
j1
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.




Population N um ber
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 1 _.
0
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

10
0 .0
28.0
7.5

'T o
7.0
89.0
163.0

6.0

2,386.3

10
2 .0
” ’i ’o
25.0

3.0
345.4
4.0
9.0
17.0
27.0
60.0

1 .0
0

901.5
17.0

10
0 .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 1 _____________________________
0
Millhnrn
M on tclair10_________ ____ ________________
Moorestown___i __________________________
M orristown....... ............ - ..................... - ............
N ewark________ __________ _______________
Nftw B run sw ick3
0
_____
Nnrth PlalnfiAld
N utley *•____________ _______ ________ ____
Passaic________________ _____ _____________
Paterson___________________ ______ _______
Perth A m b o y ............................................... .
Pitman____ T............... ............... .......... ........ .
PlftlnflAM 3
1
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 1 .......................................................
0
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 1 ....................................................
0
Glen C o v e 1 .......................................................
0
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 aroneck1 ..........
0
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....................
Ossining1 .................
0
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

20 .0
0
62.0
1 .0
2

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

1
0
2
8
1
3

1
2

3
4
56

2
3

8
16
1

1
0
1
1
1
4

2
2
2

3
1
4
1

1
1
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

1 .0
1

119.1
98.0

1 .1
2
47.0
10
0 .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

20
0

690
422
2,550
1,759
1,259
139
890
16,038
544
159
416
586
5,928
413
249

20
2

165
182
947
650
234
254
21,014

10
0

10
0

33
226

90
3
54
128
Q
9
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

10
2 .0
12
.0
45.0
1 .0
0
67.0

1 .8
2
10
0 .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

1 .1
2
1 .0
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 of 5,000 and over, 19S0, by States—
unicipalities c

~ 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 io4 _
3_
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

|
Population N um ber
of parks

W isconsin—Continued.
Marshfield...........................................................
Menasha..............................................................
Menomonie.........................................................
M errill................................................................. !
1
M onroe
________________________________1
Neenah.................................................................
Oconto.................................................................
Oshkosh...............................................................
Portage _________ - - _____________________ 1
i
Racine..................................................................!
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.
1 Including 4 areas totaling 161 acres under recreation commission.
1
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.
1 Including 1 area of 400 acres under Mohegan Park Commission.
3
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.
1 Including 4 areas totaling 69 acres under recreation department,
8
w N o park report received. Acreage reported b y Chicago Regional Planning Association.
1 Including 5 areas totaling 12 acres under playground board.
8
1 Including 3 areas totaling 10 acres under recreation department.
9
2 N o park report received. Acreage reported b y Chicago Regional Planning Association, including 3
0
areas totaling 11 acres under recreation department.
2 Including 17 areas totaling 36.6 acres under playground community service commission, 1 area of 1,426.7
1
acres under city park association, and 53 areas totaling 143 acres under parking commission.
2 Including 3 areas totaling 33 acres under recreation department.
2
2 Including 39 areas totaling 547.1 acres under recreation department.
8
2 Including 1 area of 34 acres under recreation commission.
4
2 Including 1 area of 530 acres under Ella Sharp Park Board.
8
2 Including 1 area of 4 acres under recreation department.
8
2 Including 4 areas totaling 21 acres under recreation commission.
7
“ Including 5 areas totaling 30 acres under recreation department.
2 Including 8 areas totaling 37.5 acres under recreation department.
9
8 Including 4 areas totaling 14 acres under recreation department.
0
8 N o park report received. Acreage reported b y Regional Plan Association (Inc.) of New York, includ­
1
ing 10 areas totaling 30 acres under recreation department.
8 Including 16 areas totaling 375.9 acres under recreation commission.
2
8 Including 4 areas totaling 51 acres under recreation department.
8
8 Including 18 areas totaling 156.1 acres under recreation department.
4
8 Including 1 park of 1,278 acres under township park board.
8
8 Including 3 areas totaling 17 acres under recreation association.
8
8 Including 43 areas totaling 146.3 acres under bureau of recreation and 96 areas totaling 268.5 acres under
7
bureau of city property.
8 Including 41 areas totaling 162 acres under bureau of recreation.
8
8 Including 2 areas totaling 7.1 acres under board of recreation commissioners.
8
* Including 30 areas totaling 108 acres under recreation department.
4 Including 1 area of 115 acres under municipal golf committee.
1
4 Number and acreage of parks not reported.
2
4 Including 20 areas totaling 339.4 acres under recreation department.
8
4 N ot including 2 areas totaling 2,556 acres owned b y the city for impounding water but used for recre­
4
ation.
4 Including 3 areas totaling 17 acres under recreation department.
8




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
5
1

4
1

11

1
12

1

4

1
12

1

7

2

4

11

1

1

41

2

4

3
1
1

3

10
6

1
4

*
1

1

4
10
18
8
4

1

25

2

1

24
6
1
5

13

66

1

2
1 ______ i______
5
2

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

2

1

1

7

1

2

44
3
12

2

2
1
1

i

1
7
2

2
1
1

1
1

1
2

1

6
2

1

7
1
2
4
1

3

1

1

1

i

4
2

1

1

3
2
1

2

1
2

1

2

I
N 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

PA K
R

ALABAMA.
Birmingham _________________________
Fairfield......................................................
M obile_____ __________________________
M on tg om ery __________
Selma________________
____ '

Base­
Chil­
Minia­
Recre­
Golf
Iceball Bathing Boat­ dren's Dance Golf
Sta­ Swim­ Tennis Tobog­ Tour­
ture Picnic ation
ist
dia­ beaches houses play­ pavil­ courses, courses, skating golf
build­ diums ming courts gan
ions
9-hole 18-hole rinks courses places
slides camps
pools
monds
grounds
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

1
1

14

....
1

30

1
2
2

19

1
2
1
2
2

17

2
2

26

45

1
1
2
2
6
--2
1
0

....
4

63
5
4

GENERAL

4

1
2
2

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

2
1
1
4
9

10
0
5
8

1
2
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..............................................




1
1
2
1
0
1

23

5

1
17
2
2
2.

2
1
1
2
1
1
2
1

.....

17

2
1

9

18

1
<1
O
x

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
gan
golf
dia­ beaches houses play­
places build­ diums ming courts slides
ions
9-hole 18-hole rinks courses
camps
pools
grounds
ings
monds

DELAWARE
1

2

20

18

28

2

5

10

W ashington__________________________
FLORIDA
Jacksonville__________________________
Orlando______________________________
St. Augustine_____ — ________________
Sanford_______________________________
Tallahassee___________________________
Tam pa:
Park department_________ - ______
Recreation department___________

4

1
1

1

2

1

3

4

1

12
G
1
1
1

4
1
1
1

18

4

2

75

1




1

1

7
2
1

2

1

24
5

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1 |

3

3

4

3
7

1

a

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

I
N 1930

Boise
Pocatello

10
2
1
3
1

5

1
2

1
1

5
6
3

2
3

3

1

1
2

1
3

3
2

1

4

2

12

4
12

1

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

1

RECREATION

3

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

PA K
R

W ilm ington, .......................................

4

30

5

2

1
4

7
4

1

1

i

37

1
9
6
12

1

8
3
1
5
5

c
>
1
4
1

3
3

1
1

1
2

11
11
1
4
2

2
5

............. I............
1
............. !............

1

______ 1

5
3

1

1

1

4
1

5
4
3
1
1
2

1
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
1

5
1
3
2
1

1
15
14

16
4
18
398
128
1

3
1

6

9
1

7
2

16

2

1

2
1

13
14
8
6
14
2
6
10
2
5
2
9
28
12
6

2
4
1

2

1

1
1

1

3

15

2

2

48
6
40

1
1

2
2

1

1

5

1
1
1
1
1
1

1

2
1

______ !
1
18
16
2

3
16
63

2

3

4
1

1

4

1

i
!

1

3

4
25
15
2
1
1

2

1
2
1
1
2

6

40

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
ming
places build­ diums pools courts slides camps
golf
play­
stands
dia­ beaches houses
9-hole 18-hole rinks courses
ions
ings
grounds
monds

Indiana —continued
........
6

1
4

1

4
12
15
6
12
3
46

5
1

2
1

1

8

1
2

7

9

1

K okom o
La Porte
N ew A lbany
N ewca stle
South Bend
Terre Haute
Vincennes

I
1

1

1
1
1

2

_

__
_ ____ _

_
_

KANSAS
Coffeyville
D odge C ity
N ewton
Pittsburg
Salina
Topeka
W ichita.......................................................




4

2

1

1
1

1
1
3
1
1
2

11
1

2
1
1
1

5
3

1
1
1
1
1
g
2

1
1
1

1
1

1
8
5

2

1
2
4

1
1
1

2

5
11
4

1
1
2

5

3

1
1
1
1

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

3
6

1

8
1

1
1
1
2
1

1
1

2

3

1
4
2

•
3

I
N 1930

2
«
_

1
2

2

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

1
4

1
1
1

AREAS

8
1
1
1

1

RECREATION

2
6
8
9
10
1
23
1

PA K
R

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

8

1

6

6
2

1

104

1

24

1
2

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
1
2
2

2
1
1

57
3
11
17

1

27

6

1
1

14

86
5
1
2

3

1

8
9
9
4
4

13

3
2

1
1
2

4
2

1
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

Recre­
Chil­
Base­
Tobog­ Tour­
Golf
Ice- Minia­
Golf
Sta­ Swim­ Tennis gan
ball Bathing Boat­ dren’s Dance courses, courses, skating ture Picnic ation
ist
pavil­
golf
places build­ diums ming courts slides camps
dia­ beaches houses play­
pools
ions
9-hole 18-hole rinks courses
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
6
1

1

13
1
5

I

2
2

1

8
33
10
22
7
4

1
2

1
20
1

2
1
2
o

5
2
4
2
12
1
3

1

5

1

4

1

1
23
16
9
10
2
2

1
1

2

2

19
1
13
10
20
1
3

1

3

1

1
1

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

5
1

8
3

7

18

12
2
2
1

2

1

8

1

2

5
2
2

2

3
1

I
3

13

2

1
150
6
21
17
3

1

1

24
17
9
19
7

1
2

1
6

2

8

1

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

I
N 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

“ an g___________
L sin

25

Marquette............... .....
Mount Clemens_______
Niles............................
Pontiac. ............... ........
Port Huron............... ...
Saginaw................ ........
Ypsilanti.......................
MINNESOTA

2

4

1
45
2

28

13

1
1
1
1

~2
Z
5
34
2

1

13
9
60

1

34

1

16
3

1
1

150

11
1
1

1
0
3
4

1
5
1
0

Cape Girardeau..

Joplin— - ......... .
Kansas City......
Moberly........... .
St. Charles____
St. Joseph_____
St. Louis______
Sedalia________
Springfield____

....
1
1
1
2

1
41
2

2

34
3
9

1
9

600

.....

2
5
10
1
1

1
2
1

TABLES

Biloxi........
Greenville..
Jackson_
_
Laurel.......
Natchez__

7
~32_

GENERAL

Albert Lea...
Duluth........
Hibbing.......
Minneapolis.
St. Cloud___
St. Paul____
Virginia........

4

2
0
3

Great Falls..
Missoula_
_
NEBRASKA

Beatrice..___
Grand Island.
Lincoln..........
Norfolk..........
North Platte—
Omaha______




1
1
1

35

16

18

5

O
O

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
Base­
Golf
Golf
Ice- Minia­ Picnic Recre­ Sta­ Swim­ Tennis Tobog­ Tour­
ation
ball Bathing Boat­ dren’s pavil­ courses, courses, skating ture
ist
gan
ming
golf
places build­ diums pools courts slides camps
dia­ beaches houses play­
9-hole 18-hole rinks courses
ings
grounds ions
monds

NEVADA

R eno__________ ____

.

Clarem ont_ _________________________
_
C oncord___________
D over________________
Keene_________
Laconia___ _ *
_
Manchester_____ __________. . . . _
N a sh u a.. _

1

4

1

1

12

1

1
1

2

1

2
1
1

3

9

1
2
2

2

9

12

4

4

i

2

2
1

3

2
1

1
1

1

3

1
1

4

1

7

3

1
i

4

2
2
1

1

1

8
1
1

NEW JERSEY
4

1

1
2

2
1

10

2
1
2

2

1

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
i
5
3

4

3

3
1

4

5

1
4

7
7
1
3
10

2

21

4
3
1

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

I
N 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
2
1
1

65

....

1
1
4
2

23

....
....
3

.....
....

1L
.

"T
i

24
40
35
24

1
0

....
* 5

1
’ l6‘
36
16
7

1
0

13

1
2
1
2

81
395
46
38
14

28

7
5

6
1
2

1
8
1
0
4
4
4

2

I
’ l7~|........ 5
3
12

1 !.......

...J
2

1

3

1
4
1
2

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_____________________________

1
0
7
6
2
6

1
0
2
2
4
2
1
25

00

CO

T a b l e C .— Recreation facilities and buildings in cities of 10,000 and over, 19301 by States— Continued

A th­
letic
fields

Band
stands

2
4

C ity and State

1
2

Recre­
Chil­ Dance
Base­
Tobog­ Tour­
Golf
Ice- M inia­
Golf
Sta­ Swim­ Tennis gan
ball Bathing Boat­ dren’s pavil­ courses, courses, skating ture Picnic ation
ist
ming
places build­ diums pools courts slides camps
golf
houses play­
dia­ beaches
9-hole 18-hole rinks courses
ions
ings
grounds
monds

NORTH CAROLINA

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

4
12
2
1
4

6

3

5

8
32

1

1
1

1
1

3

1

1

NORTH DAKOTA
Grand Forks

....................

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

2
2
14




1

8
7

1
2

1

73

2

4

55
11
3
1

1

4
1

1

14
2
4
1
1
1
5

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

I
N 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

1

1

OHIO

RECREATION

2

1

2
1
14

3

PA K
R

1

2
3
1
2
2
15

3

W"inston-Salem

1

2

6

W ooster_________ . . . _____________
Youngstown:
Township park com m ission..
Park department......................
Zanesville_________ ______________

8

1
0
2

36

OKLAHOMA

Chickasha______
E nid___________
Law ton................
Oklahoma C ity .
Okmulgee...........
Ponca C ity _____
Tulsa__________

3

1
0

3
4
13

8

173

4
24
3
5
27

OREGON

2
1

1
1

5

5
24

13

59

PENNSYLVANIA




1
2
2

2
1
14
1
2
1

....

1
1
0

2L
1
1

3

1
1
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'
1
0
8
1
1
1
2
4

1
29

....

1
1
30
3
24

4
14

18

1
0

~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

Recre­
Chil­
Base­
Swim­ Tennis Tobog­ Tour­
Ice- Minia­
Golf
Golf
Sta­
ball Bathing Boat­ dren’s Dance courses, courses, skating ture Picnic ation
gan
ist
ming
pavil­
places build­ diums pools courts slides camps
golf
dia­ beaches houses play­
ions
9-hole 18-hole rinks courses
ings
grounds
monds

PENNS YLVANIA—continued

1
5
2

2

1

1
2
1
3

2
2
1
12
3
5

5
12

1

3
2

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

I
N 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

PA K
R

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

3
2

2
I
1
9

1
1
1

1

1

1
1
5
26

1

2
7

1
1
1

5
3
2

1
3
2
5
15

1

1
1

7
1
2

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

2

Barre.

8
1

TABLES

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
1
2

1
1

1

1

1

2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1

1

1
3

11
4

1
3
2

1
1

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
Minia­
Base­
Tobog­ Tour­
Golf
Golf
ation
Sta­ Swim­ Tennis
ball Bathing Boat­ dren’s Dance courses, courses, | Iceist
skating ture Picnic build­ diums ming courts gan
pavil­
golf
places
dia­ beaches houses play­
slides camps
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

2
2

1

1

!

37
10
7
3
3

4

1

1
1

WEST VIRGINIA
Charleston___________________________
Morgantown_________________________
W heeling_____________________________

3

2

2
7
2
4
12
5
1
6
8
4
6
19

1
1

3
2
2
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
C
O

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

I
N 1930

2
1
1

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

1

2

PA K
R

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

Miles

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

5,100
7,420

10,000
100,000
1,364
2,500
20,000
3,000

218,797
200,000
50,259
5.000
25,795
37,500
1,500
10,000
1.000

24.0
600
5,559
1,000
5,000
3,297
500
30,506
1,000
40,000
1,300
30.000
40.000

600
2,131

0.3
2.0

10.0
2,422
1,000
98

2,000
500

51.0
22.0

41.6
10.0

3.5

25.0
7.0

12.0
2.0

40

500

2,000

10,000
300

125

1,000
1,800
300
50
800

5.5

150

250

3,103

543

270

180
125

300

101,161

1,500
100

6,500
375

106,597

270,366
60,342
53,829
85,024

1.0

5.0
1.0

7.0
2.0

6.0

81,679

Miles

TABLES




48,118

Number Number Number
of trees of shrubs of bulbs
planted planted planted

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

C
O

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

Number Number
of trees
of trees
trimmed sprayed

75,000

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

100.0
320.0

7,500

75.0
120.0
37.0
1.5

100

200.0
203.0

Miles

Miles

15.0

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

IC . 0
O

1,000
500
5,620
500

20,000

3,000

2,500

52,000

2,500
300

4 20
^6

5.000

10,000

1,560
5,000
16,200

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

2
0

10
,1 0

1,000
2,802
500

10
0

10
,1 0

2.5

4.0

1.0

2.0
4.0.

2.0
'io.‘6
'

.3

"I6.'5‘
15.0
15.0
3.0

17.0

2.6

‘ To’

.5

300.0
16.0
491
100
400
65

6. 0

8.0
6.0

200
2,000
5.000
11,867
3.000

814
200
2,654
900

6.0

3.0

3.5

2.1
2.0
1.0

.5

.5

5

I
N 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'

3.0

1 .0
1
2,500
509

1 .0
1

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
400
2,848

384
200
50

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

508

450

34.000

20.0
25.0

175

1,000
2,000

67.0

8.0

200

28,822

15.0
4.5

13,000
42
75
50
20
100

"656’

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

95,000

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

9,282

7,112
100
800
25,000
12,000

72,000

193,000

44,313

1,064.0
20.2

30.000
71.000
200,000

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

.3
.1

12.0

25,000
69,900
121,000
9,000

10,635
117
1,200
14,411

0.1

19,000

2,560,401
22,652
40,288
328’ 132
209,326
101,740
32,205

Miles

15.0
8.0

3,000

300
5,000
20,000
120
3,025
2,374

Miles

39
200
304

450
2,595
600

2,766

4,500

1,000

17,808

60,000

500
200

475
1,987

2.5
24.0

19.0

i
.3 !

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

4.0
.5
.3

7.0

2.0
...............................
1

.3

3.0
1.0

.6

I
N 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

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

150,000

.5

5.0
20.0

6.0
20,000
1,000

15.0

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
100

7,000

150

10,000

150

3,666

1,000

. 13,978
20

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

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

300

2,445
200

25,400
20,000

45,600
20,000

1,445
1,500

36.0

36.0

1,000

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

Miles

Miles

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

0.5

15,000

5.0
1.0
35.0
2.0

3.0
1.0
50.0

.5

2.0
.5

I 1930
N

.

250,000

AREAS

Tr r

300

RECREATION

____. . . . . .

10,000

75,572
61,659

...

350

PA K
R

2.0
2.0
5.0
25.0 ........ 1 5.T
8.0
4.0

52,938
292,352
50,902
22,247

365,583
106,817

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 A n BftV
ft
TanoQTrilla
"F atinsha
T
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
54.00
150.00
3,740.00

450.00
600.00
24,450.00

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

21,787.62
3,500.00
4,000.00

754.00
750.00
31.499.00
7,537.93

22,424.16

$198,115.50
9,500.00

1.050.00
300.00

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

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

C
O
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

I
N 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

PA K
R

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

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

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

5,590.84
2, 000.00

58,326.85

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

g , oo5.65
o

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
1 5,000.00
0
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

I
N

$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

PA K
R

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

1 ,0 0 0
0 0 .0

1 ,0 0 0
0 0 .0

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 0 ,0 0 0
,0 0 0 .0

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

1 ,0 0 0
0 0 .0
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 .00
,000
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
1 ,0 0 0
2 0 .0

92,100.30

687.00
105,000.00
5,608.62
4,000.00
10,125.61
2,342.13

2,971.40

1 .0 0 0
0 0 .0

1,0 0 0
0 .0

250.000.00
60,000.00
382.000.00
89,000.00
700,000.00

500.00

700.00
3,541.69

36,300.00
11,750.00
552,186.83
1,500.00
625.00

150.000.00
155.000.00
332.000.00

150.000.00
30,000.00
118.000.00

225,000.00

2 0 0 .0
0 ,0 0 0

46,198.30
170,800.00
250.000.00

1 0 .0
,0 0 0

894,781.36
150.000.00
150.000.00
120,299.73

2 2 0 .0
0 ,0 0 0

i< 24,000.00
70,000.00
15430,338.51
255,767.38

■ 2,"455."55
"i
74,620.95
7,000.00
150,000.00

"1 5 5 7 5
2 ,0 5 5 "

1 0 0 .0
0 ,0 0 0
1,400.00

500.00

500.00
2,016.26

2 0 0 .0
0 ,0 0 0
1 0 0 .0
2 ,0 0 0

160,000.00

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.

1 2 0 .0
0 ,0 0 0
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.......................................................

4,000.00

”5,‘656.‘o6

co

C
O

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

I
N 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

PA K
R

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

1,072. 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

10, 000.00

40,603.83

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

1,720.00
4,835. 51

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

1.800.00
5,500.00

4,331.52

6, 929. 74

10,342. 74

10, 000.00

1.736.00
2,911.15
3,650. 00
18,039. 98
1° 11,440.00
75,148. 24
312,934.79

900.00
2,600.00

5,000.00

11,773.00
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

8.130.00
W28,200.00
100,678.46
105,404.00
48,729.00

31,956. 00

500.00
100.00
36,060.00

21,604. 00
340,642.19
900.00
12,600. 00
15,000. 00

900.00

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

I
N

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

PA K
B

Massachusetts:

Population

See footn otes at emd o f table.




500.00

9,000.00

3,560.00
2,318.00

300.00
5,918.96

600.00
11,830.96
1,500.00
11,331.29

34.54

1,478.66

11,583.00
24,960.00
12, 000.00
16,000.00
5,240.00
1,825.05
37,189.50
33,292.11
250.00

4,955.55

1,500.00
4,000.00

5,019.00
8,778.66
4, 111. 51
4,000.00
2,360.00
145.64
21,128.30
23,188.24

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

2 4,463,022.40
0
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

$50.00
2,250.00

4,000. 00
300.00

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
2 2,309, 582.00
1
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

I
N 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

38,295.30

764.00

860.00
104,670.88

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

,
,

776.33

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
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

11,000.00
40,000.00

818,000.00

409,018.00
10,000.00
.

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

8,879.92
8.500.00
9,459.13
1,671.23
1.400.00
47,325.24
14,478.74
1,249.63

1 0 0 0 .0 0
20 0 0 0 .0 0

250,000.00

8.635.00
38, 747.51
5,480.18
2, 703.00
6,284.55
6,273.39

14,880.64

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

300.00

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

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

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

$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

133,000.00

1,500.00

1, 000.00
500.00

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

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

458,340.25

15,721.75

15.000.00
40,421.75
19.000.00

456,406.66

456,466.00

I
N

"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

PA K
R

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

3,040.00

14,879.75
2,163,200.00

"3,'556."55'
3,000.00
176,761.00
7,865.00
"i,“ol9."oo‘

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 2 28,990.516.00
8
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
2 881,001.00
7
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

$65,000.00
78.774.00
100.00
2.858.43
4.014.43
9, 200.00
13,000.00
16.375.00

$26, 299.00

471.32

1,147. 00

3,000.00

” 4~ 6 ."6 '
66 6

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

7,569.70

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

926,320.77
996,057.38
25,000.00

$3,827.09
4,076. 25
2,040.00
300.00

19,500.00

585.00
11,568.10

2,427.57

2,480.00
400.00

310.00
156.89

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.
1 27,477.
0
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

I
N 1930

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

PA K
R

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

Salaries and Interest and
wages
sinking funds

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

25,829.13

18,600.12

48,799.75

150.00

80.00

3,000.00
900.00
1,083.87
4,734.53
1,512.85

40,097.76

- -

975 39

834.14

52.10
15.08

8,910.93

Capital expend­
itures, 1926-1930

83.440.00
18,364.19
14.335.00
1,636.30
2, 000.00
31,273.31
13,945.24
1 4,100.00
0
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
3 983,363.81
1
9,954,022.29
3 1,739,652.98
3
128,805.23

70,000.00

58,066.07

IBo. 65

I
N 1930

1,833.01
804.50

506.66
9,434.60
2,714.00
1,054,241.00
99,652.98

11,611.92

1,296.87
72.65

$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
1,334.29

$4,591.00

Bond issues,
1926-1930
Total

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

PA K
R

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 !_.

60,000.00
45,654.98
14.000.00
13,755.86
612,000.00
4,926.09
9.300.00

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

540,000.00

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

.

1,935.49
200.00

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. C
O
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,

Supplies,
equipment,
and miscel­
laneous

Salaries and Interest and
wages
sinking funds

$113. 25

38, 000. 00

$4, 255. 66

$2,900. 00
1,552.29
1 2, 200.00
0
io 45, 091. 07
68, 794. 02

$15,500.00

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

I
N 1930

$17,000.00

AREAS

14,
140,
5,
8,
8,

Capital expend­
itures, 1926-1930

14,500. 00
228,685. 48
300.00

$1,439. 04

26,538. 36

7,
52,
43,

Bond issues,
1926-1930
Total

RECREATION




Land, build­
ings, and im­
provements

PA K
R

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

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

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
10, 000.00
150.00
750.00
25,200. 00
2, 000.00
173,000. 00

19,917.69

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
H*
P
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

I
N 1930

Includes $'199,578 spent for park improvements.
2 Includes $2,700 spent b y recreation department.
8
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.”
2 Funds spent for purchase of land and for improvements in bureau of recreation,
7
1928-1930.
2 M oney allotted b y board of estimate and apportionment for purchase of parks
8
and play grounds “ from bond issues and from the real estate fu n d /’
2 Expenditures for land only.
9
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.
8 Includes $1,240,000 spent b y bureau of recreation.
8
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.
1 Receipts. Expenditures not reported.
0
» Includes $50,000 spent b y recreation department.
« Includes $12,000 spent b y recreation department.
1 For 2-year period only,
8
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.
•
1 Includes $20,000 spent b y recreation department.
7
1 For new construction only.
1
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....................

Value of
other gifts

20,000.00
75,000.00
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.




$2,600.00
1,500.00
Arfrfwifwis:

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 T atiqwqtiHq •••
X Ui til XUllctWauUa.
N
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.