View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

U. S- DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

JAMES J. DAVIS, Secretary
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
ETHELBERT STEWART, Commissioner
BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES }
BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS)

MISCELLANEOUS

M
* * • • llO e

SERIES

PARK RECREATION AREAS
IN THE UNITED STATES




V

MAY, 1928

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON
1928

462




ADDITIONAL COPIES
OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE PROCURED FROM
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
AT

25 CENTS PER COPY

PREFACE
Early in 1924 the Playground and Recreation Association of
America had under consideration a study of parks and park systems
throughout the United States. Plans were under way looking toward
carrying out this project when it was announced that a conference
of all persons and agencies interested in outdoor recreation through­
out the Nation would be called in Washington under the auspices of
the Federal Government. President Coolidge convened this confer­
ence in Washington in May, 1924.
One of the immediate results of this important conference was a
keen realization of the need of taking an inventory of the outdoor
recreational resources of the American people, with a view of securing
adequate data upon which to base plans for nation-wide, systematic
planning for outdoor recreation. Accordingly, the National Con­
ference on Outdoor Recreation, as the permanent organization result­
ing from the preliminary conference was called, made plans to take
such an inventory through certain national organizations.
A joint committee on Federal lands was formed, under the direct
control of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, to make
a study of all Federal properties. The National Conference on State
Parks was requested to make a study of State provisions for outdoor
recreation. The Playground and Recreation Association of America
was requested, in conjunction with the American Institute of Park
Executives, to undertake a study of municipal and county parks and
recreation areas and their systems of management.
Early in 1925, through the generosity of the Laura Spelman Rocke­
feller Memorial, the Playground and Recreation Association of
America was enabled to begin the work, an appropriation to meet
the cost having been granted by the memorial.
The board of directors of the association appointed Lebert H. Weir
director of the work and, in consultation with the executive com­
mittee of the American Institute of Park Executives, appointed a
national committee on the study of municipal and county parks and
park systems. The personnel of the committee is as follows:

C. E. Brewer, recreation department, Detroit, Mich.
Martin G. Brumbaugh, Juniata College, Huntingdon, Pa.
Will O. Doolittle, American Institute of Park Executives, Rockford, 111.
Lee Hanmer, Russell Sage Foundation, 120 East Twenty-second Street,
New York City.
Henry V. Hubbard, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
David I. Kelly, secretary, Essex County Park Commission, 810 Broad
Street, Newark, N. J.
Paul C. Lindley, care of J. Van Lindley Nursery Co., Pamone, N. C.
Otto T. Mallery, 112 South Sixteenth Street, Philadelphia, Pa.
Dr. J. H. McCurdy, International Y. M. C. A. College, Springfield, Mass.
J. Horace McFarland, Mount Pleasant Press, Harrisburg, Pa.
Herman W. Merkel, superintendent, Westchester County (New York),
park system.
Arthur Ringland, executive secretary, National Conference on Outdoor
Recreation, 2034 Navy Building, Washington, D. C.
Maj. William A. Welch (chairman), Palisade Interstate Park Commission,
25 Broadway, New York City.
Theodore Wirth, American Institute of Park Executives, Minneapolis,
Minn.




in

XV

PREFACE

The statistical data printed in this report, prepared from material
gathered in the study of municipal and county parks, covers some of
the more important phases of park work. Space limitations make
it impossible to publish in detail all of the facts gathered in the study,
and those selected for publication have been chosen with a view to
presenting a national picture of the growth and development of the
park movement in the United States.
The study has brought together a vast amount of material of all
kinds, including full information on the experiences and developments
of different park systems, and a manual of municipal and country
parks is in preparation which will make available knowledge of the
best practices in park work.




CONTENTS
Introduction and summary__________________________________________
Need for parks in industrial communities_________________________
Development of the park movement_____________________________
Changing conception of parks___________________________________
Extent of park planning-----------------------------------------------------------Present park areas_____________________________________________
Detailed examples of park planning______________________________
Municipal parks outside city limits______________________________
County parks__________________________________________________
Recreation facilities in parks____________________________________
Park finances__________________________________________________
History of town planning in the United States____________________
Obstacles to town planning______________________________________
Acreage of municipally owned parks and recreation areas______________
Growth of park areas, 1880 to 1926__________________________________
County parks______________________________________________________
Requirements of a good park system_________________________________
Parks outside city limits-------- --------------------------------------------------------Park structures and buildings and recreational facilities________________
Park administration________________________________________________
Park expenditures in 63 cities________________________________________
Salaries of park superintendents-------------------------------------------------------Method of policing parks----------------------------------------------------------------MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

1-15
1, 2
2, 3
3
3, 4
4-7
7-9
9
10
10, 11
11-13
13, 14
14, 15
15-31
31-49
49-54
55
55, 56
57-61
62
62-67
67, 68
68, 69

Maps:
Metropolitan park district, Cleveland, Ohio_____________________ Paster.
Park areas of Cedar Falls, Iowa_________________________________
73
Outline map of present and proposed park areas, Birmingham, Ala__
74
Park areas of Marysville, Calif___________________________*_______
75
Minneapolis park system________________________________________• 76
Park system, Union County, N. J_______ •_______________________
77
Present and proposed park areas, Houston, Tex___________________
78
Halftones:
Forrest Park municipal tennis courts, Springfield, Mass____________
79
Municipal playground, Bethlehem, Pa------------------------------ ---------80
Angling contest in City Park, Los Angeles, Calif__________________
81
Skating, Lancaster Park, Erie County, N. Y______________________
82
High school girls playing hockey on public playground_____________
83
Football game. The Point Stadium and Recreation Center, Johns­
town, Pa_____________________________________________________
84
Dance pavilion with grand stand, Washington Park, Milwaukee, Wis_
85
Open-air dance, Hartford, Conn_________________________________
86
Children's playground, Colt Park, Hartford, Conn________________
87
88
Municipal golf course, Hartford, Conn___________________________
Swimming pond and shelter house. Pond used for skating in winter,
New Bedford, Mass__________________________________________
89
Bowling green, Hazelwood Park, New Bedford, Mass--------------------90
Picnic ground, Dayton, Ohio____________________________________
91
Conservatory in Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, Calif---------------92
Boulevard and bathing beach, San Francisco, Calif-----------------------93
Lake scene in Shelby Park, Nashville, Tenn---------------------------------94
Bathhouse and mammoth concrete swimming pool, Tibbetts Brook
Park, Westchester County, N. Y______________________________
95



v




BULLETIN OF THE

U. S. BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS
.

WASHINGTON

n o 462

,

m a y 1928

PARK RECREATION AREAS IN THE UNITED
STATES
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
NEED FOR PARKS IN INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITIES

The change from a predominantly rural population in the United
States to one prevailingly urban has been taking place with great
rapidity in recent years, and this bringing together of large numbers
of people in our cities has created social problems for which industry
and commerce are directly responsible. Some of these problems
have to do with the conditions under which people live and others
with the conditions under which they work. Recreation, or the use
of leisure time, closely affects the working life of the people as well as
their life during the hours when they are not engaged in earning a
living.
The concentration of large populations in small areas, together with
the absorption of natural recreation areas by commerce and industry,
not only has created a housing problem but has given rise to problems
concerning the physical safety and health of children and oppor­
tunities for healthy and wholesome exercise and recreation for young
people and adults. Nearly always, in the history of American
cities, industrial and commercial expansion, with its resultant con­
centration of population, has deprived the children of play spaces
and the people generally of breathing and recreation areas. Desir­
able natural features such as water fronts—the banks of rivers, the
shores of lakes—have usually been absorbed by such expansion, to
be redeemed only by a great expenditure of money and effort.
Leaders of commerce and industry have been keenly alive to this
recreation problem in cities and its relation to working efficiency.
The first concrete evidence of the interest of industrial organizations
in the problems of recreation for industrial employees was in the
establishment of recreation facilities and programs by the industrial
organizations themselves. A study of outdoor recreation for indus­
trial employees recently published by the United States Bureau of
Labor Statistics (Bui. No. 458, Chapter VI) indicates that there is
quite general interest among employers in furnishing facilities for
outdoor sports and recreation. In cities in which the municipal
recreation is well developed, however, there is a disposition on the
part of employers to utilize the city facilities, especially if space is at
a premium around the plant.



2

PARK RECREATION AREAS

Organized labor also has taken an active interest in the subject of
recreation as evidenced by various resolutions passed in the con­
ventions of the American Federation of Labor. The committee on
education of the federation was directed in 1925 to study the problem
from the standpoint of the immediate recreational opportunities
necessary to counteract the effects of the modern city and also in rela­
tion to future developments of community life since “our modern
municipal life through both its work and its home environment
makes necessary collective planning and endeavor to make available
opportunities for recreation.” As part of its work the committee
has supplied local committees with information on adequate muni­
cipal provision for recreation and has encouraged efforts to secure
the necessary legislative authorizations.
The following resolution was unanimously adopted by the Feder­
ation at the annual convention held in Detroit, Mich., in October,
1926:
The growth in the movement for the provision of adequate means for super­
vised recreation in towns and cities is significant of an increasing concern for the
health of the people. Since the cities are the product of the aggregation of great
economic forces, it is but fair that they should put forth every effort to overcome
any disadvantage to the freedom of movement and the conditions of health which
their very existence entails.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARK MOVEMENT

The facts gathered through this study of county and municipal
parks and summarized in the following statistical tables are of vital
significance to the workers of the United States as well as to other
community groups in that they show the extent to which our local
governments are attempting to correct some of the mistakes made
in their earlier history and to plan so that such mistakes will not be
repeated in their further development.
The park movement in the United States is relatively a new move­
ment. The following brief history of it is of interest in connection
with this report.
Prior to 1850 there were no legal measures enabling the people to
provide parks and other recreation spaces for themselves. During
the past three-quarters of a century the legislation that has been
enacted by States and by municipalities and the judicial decisions of
the courts relating to these various laws would fill many volumes.
Before 1850 there was not a single municipal department in the
United States that had been specifically created to handle parks and
recreation. Some time later the first park commission came into
existence, and for a period of two or three decades practically the only
form of government that was being provided for parks in various
cities throughout the country was that of park boards or commissions.
At the present time the various authorities having control of parks
and recreation activities number several hundred and in the first 25
cities in size in this country alone there are 62 different agencies
dealing with public parks and public recreation. Most persons are
familiar with the complexity of the situation as regards the control
of government and the control of parks and recreation; how for
various reasons it has become divided and subdivided until in one
single community we have as many as 21 different agencies, created
by law and supported by the people’s money, for the handling of
parks and public recreation.



INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

3

To-day there has arisen a distinct profession, represented by many
individuals and by many incorporated companies, the members of which
are trained to plan parks and other recreation areas and to plan cities.
Prior to 1900 there was not a single city in America, with the excep­
tion of Washington City, that had a general city plan. There were
several other attempts—in Buffalo, Erie, Indianapolis, in the begin­
ning of the plans of those cities—but planning in the sense that it is
understood to-day had not arrived.
CHANGING CONCEPTION OF PARKS

The pioneer park builders and planners of America defined the
park as a place where urban inhabitants could obtain the recreation
coming from the peaceful enjoyment of its rural, sylvan, and natural
scenery and character. Although it was recognized that the supreme
functional use of parks was for the recreation of the people, the type
of recreation advocated was a passive or semiactive kind, the domi­
nant ideal being peaceful enjoyment amid beautiful surroundings.
There can be no doubt that this conception was fundamentally
sound, especially as applied to city-dwelling people, and it is of even
greater importance to-day because cities have grown larger and the
stress of living has become greater. It so happens, however, that
the physical needs of people which can be expressed in their leisure
are far wider than those comprehended in the early conception, and
a wide range of active forms of recreation have come to be included.
Beginning in the eighties with the sand courts and outdoor gym­
nasiums in Boston, the so-called playground movement for children,
expanding in the two succeeding decades into the recreation move­
ment comprehending all age groups, exerted a profound effect on the
pioneer conception of parks and their recreational functions. The
new movement for many forms of active recreation changed the
functional uses of many existing park properties and at the same time
brought into existence a number of new types, such as areas devoted
more or less exclusively to playgrounds, playfields, athletic fields,
stadiums, neighborhood recreation parks, swimming and boating
centers, golf courses, and boulevards and parkways. It added to
the services of park administration agencies a series of complex and
difficult social problems involved in organizing for the people a wide
range of recreational activities of a physical, cultural, social, and
civic nature, involving cooperative relationships with other public
and private agencies.
At the end of nearly three-quarters of a century of park develop­
ment in the United States the term “park” has come to mean any
area of land or water set aside for outdoor recreational purposes,
whether it be recreation of a passive or an active nature or of any of
the degrees between those two extremes, and “ that the recreation is
expected to come in part at least from beauty of appearance.”
EXTENT OP PARK PLANNING

During the past 20 years, 176 of the cities of the United States
have had general comprehensive plans made, including comprehen­
sive park plans. These 176 cities represent about one-fifth of the
total population of the Nation. Some 390 cities have legally consti­
tuted planning boards whose duty it is to study the development of



4

PARK RECREATION AREAS

their cities and to lay down plans to be followed in making those
cities not only the best possible places in which to work but also the
best possible places in which to live. Many of the large cities also
have regional park plans, either actually formed or in process of
formation. There are 525 cities wrhich have zoning ordinances.
The matter of zoning is a very fundamental question in relation to
the permanency and stability of the properties provided for our
parks and recreation centers.
Prior to 1900 there was but one organization in existence dealing
with the subject of parks which was national in scope. That associ­
ation was formed in the nineties and consisted of those executives
and superintendents who wrere at that time in charge of the com­
paratively few park systems in American cities. It originated in a
local organization and later became the American Association of
Park Superintendents, continuing as such until about 1917, when it
was organized into the present American Institut e of Park Executives
and American Park Society. It was 22 years ago that the Play­
ground and Recreation Association of America was formed.
There was scarcely any literature to be had upon the subject of
parks before 1900, with the exception of articles in some scattered
periodicals and in a few technical papers, and there was no periodical
specifically dealing with this field until 1907 when the “ Playground
Magazine” w^as founded. The American Association of Park
Superintendents had used “ Parks, Cemeteries, and Gardening,” as
a sort of medium for themselves, later publishing special bulletins,
and in 1917 founded the present “ Parks and Recreation.” Even
to-day there are only two books of a general nature dealing with this
entire field of public parks in the United States.
Before 1900 there were no schools that were giving any special atten­
tion to the training of either park executives or the modem organ­
ized recreation worker. To-day there are over 60 different colleges
and imiversities giving special courses in landscape architecture, and
special attention is given to the training of park executives of the type
that is specially skilled in landscape design and the propagation of
trees, flowers, etc. There are 130 to 140 educational institutions
offering courses for the training of playground leaders, and there is
one national graduate school for the training of recreation executives.
PRESENT PARK AREAS

It was reported at the sixth annual meeting of the American Park
and Outdoor Art Association at Boston in 1902 that up to 1852 there
was not a single municipal park, as such, in the United States and not
a single park commission or commissioner. Twenty-five years later
(1877) there were not over 20 cities that had municipal parks and there
were about 200 park commissioners or members of park boards. In
1890 there were 1,417 places in the United States having 2,500 or
more inhabitants and in 1900 this number had increased to 1,801.
In 1892 only 100 cities were known to have made provision for munic­
ipal parks, while by 1902, 796 cities were known to have made a be­
ginning toward providing parks. In 1925 and 1926, approximately
1,680 cities had provided nearly 250,000 acres of recreation spaces.
The remarkable increase in the number of cities making some provi­
sion for open spaces in the decade from 1890 to 1900 is significant of
the dawning of an appreciation of the need of such spaces in urban



INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

5

communities. The pioneer work of Downing, Vaux, Olmstead, Charles
Eliot, Cleveland, and a few others began to bear fruit. Up to the
close of the nineteenth century, however, there were very few examples
of comprehensive plans for open spaces in American cities. City
planning, as such, was to become a live topic in the following decade.
Although some of the facts related would seem to indicate that we
have made rather remarkable progress in respect to planning and in
providing these open spaces, in reality the picture is not so good as
it would seem.
To-day the great city of New York has nearly 6,000,000 people,
and the total amount of public space that has been set aside for the
play of the children of that city and for games and sports for adults
and young people, as well as for rest and other forms of recreation,
is only a little over 10,000 acres. In 1880 that acreage was only
1,562. In all the years from 1880 to 1925, the acreage has increased
to a little over 10,000 acres only, while in that time the population
has increased from about 2,000,000 to nearly 6,000,000.
The city of Chicago, with approximately 3,000,000 people, has
less than 5,000 acres of public property set aside for the recreation of
the people within its boundaries. But the city of Chicago has gone
into a program of planning that is characteristic of some of the later
phases of modem plans for parks and recreation. This is a great out­
lying system of open spaces which can be reached by people who have
automobiles and by those who travel by trolley. In the great Cook
County Forest Preserve there are about 31,600 acres of property, the
development of which is one of the most notable civic achievements
of any American city and which probably exceeds what has been done
in any city in the world in recent times.
While the acreage set aside in New York City seems to be very
small compared with the population, outside of the city of New York
other agencies have provided areas which can be used easily by the
people of New York. One of the most important of these, and one
of the most noteworthy achievements in modern park planning in
the United States, is the great Westchester County Park System,
which began only in 1922, and for which an expenditure of nearly
$37,000,000 had been authorized by the end of 1926. More than
16,000 acres have been acquired, or, in other words, a little over 5
per cent of the entire area of that county has been set aside by the
people in this remarkable park and boulevard system. The people of
New York also have access to the Palisades Interstate Park, a group
of properties totaling 37,190 acres and lying in the States of New York
and New Jersey. This magnificent park, which extends for several
miles along the Hudson Kiver and has been developed with the sole
object of making it accessible and usable for the people, provides facil­
ities for bathing, boating, camping, hiking, and many other activities.
^ The city of Philadelphia has the best showing among the largest
cities of the country as to the ratio of park acreage to population.
With a population of nearly 2,000,000 it has almost 8,000 acres of
park properties, practically, all of which is within its borders. It has
no great regional plan in execution, but there is one on paper and
the next 5 or 10 years will probably see some remarkable develop­
ments in regional planning in Philadelphia. As might be expected,
the ratio of park acreage to population is more favorable in some
of the smaller cities. Minneapolis, with a population of less than



6

PARK RECREATION AREAS

400,000, has 132 well-distributed properties with a total acreage of
4,737 acres (3,665 of which are within city limits), or 1 acre of parks
to every 80 inhabitants. With the exception of Denver, which owns
more than 10,000 acres in mountain parks outside the city limits,
and Dallas, Tex., which has 3,144 of its 3,898.5 acres outside the city
limits, Minneapolis leads all cities of more than 100,000 population in
the percentage of park acreage to the total city acreage. Approx­
imately 14 per cent of the area of Minneapolis is in park property.
Among the other cities of 250,000 or more population which have led
in acquiring parks are Kansas City (Mo.), with a ratio of 1 acre of
parks to every 100 inhabitants; Los Angeles and Portland (Oreg.),
with a ratio of 1 to 118; Indianapolis with a ratio of 1 to 122; and
Washington, D. C., with a ratio of 1 to 128.
In all the cities with a population of 250,000 or over the most
notable deficiency as to types of properties is in children’s playgrounds
and neighborhood playfield parks, two types of properties in a park
system that were not given serious consideration in planning until
well along in the past quarter of a century. Even Minneapolis, which
has the most comprehensive system of municipally owned proper­
ties within easy reach of the people, needs additional neighborhood
playfield-park areas. These types are most difficult to obtain after
land has once been built up; if they are to be secured in sufficient
numbers and area, steps should be taken as far as possible ahead of
residential development just as the streets are set aside.
If the cities of the United States are grouped according to the
United States census population grouping and the reports which
have been received of the acreage of parks that have been provided
are analyzed on the basis of this grouping, it will be found that all
of these groups of cities are still far from being adequately provided
with park spaces. For example, in the group having populations from
100.000 to 250,000 there are only six that have a park acreage which
gives them a ratio of 1 acre to every 100 persons or less. These
cities are Dallas (Tex.), Fort Worth (Tex.), Houston (Tex.), Spokane
(Wash.), Salt Lake City (Utah), and Springfield (Mass.).
Of the 73 cities in the group having populations of from 50,000 to
100.000 and reporting park acreage, only 16 have a park acreage which
gives them this ratio, and many cities fall very far below it. The
situation in the groups of cities with populations of less than 50,000
is perhaps even less favorable from the standpoint of park acreage.
Some of the cities in these groups are well provided with parks, but
the fact that there are several cities with less than one acre of park
property indicates that there is a tremendous need for additional
areas not only in the large cities but in some of the smaller communities.
It is of interest that of the 1,321 villages with a population of less than
2,500 reporting on their local park situation, 752, or 57 per cent, stated
that they had no parks. If among the 11,591 village communities which
did not report the same ratio of percentages prevail as for the 1,321 com­
munities that did report, it means that not only several millions of
people living in these small communities have no public recreation
facilities but also that several millions more living in the open country
tributary to these communities are without public recreation facilities.
This presents a problem in rural planning that as yet has not been
touched by modern planning movements to any appreciable degree.
A very similar condition was found in the next larger group of
communities, with populations from 2,500 to 5,000.




INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

7

Although the ratio of park acreage to population has been used
as the simplest measure of the extent to which cities provide areas
for the recreation of their people, it is by no means an accurate basis
for determining this. If most of the total acreage is in one large
park, if the parks are poorly distributed, or if they do not provide
various types of recreation facilities, the park system may be ineffi­
cient even though the acreage is large. The efficiently planned park
and recreation system will involve a balanced relationship and well
distributed location of several types of properties, namely, children’s
playgrounds, neighborhood playfield parks, neighborhood parks, res­
ervations, boulevards, and parkways. Perhaps several types of spe­
cial properties, such as athletic fields, stadiums, golf courses, botanical
gardens, and bathing beaches, will be provided.
No standard that we have to-day can be taken with any degree
of assurance unless we have the particular case well analyzed in the
ideal layout for a modem park and recreation system.
DETAILED EXAMPLES OF PARK PLANNING
The following statements indicate the number and sizes of park
and recreation areas in several cities. They are among the best
examples in their respective population groups from the standpoint
of well distributed park properties.
The Minneapolis park and recreation system is one of the most
outstanding systems in the United States from the standpoint of the
number of acres, types of properties, distribution of properties,
character of development, and quality of maintenance. The state­
ment immediately following shows the distribution of the properties
according to size:

Number
of properties

Under 5 acres____________________________________
78
5 to 10 acres_____________________________________
15
10 to 25 acres____________________________________
13
25 to 50 acres____________________________________
8
50 to 75 acres____________________________________
4
1
75 to 100 acres___________________________________
100 to 250 acres__________________________________
8
250 to 500 acres__________________________________
3
500 to 1,000 acres_________________________________
2
Total________________________________________ 132

Total
acres

63. 2
110. 6
221. 2
278. 0
267. 0
83. 0
1, 430. 9
1, 080. 1
1, 203. 8
4,737.8

Spokane, Wash., with a population of 104,437 in 1922 and an
estimated population of 108,897 in 1925, has an area of 39.3 square
miles or 25,120 acres. The park system of Spokane comprises 46
different properties totaling 2,181.4 acres or approximately 1 acre
to every 50 inhabitants. The following table shows the distribution
of the unit areas in the Spokane park and recreation system arranged
according to size:

Number
of properties

Under 5 acres____________________________________
5 to 10 acres_____________________________________
10 to 25 acres____________________________________
25 to 50 acres____________________________________
50 to 75 acres____________________________________
75 to 100 acres___________________________________
100 to 250 acres__________________________________
250 to 500 acres___ ______________________________
Total.........................................................................



16
6
7
5
3
2
5
2
46

Total
acres

36. 1
47. 9
101. 5
182. 7
158. 1
180. 0
752. 8
759. 0
2, 218. 0

8

PARK RECREATION AREAS

From the viewpoint of size of properties and the distribution of
these properties over the total area of the city, the Spokane park and
recreation system is admirably planned and executed. There is
hardly a part of the residential sections of the city that is not within
walking distance of a park property, and the properties are for the
most part of such size as to provide a wide range of recreation oppor­
tunities. The system is not burdened with a large number of small
properties of the triangle and oval type. Much has been done also
to preserve areas along the banks of the beautiful Spokane River
which flows through the city.
Houston, Tex., has made remarkable progress in the extension and
development of its park and recreation system. The plan shown on
page 78 is noteworthy in the extensive provisions contemplated for
neighborhood playfield-park areas, in the redemption and preser­
vation of the stream courses, in the system of parkways, and in a
ground system of cross-city and encircling drives of which the park­
ways form an integral part. Additional large parks are to be added,
but are not shown on the map.
Equally progressive is the policy of the school board whereby, for
all senior and junior high schools and for many of the grade schools
as well, areas have been and are being acquired of sufficient size not
only to provide amply for the needs of the children as students for
play and organized games, but also to serve as neighborhood playfields
in the general park and recreation system.
Pasadena, Calif., with a population of 45,354 in 1920 and an esti­
mated population of 56,732 in 1925, has a total city area of 16.2
square miles or 10,406 acres. The park and recreation system of
Pasadena comprises 16 separate properties totaling 1,000.1 acres or
1 acre to every 56 inhabitants. The size of the park areas is as fol­
lows: 0.86 of an acre, 1.25, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 4, 5.53, 6.6, 8, 9, 9.53, 13,
22.46, 67.03, 334.03, and 516.26 acres, respectively. This appears to
be a very good distribution as between neighborhood parks, or neigh­
borhood playfield parks and large properties.
The school sites in Pasadena are also a factor to be considered
because of their size and the facilities afforded. The 26 schools in
the city have a total area of 174.25 acres, 6 of them being 10 acres or
more in extent and 10 of them having an area between 3 and 10 acres.
It can be readily understood that these sites provide amply for chil­
dren’s playgrounds and some of them are large enough to serve as
neighborhood playfields.
Other recreation areas, such as national forest reservations, a
county park of over 5,000 acres, and beach resorts, are within easy
reach of the people of the city. There are three private golf courses,
totaling approximately 450 acres, and two large private estates,
totaling 450 acres, which are at times open to the public.
Bridgeton, N. J., with a population of 14,323 in 1920 and an esti­
mated population of 14,387 in 1925, has an area within its incorpo­
rated limits of 4,250 acres. There are 4 park areas with a total
acreage of 818 acres, or 1 acre to approximately every 18 inhabit­
ants. The areas of the properties are 8, 10, 125, and 675 acres,
respectiyely. The two last-mentioned properties are practically one
area. In these two properties there are 3 lakes (25, 50, and 100
acres, respectively) and a water raceway 1 mile long and of an aver­
age width of 20 feet. In these two properties there are 1 band stand;



INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

9

2 rustic wood shelter houses 40 feet square; 1 public comfort station;
2 tennis courts; 30 acres landscaped; 1 private canoe concession
house with storage for 315 canoes; 1 large old dwelling; three picnic
places, provided with 20 tables and 80 benches; swimming facilities;
5 miles of gravel roadway; 6 miles of footpaths; 5 miles of bridle
paths. The 10-acre property is chiefly covered with trees but has
one baseball field with a small set of bleachers. The 80-acre property
has one ball field, but is covered chiefly with a fine growth of trees.
Plans are under way for construction of a municipal golf course, an
athletic field, and a children’s playground in the largest of the proper­
ties mentioned above. The Johnson Reeves Playground of 2 acres is
a public playground, but is owned and operated by the Bridgeton
Playground Association. The property was a gift of a public-spirited
citizen and cost $13,500 for the land and improvements. There are
7 school sites with a gross total of 17.1 acres and a free play space
of approximately 14 acres. Of the gross acreage 12 acres are in the
senior high-school ground, which has a 6-acre athletic field.
MUNICIPAL PARKS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS

Approximately 100 cities have acquired park properties outside
their regular limits. The extension of the park systems into the open
country has been made possible by the invention of the automobile
and its widespread ownership among the people. A remarkable
change has taken place in the past 10 years in the number of auto­
mobiles owned by the people of this country, so that it is quite pos­
sible now for a city recreation system to be extended as much as 50
miles, and in some places as much as 100 miles, into the country and
still be used by large groups of city people.
The largest of the city parks outside the limits is owned by Phoenix,
Ariz., and comprises 15,080 acres in one property. Denver owns
more than 10,000 acres in mountain parks outside the city. Seven
other cities each own more than 2,000 acres in outlying parks. These
park lands vary as to their accessibility. Some of them are easily
reached by the street car, whereas others are readily accessible only
by automobile.
The purchase of park areas outside the city limits is a wise munici­
pal procedure because of the probability of the great need for such
areas as the city expands. Such lands are, of course, much cheaper
than lands within the city limits, and it is an act of wisdom to acquire
them before the city expands and raises the market value. There
is a place in the well-balanced park system for both easily accessible
and the more remote areas. The wisdom of acquiring comparatively
remote areas has been demonstrated by the experience of many
cities.
It is sometimes possible to secure large properties within the city
limits which provide many of the features to be found in the out*lying reservations. Fairmount Park in Philadelphia, with 3,881 acres,
and Griffiths Park in Los Angeles, with 3,751 acres, are the largest
city parks in the United States. Chico, Calif., owns Bidwell Park
of 2,391 acres. Pelham Bay Park in New York and Rock Creek
Park in Washington, D. C., each covers more than 1,500 acres.
Because these large city parks are easily accessible and are therefore
intensively used by the people, it is very desirable to secure such
properties before the cost of acquiring them becomes prohibitive.



10

park : b e c b e a t io n a &e a s
COUNTY PARKS

To Essex County, N. J., belongs the credit for the pioneering effort
of establishing a county park system in 1895, the idea having resulted
largely from the need of parks in the cities of this metropolitan area.
Although the plan was eminently successful, it was adopted else­
where very slowly. Prior to 1920 very few counties had acquired
parks, but since that time a number of county park systems have
been established in various sections of the county. Thirty-three
counties were reported as having one or more county parks, wT a
ith
total area of 67,464.71 acres. Of this amount, 47,600 acres, or over
70 per cent, are owned by two counties, Cook County, 111., and
Westchester County, N. Y.
Under certain conditions counties are admirably adapted to park
planning and they offer an undeveloped field of tremendous impor­
tance in the general outdoor recreation movement. Although many
of the outstanding county park systems have been designed as units
for handling metropolitan park problems, it is conceivable that the
greatest field of usefulness of this type of system will be in providing
recreation opportunities for the rural districts and the people in the
thousands of small municipalities throughout the country.
RECREATION FACILITIES IN PARKS

It has been pointed out that a most significant trend in the munici­
pal park movement in the last 25 years has been the use of parks
for active recreation. At the beginning of this period most park
executives and commissioners opposed the location of areas for
active games and sports in public parks. To-day, 90 per cent of the
park executives favor the use of parks for active recreation as well as
for rest and reflection.
The place of children’s playgrounds in a park system is indicated
by the fact that 309 cities reported 4,819 such areas. Among the
facilities reported most frequently were areas for baseball, football,
soccer, playground ball, horseshoe pitching, basket ball, field hockey,
track, field events, volley ball, hand ball, and croquet. Ninetyeight cities reported golf courses in parks. Among the other sports
for which facilities are provided are bowling, roque, polo, archery,
and shooting. Wading and swimming pools, bathing beaches, and
boating facilities are commonly found in parks, and in the northern
part of the country toboggan slides, ski jumps, skating rinks, and
coasting places are provided.
A study of the buildings and structures found in municipal parks
indicates a wide range of social, recreational, and educational uses.
The extent to which parks are serving as community centers is shown
by the large number of club houses, gymnasiums, and field houses.
The art galleries, museums, outdoor theaters, band stands, and con­
servatories reported by many cities are indicative of the ways in
which parks are an increasing factor in the cultural and educational
life of the people. Among the structures used primarily for
recreation reported by many cities are boathouses, grandstands,
bathhouses, and dancing pavilions. Ninety-four cities reported 99
zoological gardens. Comfort buildings are the most numerous of
the park structures reported. The park departments in the 117



INTRODUCTION AND STJMMAEY

11

cities reporting 1,427 picnic places are playing a large part in the
movement to encourage outdoor activities on the part of families
and community groups.
PARK FINANCES

The capital investment represented in the property that had been
set aside for the recreation of the people prior to 1850 probably did
not exceed a few hundred thousand dollars. To-day the capital
investment in public parks and recreation spaces of American cities
is estimated to be considerably over $1,000,000,000, and the current
operation and maintenance expense runs considerably over $100,000,000 annually. Of course, the capital investment, the value of
these properties, is difficult to estimate. There is no way of arriving
at the actual commercial value of properties that have been set aside
in American cities for public parks and public recreation but it is
probably much greater than the estimated capital outlay.
Park financing falls into two distinct divisions: (1) The acquisi­
tion and permanent improvement of properties; (2) operation and
maintenance.
The acquisition and permanent improvement of properties may be
financed in one or more of the following ways: Use of current funds
of the park and recreation department or by direct appropriation of
a municipal or county government; proceeds from the sale of bonds
secured by general taxation, by special assessments, or by a combina­
tion of these methods; installment payments out of the net proceeds
obtained from the operation of the particular project itself; pro­
ceeds from gifts, donations, devises, and bequests; acquisition of
properties through use of the principle of excess condemnation or
excess purchase.
The “ pay-as-you-go” policy has been practiced by some park
departments through the country, both acquisition and improvement
of properties having been financed out of current revenues. On the
whole, however, this is an undesirable method. The acquisition
and improvement of park properties out of the proceeds from the sale
of bonds is more desirable and more commonly practiced.
Cleveland, for example, during the period 1874-1924 voted park
and playground bonds to the amount of $10,612,000. Boston voted
$8,844,300 for park and playground bonds during the period 18931925; in addition, $25,547,361 in bonds were authorized for the
Boston Metropolitan Park District. In 1923 St. Louis voted $2,500,000 for new parks and playgrounds and $1,300,000 for improvements.
Minneapolis leads the cities with populations of 250,000 to 500,000
with $7,694,565.82 bonds for land and improvement between 1912
and 1925. Perhaps more than any other this city has applied the
method of using proceeds from the sale of bonds secured by special
assessments, as contrasted with those secured by general taxation.
Other outstanding cities in this group are Milwaukee with $4,380,000
and Seattle with $4,436,777.50.
In the group of cities with 100,000 to 250,000 population, Provi­
dence has voted $2,329,758.76, New Haven $2,037,000, Toledo
$1,756,000, and Dallas $1,625,000. Among the outstanding examples
of smaller cities using this method of financing the acquisition and
85671°—28-----2



12

PARK RECREATION AREAS

improvement of their parks are East St. Louis (111.), Oklahoma City,
San Diego (Calif.), and Wichita (Kans.).
While the acquisition of property through gifts and bequests does
not represent an actual financial transaction on the part of park
authc ’ties, this method of securing properties does involve an item
of tremendous monetary importance because of the vast numbers of
such properties so acquired throughout the United States. For­
tunately it is becoming more and more common for public-spirited
citizens to make such donations. Indeed, in some systems this has
been the chief means of securing properties.
The principle of excess condemnation has not been widely used by
park authorities partly because in many sections of the country legal
power is lacking. Sufficient public sentiment has not been developed
to support public authorities in its use. Yet if this principle could
be applied by park authorities, it would go far toward solving the ques­
tion of how to finance the acquisition of land for several different
types of park properties, especially in newer sections of cities.
Among the chief sources of revenue for operation and maintenance
of park and recreation systems are annual appropriation by the
city or county governing authority; special tax levy; special sources
of income such as a certain percentage of the gross income of street
railway system (Baltimore); percentage of a vehicle tax (Kansas
City, Mo,); percentage of gross receipts of city from fines, penalties,
and licenses (Seattle), etc.; gifts, legacies, bequests; fees from the
operation of different types of recreation facilities.
Annual appropriations by the governing authority of the city or
county is the most common method of providing current revenues
for park departments in the United States. This method is open
to some serious objections, among which are the uncertainty of the
revenue and the possibility of political influence. On the other
hand, this method of financing the operation and maintenance of
park and recreation systems is more in harmony with the general
theory and practice in American municipal and county governments
than any other plan of financing.
Largely because of the uncertainty of revenue for general park
purposes under the annual appropriation system and the consequent
inability of park authorities to plan their work effectively, there has
developed the plan of allowing a special tax of a given number of
mills on the dollar or a given number of cents on each $100 of assessed
valuation of property within the limits of cities or counties. Only
a small proportion of the cities in the larger population groups use
this plan, but the park departments in 23 of the 76 cities in the group
of 50,000 to 100,000 derive their chief revenue for maintenance and
operation from a special tax.
The special tax system is also used in county park systems and
in metropolitan park districts, where it is on an apportionment
basis as among the several incorporated communities within the
district.
Revenues from the operation of certain types of recreation facilities
may arise either in a lump sum from concessions or from the operation
of the facilities directly by the park governing authority. The
practice of charging fees for the use of certain types of recreation
facilities arose partly because of the constantly rising tax rate, and
partly because of a growing feeling that it was only just that the



INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

13

patrons of a given facility should pay for the operation and main­
tenance, where the general public had provided the capital outlay.
Furthermore people appear to have a much more direct feeling of
responsibility for and an interest in a given facility or activity if
they contribute directly something of monetary value than t: by do
if the facility or activity is open to their free use. Among the facilities
for the use of which fees are charged are boats and canoes, tennis,
winter sports, theaters, art museums, zoological gardens, golf, camps,
swimming pools, and dancing pavilions. A great step forward in
the development of the fee system in connection with the operation
and maintenance of recreation facilities would be the universal adop­
tion of specific authority for the park and recreation governing
authorities to retain the revenues derived therefrom in the park and
recreation fund.
HISTORY OF TOWN PLANNING IN THE UNITED STATES

In the history of town planning and building in the United States
a very curious contrast is presented as between the pioneer planning
and building and that of modern times, with respect to provisions
for open spaces for the common use and enjoyment of the inhabitants.
When the Spaniards founded Santa Fe in 1565 a square or plaza
was set aside in the center of the town for a public square—a space
that serves the public as a social, dramatic, musical, political, rest,
and relaxation center to this day. This was the common practice
of all the builders of Spanish towns in America. In addition to
setting aside squares or plazas these early town builders frequently
reserved large areas of land in the vicinity of the towns. These
were called public lands. Balboa Park, of several thousand acres in
San Diego, is an example of such a public land reserved by the early
builders of that city.
This example of the Spanish builders and planners of towns had
its effect later in the plans for San Francisco and Sacramento. In
the former city numerous squares were set aside for pleasure grounds
in the plans of the old city. General Sutter, in planning Sacramento,
reserved at regular intervals an entire block of ground.
Many years after the founding of Sante Fe and other Spanish
towns in the Southwest and Florida, the English colonists on the
Atlantic Coast followed a custom of setting aside spaces for town
commons. This was particularly true in New England where the
town common became a recognized institution, the most notable
example being the Boston Common, comprising a tract of about 44
acres purchased of William Blackstone in 1634. The New England
town common was not a park in the modern sense of that word, but
in some ways it was used as our modern playfield parks are used.
It was intended primarily for the common pasturing of stock, a place
for holding markets and drilling the militia, and was often used as
the site of certain public buildings.
William Penn in 1682, in laying out the plan of Philadelphia,
carefully reserved at regular intervals five public squares of about
six acres each. General Oglethorpe did the same when he laid out
the plan of Savannah in 1733. Subsequent generations in Savannah
continued this policy, so that in 1880 the city had 30 acres in 23
public spaces besides a 10-acre park and a 20-acre parade ground.



14

PARK RECREATION AREAS

Major L’Enfant, by using a combination plan of rectangular and
radial streets, provided for numerous open spaces in the city of
Washington, a plan which was later followed in Buffalo, Erie, and
Indianapolis.
Brigham Young, in planning Salt Lake City in 1847, set aside at
regular intervals of about one mile squares of 10 acres each for com­
mon pleasure grounds. This practice was not followed by subse­
quent generations. Indeed, one of the four blocks originally set
aside was sold for commercial purposes. In all the Utah towns
founded by the Mormons the policy of setting aside one or more
squares ranging from 5 to 10 acres for a public park was followed.
Throughout the Middle West it was customary in county-seat towns
to reserve a square for the courthouse.
With the possible exception of Savannah, these early examples of
setting aside spaces for community use were forgotten in the century
that saw the rise and expansion of modern industry and commerce.
They were nearly all the work of original planning, and were, with
the exception of the New England town commons, the product in each
case of a single mind.
OBSTACLES TO TOWN PLANNING

In democratically governed communities it is often difficult to
secure quickly and maintain consistently unity of mind and unity of
action upon a given policy or plan. This is probably the chief cause
that has led to failure of American urban communities to follow the
example of the early Spanish town planners, of William Penn, General
Oglethorpe, Major L’Enfant, General Sutter, Brigham Young, and
others.
There were other causes also. Although the trend toward urban
life in the United States began about 1820 this development did not
command much attention until after the Civil War. In 1800 there
were only six places in the United States having 8,000 or more inhab­
itants and these represented but 4 per cent of the total population.
By 1850 there were 85 such places, comprising but 12.5 per cent of
the total population. Thirty years later (1880) there were 285 such
places, which included 22.7 per cent of the total population. During
the succeeding decades down to 1920 the number of places having
8,000 or more inhabitants increased to 924. Taking the United
States Census definition of urban community (places of 2,500 inhab­
itants or more) there were in 1920, 2,787 communities of 2,500 or
more inhabitants, comprising 51.4 per cent of the total population.
Thus in a period of 100 years (1820-1920) the predominating
character of life in the United States changed from rural to urban.
For nearly three-quarters of a century there was apparently no
widespread understanding of the change taking place. Its signifi­
cance relative to the living conditions of the people was not widely
understood. The size of the country and the amount of open
space were so great that even in rapidly growing cities no great need
was felt for reserving any space for the present or future needs of the
inhabitants.
A further impediment to the development of a proper park policy
has been the prevalance of rural ideas and ideals under urban condi­
tions and in urban communities. Although to-day probably over 52



ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED PARKS

15

per cent of the total population live in so-called urban communities,
this fact does not mean that an urban viewpoint is dominant. Rural
individualism still controls to a very large extent in urban communi­
ties, as the peculiar political condition whereby State governments
exercise considerable control over laws affecting cities tends to per­
petuate rural control even in cities located in States that are largely
industrial.
The dominant interest of the people from about 1870 to the close
of the century was another factor that militated against a proper
understanding of the changes which this interest was swiftly bringing
to pass. This period was an era in which the people set themselves
to subdue the major portion of a continent and to exploit all the pos­
sible natural resources to be found therein. There arose the most
gigantic development and organization of industry and commerce
that the world had ever seen. This was the chief contributing factor
to the urbanization of the people. An old philosophy that work was
the supreme virtue and leisure potentially evil synchronized per­
fectly with the spirit of the times. Those who proclaimed the need
of leisure for play and recreation and the need of providing an envi­
ronment in towns and cities whereby leisure might be wholesomely
used were looked upon as false prophets.
The swiftness with which towns and cities grew, as a result of
the expansion of industry, obscured the examples of the earliest town
builders in the United States. The burden of providing absolutely
necessary public services and public utilities taxed the resources of
municipal governments to the utmost. The most pressing needs
were given first consideration, with the result that orderly compre­
hensive planning was either lost sight of entirely or ignored as an
impossibility.
The concentration of capital, management, and machines at any
one place always results in bringing large numbers of people together
at that place. Cities owe their position, so far as population goes,
largely to their industry and commerce. The people are primarily
there because there is work there for them to do through which they
may make a living and a life.
The dominance of rural ideas and the rapid growth of cities are the
two factors, then, which, taken together, help to explain why the park
movement, which began in the two decades following the Civil War,
and the playground movement, which arose in the next decade (18801890), failed to gather much momentum until after the close of the
century.
ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED PARKS AND
RECREATION AREAS
The limited number of communities under 2,500 population report­
ing parks is an index of the lack of play facilities in numerous villages
and rural districts. Millions of the small-town people have no park or
playground space. Open fields and vacant lots they have, to be sure,
but anyone who knows village life appreciates how inadequate these
are for recreation without proper equipment and competent leader­
ship. Some form of county recreational plan will probably be the
answer to thejneeds in villages and country places.,



16

PARK RECREATION AREAS

School sites are not included in the park acreage total of 5,186.9
for towns in the population group 2,500 to 5,000. In some instances,
these sites are ample for the recreation of the students. The 21.9
acres per community reporting parks seems to be a fair amount of
space for this purpose. However, taking the per capita acreage of
36 typical towns, it is shown that, even including school sites, it is
far less than the generally accepted standard of an acre to every 100
inhabitants.
Twenty per cent of the communities reporting in the next larger
population group, 5,000 to 10,000, reported no parks, but it should be
remembered that such places, like the smaller ones, have a number of
open spaces of private or semiprivate nature, such as vacant lots and
school yards, which are used in part for recreation. There was an
average of 44.6 acres for the communities in this group which reported
parks.
The total park acreage of 50 typical cities of the population group
10,000 to 25,000 is several times as great as that of Baltimore, Boston,
or St. Louis, each of which has a population equivalent to that of this
group of smaller places. As compared to the 324 park properties in
these cities, Baltimore has 66, Boston 99, and St. Louis 96.
An excellent example of original planning for parks followed by
continuous expansion is that of Great Falls, Mont. With an estimated
population in 1925 of 27,000, the total area of the park system, exclu­
sive of 37 miles of boulevards and driveways, is 686.4 acres. The
selection of properties as to size and location has been admirable.
There are 17 properties, exclusive of boulevards. These include 6 large
parks of 48, 60, 81,100,100.8, and 240 acres, respectively, strategically
distributed within and without the city limits; 5 neighborhood playfield parks comprising 5, 5, 8, 10, and 14 acres, respectively, and 6
neighborhood squares, 2 ^ acres each. A courthouse square of 2 ^
acres adds a seventh to the list of neighborhood parks.
In the group of 25,000 to 50,000 population, which includes Great
Falls, 20 of the 133 cities reporting parks in this group have 45 per
cent of the total park acreage. In these 20 there is an average of 1
acre of park to every 53 inhabitants.
In cities of 50,000 but less than 100,000 inhabitants there is the same
inequality in park development as in the preceding group. Of the
cities in the next group, Dallas has a system admirable from the point
of view of the nature of the service rendered the people. There are
38 equipped playgrounds covering practically every section of the
city, 17 swimming and wading pools, and 1 very large swimming center,
30 baseball diamonds, 45 tennis courts, 23 centers for outdoor moving
pictures, and 4 golf courses. In addition, there are 2 large outlying
reservations comprising 3,100 acres and providing excellent oppor­
tunity for camping, picnics, boating, and fishing. Many of the cities
in this group are quite inadequately supplied with parks.
In the next population division—250,000 to 500,000—a comparison
of the acreage with the population shows no special relation between
park planning and city growth. Denver has a great mountain park
system, containing more than 10,000 acres, outside the city and acces­
sible by automobile. Counting out Denver, Minneapolis leads the
cities in this group in point of park area with more than 4,736 acres.
The Minneapolis park and recreation system is one of the outstanding



ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED PARKS

17

ones in the country from the standpoint of acreage, types and distribu­
tion of properties, character of the development, and quality of main­
tenance. The parks range in size from less than 5 acres to 500 and
1.000 acres. There are 132 properties in all, 78 of which contain less
than 5 acres each. It is the only city in this group that has sufficient
park area to average 1 acre to less than 100 persons.
There is a marked lack of comprehensive metropolitan planning
among cities in this class, with the exception of Denver, Milwaukee,
Newark, and Jersey City. Moreover, practically all the cities have
failed to make adequate provision for children’s playgrounds and
neighborhood playfield parks.
In the nine cities which have from 500,000 to 1,000,000 inhabitants,
there is decidedly less park acreage in proportion to the population
than in most of the smaller cities. As cities grow larger, it is increas­
ingly difficult to provide the necessary recreation areas, especially
when comprehensive planning has long been neglected. In these
cities, as in the preceding group, the most notable deficiency is in
children’s playgrounds and neighborhood playfield parks. Yet every
one of these communities has a planning commission and a more or
less comprehensive scheme for the extension and development of
park areas, including a regional park plan. The Boston regional
park plan is an accomplished fact. Cleveland has made great progress
in recent years. Buffalo and Detroit have made substantial progress
through county park systems. Though more comprehensive plans
are in hand, large areas are being acquired around Pittsburgh through
the county plan. St. Louis, Baltimore, and Los Angeles each have
regional plans either actually formulated or in process of formation.
Coming finally to the three largest cities of the country, which
have more than 1,000,000 population, we find that New York has
a park acreage of 10,178.5; Chicago, 4,487; and Philadelphia, 7,801.7.
As compared with the acreage in any one of the groups of cities from
25.000 inhabitants upward, this group has in proportion to popula­
tion the smallest park acreage. All three began planning shortly
after 1850 but did not keep pace in park growth with the growth in
population. New York and Chicago are richly endowed in outlying
reservations. Philadelphia has no such advantage.
Table 1 shows the total acreage of municipally owned parks and
recreation spaces in the United States in 1925-26, by population
groups. Table 2 gives detailed data by individual cities.




PARK RECREATION AREAS

18

T a b le

1 .— Acreage of municipally owned parks and recreation spaces in the United
States, 1925-26, by population groups
Population group (1920 census)

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..........___
2,500 to 5,000_________
Under 2,500— ...............
Total, all groups.

Cities
and
towns
in the
United
States
9
13
43
76
143
458
724
1,321
12,912
15,702

Number of
Number communitiesreport­
ing
Without Having
parks parks
9
13
43
73
134
4 385
322
309
1,321

21
39

67
72
752
931

13
43
73
133
346
255
237
569
1,681

Total
acreage
22,467.4
24.920.9
37,546.3
i 40,869.8
37.203.9
3 30,129.6
5 33,589.0
11.366.9
5,186.9
5,346.6
248,627.2

i Exclusive of 850 acres in township park within city limits of Youngstown, Ohio.
* Newark, Ohio; in addition Highland Park, Mich., near Detroit, has oialy 1 acre.
3 Exclusive of 255 acres in township park in Hammond, Ind.; but inclusive of 1 acre in Highland Park,
Mich., which uses the recreational facilities of Detroit surrounding it.
4 Exclusive of 4 communities annexed to larger municipalities since 1920.
* Exclusive of 122.3 acres in three township parks owned and controlled by Canton (111.) District Park
Board, which includes entire township; and 235 acres in three township parks within and adjoining city
limits of Ashtabula, Ohio.
T a b l e 2 . — Aggregate park acreage in municipalities

of 5,000 population and over,

1925-26

[Abstract of the Fourteenth Census gives considerably less acreage for cities of 200,000 inhabitants and
over than is given in this table, and it seems unlikely that they have increased to this extent. The city
area for Augusta (Me.), Middletown (Conn.), Cumberland (Ii. I.), Rochester (N. H.), Spencer (Mass.),
and others seems excessive]
Cities

Popula­
tion 1920

New York, N. Y___...................... ....................................... 5,620,048
Chicago, Ill_ .............-........ ................... ................................ 2,701,705
Philadelphia. Pa....................................... ............. .............. 1,823,779
Detroit, Mich________________ ____________________ 993,678
Cleveland, Ohio *...................... ........................................... 796,841
772,897
St. Louis, Mo...............-.......... ........... ...............................
748,060
Boston, M ass.............................-........................................
Baltimore, Md.................. ............................ ......................... 733,826
588,343
Pittsburgh, Pa_.....................................-..........................
576,673
Los Angeles, Calif.2.......................................... ..............
506,775
Buffalo, N. Y -------------------------------------- ----------------San Francisco, Calif---------------------------------------------- - 506,676
Milwaukee, Wis------------------------------------------- --------- 457.147
Washington, D . C---------- --------------------- ------ ----------- 437,571
414,524
Newark, N. J....................................................................
401,247
Cincinnati, Ohio.................................................................
387,219
New Orleans, La.................................................................
380,582
Minneapolis, Minn---------- ----------------- -------------------Kansas City. M o--------- ------------------------------------------ 324,410
315,312
Seattle, Wasn--------------------------------- ---------------------Indianapolis, Ind................................................................... 314,194
Jersey City, N . J---------------------------------------------------- 298,103
295,750
Rochester, N . Y .......... ........... .................................... ........
Portland, Oreg.......................... ............................................. 258,288
256,491
Denver, Colo........................................................................
243,164
Toledo, Ohio....................................................... ...................
237,595
Providence, R. I .......................................... -........ ...........
Columbus, Ohio.................................................................... 237,031
Louisville, K y......................................................................... 234.891
St. Paul, Minn......................................... .......... ........ .......... 234,698
Oakland, Calif....................................................................... 216,261
Akron, Ohio.......................... .......... ...................................... 208,435
Atlanta, Ga.3......................................................................... 200,616
i Includes West Park (population, 8,581), annexed since 1920.
* Includes Eagle Rock (population 2,256), annexed since 1920
a Includes Kirkwood, annexed since 1920.



City area
in acres
201,059.0
131,189.8
80,017.1
76, 245.4
44,260.0
39,404.8
30, 598.4
58, 835. 2
30,050.0
262,892.8
25, 574.0
81,280.0
20, 755.2
45,106.0
U, 937.6
46, 080.0
125, 600.0
38,607.0
38, 400.0
45, 760.0
31,678.7
12,288.0
21, 627.0
42,240.0
37,600.0
21,344.0
11,737.6
22,705.0
2a, 024.0
35,481.6
40,960.0
10,064.0
19,635.2

Area of
parks in
acres
10,178.5
4,487.2
7,801.7
3,732.7
2,221.5
2,880. 5
2,637.0
2,833.8
1,591.9
4,889.6
1,598.3
2,535.5
1,001.2
3,424.5
28.7
2,718.9
1,885.0
4,737.8
3,237.7
2,144.6
2,566.2
85.9
1,771.9
2,181.4
11,764.9
1,592.7
759.0
634.0
1,653.3
1,572.7
915.9
479.8
1,100.0

Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park
553
602
234
266
359
2&S
284
255
370
118
317
200
457
128
14,423
148
205
80
100
147
122
3,470
167
118
22
153
313
374
142
149
236
434
182

ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED PARKS

19

T a b le 2.— Aggregate park acreage in municipalities of 5^000 population and over,
1925-26— Continued

Cities

Popula­
tion 1920

Area of
parks in
acres

Omaha, Nebr________
191,601 24.256.0
Worcester, Mass_____
179.754 24,582.4
Birmingham, Ala____
178,806 31.347.2
Syracuse, N. Y ........ ...
171,717 12.160.0
Richmond, Va ..........
171,667 15.347.2
New Haven, Conn___
162,537 14.346.0
Memphis, Tenn...........
162.351 15.821.0
San Antonio, Tex____
161,379 23.040.0
Dallas, Tex...................
158,978 16,906.8
Dayton, Ohio...............
152,559 10.720.0
Bridgeport, Conn.........
143,555 11.440.0
Houston, Tex................
138, 276 25.925.0
Hartford, Conn.............
138,036 11.158.0
Scranton, Pa_________
137.783 13.120.0
Grand Rapids, Mich...
137,634 12.672.0
Paterson, N. J_______
5.484.8
135,875
Youngstown, Ohio___
132,358 16.640.0
Springfield, Mass____
129,614 21.184.0
Des Moines, Iowa____
126,468 34.560.0
New Bedford, Mass__
12.373.3
Fall River, Mass_____
120,485 24,371.2
Trenton, N. J................
4.900.0
119,289
Nashville, Tenn______
118,342 13.760.0
Salt Lake City, Utah..
118,110 33.502.1
Camden, N. J................
5.480.0
116,309
Norfolk, Va.............. .
5.120.0
115,777
Albany, N. Y................
113,344 11.924.1
Lowell, Mass.................
8.565.8
112,759
Wilmington, Del......... .
4.495.1
110,168
4.082.4
Cambridge, Mass____
109,694
Reading, Pa____ _____
6.090.0
107.784
Fort Worth, Tex_____
106,482 26.387.2
Spokane, Wash______
104,437 25.120.0
Kansas City, Kans___
101,177 13.122.0
Yonkers, N. Y__...........
100,176 13.440.0
Lynn, Mass„..................
7.174.4
99,148
Duluth, Minn...............
98,917 43.072.0
Tacoma, Wash............ .
27.923.2
96,965
Elizabeth, N. J.4...........
6.227.0
95,783
Lawrence, Mass............
4, 576.0
94,270
Utica, N. Y....................
94,156 13.404.0
Erie, Pa..........................
93,372 12.800.0
Somerville, Mass_____
2.637.9
93.091
Waterbury, Conn____
91, 715 17.981.0
Flint, M ich ................ .
91,599 18.985.0
Jacksonville, Fla_____
91,558 14.912.0
Oklahoma City, Okla..
91,295 11.456.0
Schenectady, N. Y___
6.624.2
88,723
Canton, Ohio...... ..........
8.064.0
87.091
Fort Wayne, Ind........
86,549 10.368.0
Evansville, Ind______
6.720.0
85,264
Savannah, Ga________
4,300.8
83,252
Manchester, N. H.___
78,384 21.699.8
Knoxville, Tenn..........
77,818 17.094.4
El Paso, Tex..................
8.640.0
77,560
Bayonne, N. J.5.............
2.560.0
76.754
Peoria, 111.......................
6.355.5
76,121
San Diego, Calif...........
74,683 57.628.3
Wilkes-Barre, Pa..........
3.091.2
73,833
Allentown, Pa...............
6.478.2
73,502
Wichita, Kans...............
72.217 12.504.0
Tulsa, Okla.6..................
7, 545.2
72,075
Troy, N. Y ...................
6.630.4
72,013
Sioux City, Iowa..........
71,227 28.020.0
South Bend, Ind...........
70,983 10,611.2
69,272 13.612.8
Portland, M e..._ .........
Hoboken, N. J...............
830.0
68,166
Charleston, S. C...........
3.744.0
67,957
Johnstown, Pa...............
3.686.4
67,327
66,800
Binghamton, N. Y.......
5.991.0
East St. Louis, 111.........
8.627.0
66,767
13.770.8
Brockton, Mass.............
66,254
5.759.0
Terre Haute, Ind..........
66,083
* Covered by study but information incomplete; not included in tabulation total.
5 Approximate area.
fi Includes Mohawk Park, with 2,200 acres, located 4 miles outside city limits,




121.217

1.348.5
1.172.9
687.4
443.3
696.6
1.594.9
1.155.0
1.363.7
3.898.5
549.5
471.9
2.467.5
1,341. 5
221.1
858. 5
292.5
407.5
1.339.4
1.105.5
254.4
139.8
257.4
519.7
1.279.1
281.3
249.7
322.0
205.5
608.9
72.1
469.2
3,501.3
2.218.1
298.9
69.4
1.911.2
1.893.8
1.253.8
33.0
188.6
707.1
212.5
81.7
238.9
1,060.0
385.0
2.248.0
209.6
194.3
568.0
623.2
181.5
226.1
55.3
696.3
26.6
891.2
2.260.1
328.6
29.8
519.5
2.583.5
229.4
512.5
435.7
16.0
476.4
223.0
320.3
1.351.3
96.8
529.2

1.120.3

Popula­
tion. to 1
acre of
park
143
149
260
388
246
102
141
118
41
294
304
56
103
623
160
465
325
97
114
477
862
425
228
92
414
463
352
549
187
1,521
230
30
47
338
1,443
52
52
77
2,903
500
133
439
1,099
384
86
238
41
423
448
152
137
459
347
1,407
111
2,899
86
33
225
2,467
139
28
314
55
139
159
4,258
143
302
209
43
684
125

20

PARK RECREATION AREAS

T a b le 2.— Aggregate park acreage in municipalities of 5,000 population and over,
1925-26— Continued

Cities

opula>n 1920

City area
in acres

Area of
parks in
acres

Sacramento, Calif______
65,908
8,908.8
1,184.5
Rockford, 111__________
65,651
7,227.0
579.6
Little Rock, Ark_______
65,142 12,800.0
261.5
Pawtucket, R. I_______
5, 721.6
64,248
244.7
Passaic, N. J__________
63,841
2,001.7
108.8
Saginaw, Mich________
61,903 10,368.0
214.3
Springfield, Ohio______
60,840
7,561.0
271.5
Mobile, Ala___________
385.8
60,777 11,001.6
850.0
60, 725
2.5
Union City, N. J.7------2,653.9
39.9
60,331
Altoona, Pa........... ..........
228.9
Holyoke, M ass............. .
60,203 14, 585.6
8,810.0
329.5
New Britain, Conn____
59,316
885.5
59,183
0, 400.0
Springfield, 111________
3,858.0
223.6
58,593
Racine, Wis____ ______
3,005.0
119.1
Chester, P a ....................
58,030
57,895
7,475.2
264.3
Chattanooga, Tenn____
7,082.0
467.4
57,327
Lansing, Mich________
3,837.0
538.5
57,121
Covington, K y________
750.9
Davenport, Iowa---------56,727 10,393.0
6,552.0
130.9
Wheeling, W. Va--------56,208
122.8
Berkeley, Calif________
56,036 l:, 520.0
55,593 18,425.6
585.5
Long Beach, Calif_____
55,378 28,990. 2
507.5
Gary. Ind____________
8,021.0
54,948
619.0
Lincoln, Nebr_________
3, 200.0
75.9
54,387
Portsmouth, Va_______
285.8
53,884 20,480.0
Haverhill, Mass_______
2,530.0
Lancaster, Pa_________
53,150
259.0
7,040.0
316.3
52,995
Macon, Ga.......................
52, 548
6,195.2
77.8
Augusta, Ga__________
677.0
51,608 15,590.4
Tampa, Fla......................
6,133.8
129.8
50,842
Roanoke, Va__________
(j, 970.0
326.9
50,760
Niagara Falls, N. Y-----2, 516.0
26.0
50,710
East Orange, N. J-------400.0
50,707 10,528.0
Atlantic City, N. J------50,358 11,387.7
149.0
Bethlehem, Pa________
8,532.0
50,177
170.6
Huntington, W. Va-----0,4J9.4
50,022
295.3
Topeka, Kans_________
3, 285.1
45.5
49,103
Malden, Mass________
!, 337. 6
4.0
48,615
Hamtramck, Mich____
5,440.0
320.8
48,487
Kalamazoo, Mich_____
7,868,8
48,395
258.0
Winston-Salem, N. C.__
5,653.0
548.0
48,374
Jackson, Mich________
216.2
47,876 10,649.6
Quincy, Mass_________
7,072.0
46.7
47,554
Bay City, M idi_______
47, 512
2, 220.0
69.0
York, Pa___ _________
2,240.0
12.8
46,781
McKeesport, Pa_______
1,895.0
1.0
46,499
Highland Park, M ich...
8,167.0
101.5
46,338
Charlotte, N. C_______
284.0
46,054 11,457.0
Newton, Mass________
125.2
4, 660.0
45,393
Elmira, N. Y _________
45,354 10,406.4
1,000.1
Pasadena, Calif-----------.5,432.0
178.2
45,086
Fresno, Calif__________
3,678. 5
15.1
44,995
Cicero, 111_____________
•5,172.0
44,938
32.5
New Castle, Pa-----------4,985.6
22.3
44,255
Galveston, Tex________
43,874
3,486.0
462.7
Shreveport, La________
5,917.2
731.0
43,818
Decatur, 111___________
5,632.0
108.0
43,496
Woonsocket, R. I--------43,464
4,403.0
120.5
Montgomery, Ala-------1,440.0
39.0
43,184
Chelsea, Mass------------7,276.8
308.0
43,050
Pueblo, Colo__________
2,695.0
21.7
42,726
Mount Vernon, N. Y ...
42,529
5,113.5
398.0
Salem, Mass...................
41,763 27,155.2
241.0
Pittsfield, Mass_______
41,732
3,680.0
122.8
Lakewood, Ohio.........
2,958.0
41,707
30.8
Perth Amboy, N. J-----3,319.0
3,678.4
41,611
Butte, Mont.8.................
3, 212.8
67.7
41,534
Lexington, K y.................
4,060.0
115.0
41,326
Lima, Ohio___________
41,029 13,163.2
250.6
Fitchburg, Mass______
40,472
4,135.3
267.6
Kenosha, Wis_________
40,422
6,464.0
689.4
Beaumont, Tex________
5,820.8
218.3
40,296
Stockton, Calif.................
39.8
2, 396.7
40,120
Everett, Mass_________
584. 2
40,079
6,737.7
Wichita Falls, Tex_____
7 West Hoboken (population, 40,07-1) and Union Hill (population, 20,651) combined in 1925,
8 Includes a large park area owned by the city outside the city limits.



Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park
57
113
249
263
587
289
224
158
24,193
1,514
263
180
67
262
487
219
123
106
75
429
456
95
109
89
704
188
165
167
675
76
439
155
1,958
127
338
294
169
1,020
12,154
151
183
88
221
1,019
689
3,655
46,499
457
1C2
362
45
247
2,980
1,383
1,985
95
60
403
361
1,107
140
1,969
107
173
340
1,353
11
613
359
164
151
59
185
1,008
69

ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED PARKS

21

,

T a b l e 2 . — Aggregate park acreage in municipalities o} 5,000 population and over

1925-26

Cities

—Continued

Popula­
tion 1920

City area
in acres

Area of
parks in
acres

40,074
West Hoboken, N. J.7__________ ___________________
Oak Park, Ill__............................................... ......................
39,858
2,880.0
70.0
Hamilton, Ohio__________ ____________ ____________
39,675
3,916.8
110.0
242.1
Superior, Wis_________________ __________________
39,671 23,400.0
San .Tnsft, Calif ....
39,642
4.352.0
659.4
5.033.1
254.4
39,631
Springfield, M o .................................
............
2,964.0
42.0
39,608
Charleston, W. Va................................................................
6,080.0
169.0
39,141
Dubuque, Iowa_____________________ _____________
5.521.0
Medford, Mass............................................ ...............
39,038
42.8
38,917
6.136.0
111.4
Jamestown, N. Y_________________________________
Waco, Tex_________ ____ _______________ ____ ______
38,500
571.8
7.040.0
38,378
4,601.6
Madison, Wis.................................... .......... ..........................
340.0
37,748
4,376.5
272.5
Brookline, Mass___________________________________
37,524
4.006.0
102.1
Columbia, S. O,,,........... .... .............................................
Lorain, Ohio9......................... ...........................................
37,295
6.500.0
145.0
Evansfcnn, Til
5.146.0
76.4
37,234
Taunton, M ass.__________________________________
37,137 30,266.0
38.0
Muskegon, M ich................... ............
149.1
36,570
4.260.0
Mijnoift, Tnd
4.558.0
36.524
220.0
Aurora, Til. . ______ __ ____________ ___________ _
36,377
5.043.2
180.0
Waterloo, Iowa____________________________________
36,230
8.287.0
376.7
36,214 14.661.4
Chicopee, Mass______________ _____ _______________
67.0
New Rochelle, N. Y _________ _____________________
36,213
6.495.0
87.5
Auburn, N. Y__________ _________________________
36,192
5.440.0
34.5
Battle Creek, Mich__............................................................
4.147.2
36,164
223.8
Council Bluffs, Tnwa..... . .
36.162 11,562.8
972.6
36,004 13.300.5
Hammond, Ind________ __________ ________________
141.3
35,978
4.233.0
Quincy, HL__________ ___ ____ ____________________
333.9
East Chicago, Ind________________________________
35,967
99.8
6.396.0
Newport News, Va________________________ __ __
35, 596
2.782.0
60.0
Rock Island, 111.......................................................................
35,177
5.947.0
78.8
Stamford, Conn_________ ________ _____ ___________
5,194.8
35,096
112.9
Poughkeepsie, N. Y ________________ ______________
35,000
2.029.0
106.2
Austin, Tex_______________________________________
34,876 10,161.0
122.5
Pontiac, Mich............................................ ............................
34,273
5,295.3
247.4
Easton, Pa_____ _____ ____________________________
33,813
2.226.1
103.7
Danville, 111......................... ......... ........... ................... ........
33,776
6.290.0
109.0
Amsterdam, N. Y ..................................................................
33.524
16.8
3.869.0
Wilmington, N. C.................................................................
33,372
3.384.0
297.2
Orange, N. J.4..................... ........................... ....................
33,268
1.414.2
12.0
Oshkosh, Wis.............................. ........... ...............................
33.162
5.440.0
179.1
33,011
Portsmouth, Ohio________________________________
4, 704.0
23.0
Ogden, Utah............................................................................
32,804 10, 565.9
89.1
New Brunswick, N. J______________________________
32,779
3.360.0
87.5
Norristown, Pa................................................... ...................
32,319
2.265.0
53.8
Hazleton, Pa.................................................... ......................
32,277
3,827. 2
15.2
Lewiston, Me............. ................................................. ....
31,791 22,100.0
13.4
Watertown, N. Y ............. .....................................................
31,285
5.568.0
196.4
Columbus, Ga.10........................ ...........................................
31,125
3.840.0
177.3
Green Bay, Wis........................... .......................................
31,017
8.644.3
105.2
Petersburg, Va.....................................................................
31,012
3.200.0
506.6
Sheboygan, Wis............................................... ....................
30,955
3.078.0
200.2
Waltham, Mass..................................................... ................
30,915
8.650.1
307.2
Moline, 111..................... .........................................
4,183.0
30,734
178.5
La Crosse, Wis................................................................
30,421
6.364.8
518.7
Newburgh, N. Y ......................................... ..........................
30,366
2.380.8
68.0
Muskogee, Okla.................................................. ...............
30,277
5.446.9
234.8
Newport, R. I._ ........................................ .............
30,255
47.2
4.672.0
Colorado Springs, Colo...........................................
30,105
2,821.7
5.740.4
Lynchburg, Va_____ _____________ _______________
3,059.2
30,070
102.8
Kokomo, Ind................................. ..........................
30,067
3,366.6
144.5
West New York, N. J.........................................................
29,926
27.1
(«)
Joplin, Mo...................................... ........................
29,902
9.062.4
497.3
Meriden, Conn.......... ..........................................................
29,867 14.560.0
1,343.5
Cumberland, M d...........................................................
29,837
2.112.0
2.8
Anderson, Ind_____________________ _____________
29,767
3.500.0
173.0
Miami, Fla__________ ____________ ___________
29,571 39.680.0
129.4
Zanesville, Ohio........................................................
29,569
4.032.0
80.0
Cranston, R. I.......................................................................
29,407 18.963.0
.2
Newport, K y............................................ ...............
29,317
1.280.0
26.3
Phoenix, Ariz_____ .
29,053 28.800.0
32.5
Fort Smith, Ark___________________________ „
28,870
8,640.0
37.5
4 Covered by study but information incomplete; not included in tabulation total.
i West Hoboken (population, 40,074) and Union Hill (population, 20,651) combined in 1925.
• Not covered directly by study; not included in tabulation total.
i° Data for 1923.
11 Not reported.



Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park
569
361
164
60
156
943
232
913
349
67
113
139
367
257
487
977
245
166
202
97
541
414
1,049
161
37
255
108
355
593
447
311
330
285
139
326
310
2,001
112
2,772
186
1,435
368
375
601
2,123
2,372
108
176
295
61
155
101
172
59
447
129
641
11
292
208
1,106
60
26
10,656
172
228
370
118,100
1,113
894
720

22

PARK RECREATION AREAS

T a b l e 2 .— Aggregate park acreage in

,

municipalities of 5,000 population and over
1925-26

Cities

—Continued
Popula­
tion 1920

Revere, Mass
28,823
28,810
Montclair, N. J___________________________________
Alameda, Calif „
..................
28,806
28, 725
Bloomington, 111. _ _ _ ___________________________
23, 508
Steubenville, Ohio._______ _____________________
28,504
Asheville, N. C___________________________________
28,379
Nashua, N. H ......................... ..... .......... ................... . Hagerstown, Mr|
.. .
28,064
27,891
Marion, Ohio________________ ___________________
27,869
Clarksburg, W. Va
................
27,824
Mansfield, Ohio_____________________________ _____
27,743
Norwalk, Conn___________________________________
27,644
Everett, Wash___________ _ ________________ _____
27,45-1
Elgin, 111_________________________________________
27,292
East Cleveland, Ohio
27,050
Warren, Ohio_____________________________________
26,765
Richmond, Ind___________________________ ____ ___
26,724
Kearny, N. J_______ _____ ___________________ _____
26,688
Kingston, N .Y ________________ ___________ _______
Clifton, N. J________ _____________________________
26,470
26,341
Rome, N. Y _________ ____________________________
25,978
Bangor, Me________ ____ __________________________
25,944
Port Huron, Mich_________________________________
25,688
New London, Conn______________________________
Bellingham, Wash....
____
25,585
24,966
Norwood, Ohio___________________________________
24,735
Paducah, K y________ ___ _________________________
24,682
Alton, 111____________________________________ ____
24,643
Lebanon, Pa_________ ____ __ ___ _________________
24,418
Raleigh, N. 0 _____________________________________
24,403
Wilkinsburg, Pa________ ______________ _______
24,277
Elkhart, Ind_____________________________ ______—
24,174
Central Falls, R. I ___________________________ _____
24,151
Clinton, Iowa____________________________ ____ ____
24,121
Great Falls, M ont_________________________________
24,057
Burlington, Iowa_____ _______________________ ____ _
23,834
Galesburg, 111_________ __________________________
23,778
Butler, Pa_____ _____________________ __________
23,747
Marion, Ind______________________ ______________
23,626
Oswego, N. Y _ ___________________________________
23,594
Middletown, Ohio___________ ____________________
23,427
Fond du Lac, Wis_________________________________
23,399
Meridian, Miss___________________________________
Hutchinson, TCans
23, 298
23,127
Greenville, S. C_________________________ _________
23,003
Ottumwa, Iowa___________________________________
22,992
New Albany, Ind_________________________________
22,987
Cohoes, N. Y _____________________________________
22,947
Gloucester, Mass____ J____________________________
22,897
Sanduskv, Ohio___________________________________
22,817
Jackson, M iss____________________________________
22,779
Burlington, Vt____________________________________
22,710
Laredo, Tex______________________________________
22,638
Spartanburg, S. C______ ______________________ ____
22,561
Beverly, Mass____________________________________
22,486
La Favette, Ind______________ ____ ____________ ___
22,304
Norwich, Conn___________________________________
22,282
North Adams, Mass- _______ - „ -- -- -22,251
Port Arthur, Tex__________________________________
22,167
Concord, N. H____________________________________
22,123
Greenwich, Conn.13________________________________
22,082
Ashtabula, Ohio_________________ _________________
22,075
Gloversville, N. Y _________________________________
22,019
Bloomfield, N . J__________________________________
21,961
Fargo, N . D ............................... ................................. ..........
21,951
Northampton, Mass ____________________________
21,782
Baton Rouge, La _______________________________
21,747
Sharon, Pa.14_____________________________________
21,626
Logansport, Ind
_____________________________
21,603
A liiance, Ohio
_________________________________
21,539
Danville, Va
________________________
21,480
Washington, Pa ________________________________
21,457
Watertown, Mass ________________________________
21,393
Boise, Idaho............................................................................
11 Not reported.
13 Data relate to borough.
m Donated, privately endowed, and conducted as a public park.



City area
in acres
3,800.0
4,000.0
6,816.0
2,931.2
2, 066.0
(“)
20, 492.8
3, 8*0. 0
3, 680.0
2, 280.0
3, 020. 0
16, 640. 0
6. 400.0
4, 459. 7
1. 930.0
5. 487.4
2 560.0
14! 080.0
5. 568.0
7 040. 0
46.400.0
16, 000.0
5, 056.0
1, 500.0
13, 273.6
2,031.0
4,160. 0
4,076.8
1, 849.6
5,120.0
<u)
3,958.0
813.0
6,400.0
5, 218.0
6, 722.0
5, 760. 0
1,500.0
3, 520. 0
5,075.0
3,348. 7
3, 840.0
2, 560.0
6, 231.0
3,141.1
4, 906. 2
2, 203. 6
5, 308.0
23,040.0
4, 645.0
8,900.0
£, 456.0
8, 850.0
4 , 928.0
9, 832.0
2,967.6
3, 520.0
12,832.0
4,160.0
40, 635. 2
30, 720. 0
4,384.0
2, 752.0
S, 456.0
(n)
0»)
2,500.0
(u)
S, 648.0
2,901.4
fn)
2,210.0
2,664.7
33,407.0

Area of
parks in
acres
28.1
83.6
28.0
220.0
109.0
317.4
218.9
55.5
83.4
3.3
102.0
81.2
160.4
297.3
14.8
61.7
218.1
4.0
26.5
63.0
92.0
36.2
64.4
114.6
206.6
11.0
111.3
80.0
2.0
100.0
12.0
126.4
4.4
106.4
686.4
529.8
170.5
23.5
60.5
20.2
15,0
121.0
27.0
186.5
238.5
158.4
1.8
48.1
254.7
31.0
94.0
144.5
133.5
169.2
38.5
114.2
523.6
20.7
103.0
101.6
130.0
13.0
12.4
14.7
235.4
.3
173.0
300.0
145.0
72.8
89.0
10.0
20.9
106.5 1

Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park
103
345
1,027
131
262
90
130
506
334
8,445
273
342
172
92
1,850
439
123
6,681
1,007
420
286
718
403
215
124
2,270
222
309
12,322
244
2,034
192
5,445
227
35
45
140
1,012
393
1,172
1, 573
194
863
125
97
145
12,773
478
90
738
243
151
170
134
587
197
43
1,078
216
218
170
1,698
1,780
1,468
93
85,896
126
73
149
297
242
2,148
1,026
201

ACREAGE OP MUNICIPALLY OWNED PARKS
T

able

2 .—

23

Aggregate park acreage in municipalities of 5,000 population and over,
1925-26— Conti nued

Cities
Loekport, N . Y ........... .
Beloit, Wis....................
Oil City, Pa_________
Sedalia, Mo__________
Vallejo, Calif.................
White Plains, N . Y___.
Eau Claire, Wis______
Union Hill, N . 3.7 ___
Torrington, Conn____
Bristol, Conn________
Clean, N . Y_________
Elyria, Ohio_________
Mason City, Iowa........
Parkersburg, W. Va„...
Greensboro, N . C .........
Leominster, Mass____
Attleboro, Mass______
Appleton. Wis_______
Peabody, M ass............
Ann Arbor, Mich.........
Michigan City, Ind__
Santa Barbara, Calif...
Garfield, N. J________
Fort Dodge, Iowa____
Riverside, Calif______
Dunkirk, N. Y_______
Hannibal, Mo..... ..........
Waukegan, 111................
Danbury, Conn______
Jackson, Tenn_______
Barberton, Ohio_____
San Bernardino, Calif..
Bessemer, Ala________
Arlington, M ass..........
Wausau, Wis................
Bakersfield, Calif.........
Yakima, Wash_______
Pittston, Pa_________
Middletown, N. Y.......
Janesville, Wis_______
Meirose, Mass...............
Monessen, Pa................
Vicksburg, Miss............
Pittsburg. Kans______
Biddeford, Me_______
Lackawanna, N. Y___
Anniston, Ala................
Salem, Oreg....................
Hackensack, N. J.........
Ansonia, Conn..............
Manitowoc, Wis...........
Alexandria, La...............
Mount Carmel, Pa.......
Okmulgee, Okla............
Owensboro, K y.............
Vincennes, Ind..............
Denison, Tex.................
Framingham, Mass___
Findlay, Ohio................
Ithaca, N. Y ..................
Auburn, M e..................
Gardner, Mass...............
Phillipsburg, N. J.........
Leavenworth, Kans___
Richmond, Calif...........
Kankakee, 111................
Glens Falls, N. Y..........
Enid, Okla...................
Woburn, Mass..............
Port Chester, N. Y ___
Plymouth, P a..............
Watervliet, N. Y...........
Muscatine, Iowa...........
Parsons, Kans...............
Champaign, 111..... ........
Peekskill, N. Y .............
u Not reported.




Popula­
tion 1920

City area
in acres

Area of
parks in
acres

21,308
4,480.0
59.5
21,284
110.0
(“)
21,274
2,688.0
80.0
21,144
4,480.0
70.0
21,107
5,538.0
20.6
21,031
6,400.0
25.1
20,906 10, 560.0
361.8
20,651
20,623
3,840.0
75.3
20,620 16,000.0
146.7
20, 506
4,700.0
33.3
20,474
4,618.0
115.1
7,936.0
59.4
20,065
20,050
40.0
(»)
377.0
19,861
(u)
19,744
10.9
(“)
39.8
19,731 17,770.0
19,561
4,160.0
126.0
19,552 10,758.3
19.6
19,516
3,520.0
95. 5
4,480.0
235.3
19,457
232.4
19,441
8,960.0
19,381
2,880.0
.3
2,944. 0
19,347
131.0
19,341 25,088.0
165.8
19,336
3,360.0
50.8
3,020.0
19,306
210. 5
19.226
6,131. 2
49.6
18,943
3,200.0
2.3
18,860
3,040.0
72.7
18,811
2,693.3
78.0
18, 721
6,313.7
62.3
18,674
2,560.0
11.7
3,420.0
54.6
18,665
4,794.6
18,661
110.5
4,000.0
33.2
18,638
18, 539
2,345. 2
12.9
18,497
1,440.0
10.2
18,420
2,320.8
6.4
4,800.0
163.9
18,293
132. 5
18,204
3,115.0
18,179
1,100.0
8.8
18,072
4,800. U
216.5
3,302.4
18,052
50.1
18,008 21,318.4
11.0
17,918
3,768.0
5.0
17,734
5.120.0
27.5
17,679
4.480.0
82.3
17,667
70.3
(“)
17,643
3,990.0
6.8
4,000.0
17,563
141.7
17,510
3,000.0
62.0
17,469
2.1
(u)
2.560.0
17,430
90.0
17,424
65.4
2.053.0
17,160
1,886.0
14.4
17,065
2,560.0
200.0
17,033 16,525.0
118.6
17,021
3,840.0
20.0
17,004
2,925.3
340.5
16,985 35,200.0
23.5
16,971 11,130.0
250.0
16,923
1.823.0
1.5
16,912
3.840.0
13.3
16,843 16,640.0
69.9
16,753
2,340.0
65.4
16,638
4.0
(»)
16,576
5,000.0
52.5
16,574
8,128.0
87.9
16,573
1,472.0
26.1
16,500
4.0
(“)
16,073
1,200.0
5.5
16,068
4,261. 5
78.7
16,028
2,560.0
77.0
15,873
2,970.0
30.6
15,868
3,840.0
59.1
(population,, 20,651) combined in 1925.

Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park
358
193
266
302
1,025
837
58
274
141
617
178
338
501
53
1,816
496
155
999
204
83
84
77,524
148
117
381
92
387
8,236
259
241
300
1,596
342
169
562
1,437
1,813
2,874
112
137
2,066
83
360
1,636
3,584
645
215
251
2,576
124
282
8,480
194
267
1,192
85
143
851
50
722
68
11,382
1,272
241
255
4,160
316
189
635
4,125
2,922
204
208
519
268

24

PARK RECREATION AREAS

T a b l e 2 .— Aggregate park acreage in

,

municipalities of 6,000 population and over
1925-26

—Continued

Cities
Chillinothe, Ohio ____ _ ___
Corning, N. Y _______________________________ ____
Ironwood, Mich..... .................... ..........................................
Marshalltown, Iowa_________ _________ ___________
Sun bury, Pa _. _
_.
..................
Jacksonville, 111___________________________________
Newburyport, Mass_______________________________
Sp.lma, Ala
...........................
Bradford, Pa_______ _____________________________
Walla Walla, Wash
Santa Ana, Calif...............................................................
North Tonawanda, NT. Y
Greenfield, Mass__________________________________
Winthrop, Mass_____________________________ ____
Shawnee, Okla_________ _________________________
Aberdeen, Wash__________________________________
Bluefield, W. Va.________ _________________________
Santa Monica, Calif_____________ _____ ___________ _
Cleveland Heights, Ohio___________________________
Cairo, 111____________ ____________________________
Mishawaka, Tn<i
Mathuen, Mass______________________________ ____
La Porte, Ind______ _ ___________________________
Albuquerque, N. Mex_____________ ________________
Billings, Mont___________________________ ____ ____
Hibbing, Minn___________________________________
Salina, Kans______________________________________
Weymouth, Mass___ ___________________________
Naugatuck, Conn
Paris, Tex________________________________________
Sherman, Tex_____________________________________
Marlborough, Mass__________________________ ____ _
Hornell, N. Y_____________________________________
Pocatello, Idaho___________________________________
Streator, 111_ _____ ______ _ _ _____ _____
Granite City, 111-----------------------------------------------Gadsden, Ala____________________________ _________
Ashland, Ky __________________________________
Geneva, N. Y._ __________________________________
Ogdensburg, N. Y ________________________________
Aberdeen, S. Dak_________________________________
Coatesville, Pa____________________________________
Jefferson City, Mo________________________________
New Castle, Ind__________________________________
Keokuk, Iowa ______ ___________________________
Bartlesville, Okla_________________________________
Brunswick, G a ___________________________________
Tiffin, Ohio______________________________________
Bridgeton, N. J __________________________________
High Point, N. C_______________________ _________
Warren, Pa ____________________________________
Marshall, Tex __________________________________
Southbridge, Mass_______________________ ____ ____
Ardmore, O kla___________________________________
Berwyn, 111 ___________________________________
Donora, Pa_______________________________________
Augusta, Me . ____________________________ ____
Astoria, Oreg_____________________________________
Virginia, M in n___________________________________
Grand Forks, N. Dak_____________________________
Ironton, Ohio . __________________________________
Huntington, Ind. ________________________________
Grand Island, N ebr__
_______________________
Salisbury, N. C . ________________________ ____ ___
Wyandotte, Mich _______________________________
Cheyenne, Wyo_________________ _________________
Du Bois, Pa________________________ ___ _________
Middletown, Conn_______________________ _______
Marinette, Wis___ _____________ ________________ Portsmouth, N. I I _________________________ ____
Mattoon, 111 ____________________________________
Batavia, N. Y __________________________________
Glendale, Calif __________________________________
Long Branch, N. J _ _ ________________________
Pomona, Calif---_________________________________
Milford, Mass.......................................... .............................
Not reported.




Popula­
tion 1920
15,831
15,820
15,739
15, 731
15,721
15,713
15,618
15,589
15,525
15,503
15,485
15,482
15,462
15,455
15,348
15,337
15,282
15,252
15,236
15,203
15,195
15,189
15,158
15,157
15,100
15,089
15,085
15,057
15,051
15,040
15,031
15,028
15,025
15,001
14,779
14,757
14,737
14,729
14,648
14,609
14,537
14,515
14,490
14,458
14,423
14,417
14,413
14,375
14,323
14,302
14,272
14,271
14,245
14,181
14,150
14,131
14,114
14,027
14,022
14,010
14,007
14,000
13,947
13,884
13,851
13,829
13,681
13,638
13,610
13,569
13,552
13,541
13,536
13,521
13,505
13,471

City area
in acres
1.900.0
2,092.0
3. 700.0
< 513.0
2, 720.0
3, 000.0
6, 400. 0
1, 300.0
3, 840. 0
2, 468.4
5, 760.0
6,400. 0
13, 521. 0
1,981. 4
2, 400.0
6, 800.0
3, 680.0
7, 360.0
(ll)
1, 440.0
3, 200.0
14, 752.0
2,160.0
5, 000.0
1, 824.0
1,100.0
2, 410. 5
11,200.0
10, 000. 0
2, 560.0
3, 350.0
13, 488.3
1,536.0
2. 112. 0
2, 07(5. 0
2, 598.4
5, 280.0
4, 800.0
2, 416.0
2. 200.0
1, 840.0
9X1.0
1. 920.0
l! 920.0
3; 520. 0
1. 500.0
7; 616.0
3. 200.0
4. 250.0
6, 720.0
1. 746.0
2, 560.0
5, 760.0
5. 120. 0
(u)
1. 500.0
37, 696. 0
4. 197.0
(“)
(»)
2, 240.0
(u)
5. 860.0
2. 944.0
3.680.0
2.. 688.0
(»)
26,897.0
(»)
9.696.0
2.681.0
3.640.0
10.771.0
3,200.0
8,000.0
<n)

Area of
parks in
acres
91.0
38.0
50.0
47.2
3.0
102.8
46.5
.8
3.5
64.8
3.5
33.5
75.8
81.8
136.0
60.8
57.5
156.1
180.0
22.2
49.0
42.2
55.3
25.0
337.0
85.0
188.5
24. 5
15.0
7.5
75.4
21.1
27.0
6.0
48.7
52.5
23.8
52.4
56.7
17.5
189.3
12.1
33.0
16.0
73.0
78.5
48.1
7.5
818.0
.9
11.5
30.0
5.0
62.9
20.0
3.0
3.3
59.5
45.0
250.0
3.0
66.0
17.5
4.0
13.6
161.7
3.0
51.4
69.0
65.9
32.0
34.0
811.8
9.6
109.5
52.5

Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park
174
416
315
333
5,240
143
336
19,486
4,500
239
4,424
462
204
189
113
252
266
91
85
685
310
360
274
606
45
178
80
616
1,003
859
199
711
556
2,500
304
281
619
281
259
833
76
1,200
439
904
198
184
300
1,917
18
16,630
1,238
476
2,849
226
708
4,710
4,343
236
312
56
4,669
212
797
3,471
1,015
86
4,560
265
197
206
424
398
17
1,408
123
257

ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED PARKS

T a b l e 2 •— Aggregate park acreage in

25

,

municipalities of 5,000 population and over
1925-26

—Continued

Popula­
tion 1920

City area
in acres

Area of
parks in
acres

13,452
Coffeyville, Kans............... .............................................
13,443
West Springfield, Mass----------------- --------------- --------13,428
Steelton, Pa_______________________________________
13, 294
Cortland, N. Y ____ _______________________________
13, 270
Hattiesburg, Miss________ ____ ____________________
13,258
Webster, M ass._________ ___________ ______________
13,252
Rome, Ga________________________________________
13,181
Saratoga Springs, N. Y ____________________________
13,103
Escanaba, Mich___---------- ---------------------------------------13,088
Lake Charles, La_ ________________________________
13,045
Plymouth, Mass__________________________________
13,043
Fulton, N. Y_____________________________________
13,037
Laurel, M iss.___________ __________________________
13,029
Little Falls, N. Y __________________ _______________
Dover, N. H ___________ _____________ ____ ________
13,029
Wakefield, M ass._________________________________
13,025
Clinton, Mass_____________________________________
12,979
12,967
Adams, Mass___ _______________________ ______----12,923
Eureka, Calif__________ __________________________
Cleburne, Tex____________________________________
12,820
12,808
Moberly, M o_______________________ ____ ________
Beaver Falls, Pa_________ _________________________
12,802
Rocky Mount, N. C_________ ____ ________________
12, 742
12, 718
Marquette, M ich________ _____________________ ___
12, 675
Monroe, La__________ _____ _______________________
Missoula, M ont______ _____ _______________________
12,668
Vancouver, Wash--------------------------------------------------12,637
Atchison, K ans.._______ __________________________
12,630
Norwood, Mass----------------------------------------------------12,627
Natchez, Miss____________________________________
12,608
Morristown, N. J_________________________________
12,548
Martinsburg, W. Va------------------------- ---------------------12,515
Centralia, IU—_________ ____________ ______________
12,491
Lawrence, Kans--------------------- -_____ ______________
12,456
Boone, Iowa__________ -.......... -------------------------------12,451
Johnson City, Tenn-------- --------------------------------------12,442
Peru, Ind____________________________ ____________
12,410
Asbury Park, N. J__________ ______________________
12,400
Greenville, Tex___________________________________
12,384
Willimantic, Conn________________________________
12,330
Benton Harbor, Mich____ ___________ __ ___ __ .
12, 233
Holland, Mich__________ ________________________
12,183
Henderson, K y____________________________________
12,169
Gloucester, N. J___________________________________
12,162
Morgantown, W. Va______________________ _______
12,127
Sault Ste. Marie, Mich-------------------------------------------12,096
Pekin, 111____________ __________ _________ ________
12,086
Tyler, Tex_________ _____ _________________________
12,085
Maywood, 111______________ ____ _________________
12,072
Fort Madison, Iowa______________________ ______
12,066
Helena, Mont_______________________________ ___
12,037
Tuscaloosa, Ala___________________________________
11,996
Independence, Kans_______________________________
11,920
Lincoln, 111______ _____ ____ _______________________
11,882
Brownsville, Tex.9_________ _____ __________________
11,791
Guthrie, Okla..___________________ ____ ___________
11,757
Hudson, N. Y_______________________________ _____
11,745
West Chester, Pa_________________________________
11,717
Anaconda, Mont__________________________________
11,668
Hastings, Nebr___ _____ ______ ____________________
11,647
Sapulpa, Okla_____________________________________
11,634
Englewood, N. J_.________________________________
11,627
Bloomington, Ind_________________________________
11,595
Oneonta, N. Y____________________________ _____
11,582
Greenville, Miss___________________________________
11,560
Albany, Ga_______________________________________
11,555
Texarkana, Tex.is_________________________________
11,480
Casper, Wyo_____ _____ ___________________________
11,447
Bristol, R. I_______________________________________
11,375
Corsicana, Tex____________________________________
11,356
Ashland, Wis________ ____ ___ _________ __________
11,334
Goldsboro, N. C____ _____ __________ ______________
11,296
Emporia, Kans__ ______________ ________________
11,273
IoAva City, Iowa______________________________ ____
11,267
9 Not covered directly by study; not included in tabulation total.
11 Not reported.
15 Adjoins Texarkana, Ark. (population 8,257), which see.

2,560.0
(“)
1,920.0
2, 590.0
6, 700.0
(u)
2,170.0
2,098.0
3,365.0
3,200.0
(“)
2,880.0
3,200.0
2,591.0
(“)
5,046.8
3,868.0
11,450.0
3,840.0
2,500.0
1,600.0
1,280.0
2,341.0
(n)
5,000.0
2,880.0
4,249.6
4, 672.0
7,040.0
1,800.0
1,792.0
1,600.0
C
11)
2,880.0
3,187.2
4.617.0
2,560.0
1, 330.0
2,457.0
2,880.0
2, 240.0
2,080.0
2, 560.0
640.0
2,001.0
(u)
(“)
1,440.0
2,400.0
4,160.0
5,760.0
4,290.0
800.0
(ii)
(u)
1,600.0
2,560.0
640.0
704.0
5,760.0
2,250.0
3,840.0
(U)
2,388.0
1,000.0
2,338.0
1,915.0
3,062.0
1.536.0
3, 200.0
5,050.0
1,940.0
1,400.0
3,470.0

21.1
10.0
12.0
6.0
46.5
19.0
42.0
54.0
17.2
21.0
146.7
6.0
59.8
38.0
69.9
42.7
15.9
15.3
43.5
15.0
241.0
4.0
42.0
208.7
124.2
53.1
5.0
48.3
24.0
209.2
142.9
12.2
80.0
18.0
160.5
59.4
20.0
62.4
30.0
10.5
142.8
40.4
127.3
13.2
23.7
13.0
82.8
11.0
13.3
14.2
179.3
158.5
113.0
3.6
4.0
90.2
4.5
8.0
2.5
108.6
245.7
25.0
70.0
155.5
16.0
254.5
117.8
780.3
12.0
15.1
158.3
18.0
79.0
22.6

Cities




Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park
638
1,344
1,119
2,216
285
698
316
244
761
623
89
2,174
218
343
186
329
816
850
297
8,546
53
3,201
303
61
102
238
2,527
261
525
60
88
1,026
156
692
78
209
621
199
413
1,174
86
302
95
997
513
930
146
1,099
911
850
67
76
105
3,300
2,968
130
2,610
1,464
4,667
107
47
465
166
74
723
45
97
15
948
755
72
628
143
498

26

PARK RECREATION AREAS

T a b l e 2 . — Aggregate

,

park acreage in municipalities of 5,000 population and over
1925-26

—Continued

Cities
Arkansas City, Ivans______________________________
Derby, Conn..____ _______________________________
East Youngstown, O h io ...___________ _____________
Annapolis, Md_________________________ _________
Keene, N. IT____________________________ ____ _____
Danvers, Mass____________________________________
Alpena, Mich_____________________________________
Frederick, Md___________________________ ________
Carteret, N. J. (formerly Roosevelt)................... ............
Rahway, N. J _
Palestine, Tex______________________ ____ ____ _____
Temple, T e x _________________ ____ ____ ______
Boulder, Colo.16______ ___ _
____ .. . ______

Popula­
tion 1920
11,261
11,253
11,238
11,237
11,214
11,210
11,108
11,101
11,066
11,047
11,042
11,039
11,033
11,006
10,996
10,995
10,986
10,968
10,958
10,937
10,928
10,925
10,917
10,916
10,909
10,908
-10,907
10,906
10,897
10,874
10,823
10,792
10,783
10,749
10,739
10,703
10,693
10,688
10,623
10,593
10,589
10,580
10,541
10, 529
10,504
10,501
10,500
10,485
10,484
10,476
10,466
10,453
10,385
10,311
10,305
10,303
10,286
10,252
10,244
10,236
10,200
10.174
10.174
10,171
10,169
10,145
10,139
10,098
10,077
10,068
10,068
10,058
(17)
10,036
10.031

City area
in acres
9,000.0
2,091.0
3.470.0
1.280.0
640.0
23,685.0
8,837.4
01)
1.760.0
2.755.0
2, 500.0
1,850.0
3,052.8
1, 800.0
8,448.0
1,390.0
1,640.0
2,080.0
2,297.0
8.625.0
1.440.0
8,520.0
5,120.0
1,456.0
3,413.0
2,200.0
10,000.0
1.940.0
11,500.0
7.360.0
1.900.0
•6,906.0
3.840.0
2.983.1
(“)
2.450.0
2.600.0
2,560.0
(n)
8,840.0
3,840.0
(n)
3,365.0
480.0
01)
], 850.0
(“)
4,018.6
:, 467.0
3,500.0
7, 680.0
, 420.0
,920.0
(“)
!l, 690.0
8.960.0
2.880.0
5.440.0
(“)
01)
5.362.0
3,840.0
10,370.0
I, 540.0
:i, 000.0
2,500.0
(»)
(“)
18,560.0
2,280.0
2, 560.0
5,920.0
9, 796.0
7,000.0
6.010.0

Area of
parks in
acres
10.3
180.3
2.6
13.0
.2
245.1
31.0
37.5
30.0
2.1
8.0
22.3
14.6
6,000.8
.7
9.0
30.0
29.5
41.0
402.0
4.0
26.2
644.6
7.0
77.7
.6
130.3
6.3
56.5
16.5
1.6
30.2
14.1
29.8
16.0
56.5
141.2
6.2
153.0
134.0
11.0
57.0
12.0
260.5
24.5
22.3
4.0
16.0
8.5
185.0
92.0
16.0
41.0
5.8
24.0
277.0
44.4
46.5
48.1
9.3
60.5
24.7
3.0
.8
160.4
51.0
55.0
25.1
2.0
9.0
6.8
5.4
139.2
28.0
45.4

Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park
1,099
62
4,322
864
56,070
46
, 358
290
369
5,426
1,380
486
756
2
16.840
1,222
366
371
267
27
2,732
417
16
1,559
141
18,007
84
1,731
193
661
6,764
357
766
361
671
189
76
1,721
69
79
963
186
878
40
429
471
2,625
655
1,233
57
114
654
253
1,775
429
39
232
220
213
1,108
169
412
3,391
12,714
63
199
184
403
5,038
1,119
1,492
1,880
72
358
221

Greeley, Colo____________ _________
____
Biloxi, Miss _______________ _ ____ ____ ____
Traverse City, Mich________________ _____ ___ _____
Carlisle, Pa______________ ______________ _______
Plattsburg, N. Y __________________________________
Natick, Mass____________ _______________________
Laconia, N. H _______ ___ . _ . _ _ _ _ ____
Saugus, Mass_______________ _____________ ___
Rensselaer, N. Y_____________ __ __________ ____
Dedham, Mass ___
Valdosta, Ga _____________ _ ...................... ....
Belmont, Mass__ _________________________________
Ossining, N. Y____. ____________ ____________ ____
Murphysboro, 111__________ ____ _ ___
__
Fort Scott, Kans__________________________________
Charlottesville, Va_________ ____ ___ ______ _ __
Staunton, V a _______ _____________________________
Eugene, Oreg. ____Del Rio, Tex _______ ___________________ ___ _____
Braintree, Mass______ ___________________________
Oneida, N. Y ______ __ _ ____
Florence, Ala ___________________________________
Carrick, Pa______ ________________________________
Columbus, M iss___
Jshpemin^, Mich__ . ______________________________
Winchester, M ass.___ ____ _____________ _____
Phoenixville, Pa__________________________________
Minot. N. D ___________________________________
North Platte, Nebr_________________ ______________
Herkimer, N. Y ___________________________________
Venice, Calif______________________________________
Punxsutawney, Pa.____ ______________ ____________
Salem, Ohio ____________________ ______________
Provo, Utah________________ _____________________
Chanute, Kans___________________________________
Cape Girardeau, Mo________________ _____________
Urbana, 111______________________ ________________
Olyphant, Pa___________ ________________________
Cuvahoga Falls, Ohio__________ ____ _______________
Summit, N. J______ _______________ ____ __________
Northbridge, Mass___________ _________ ____ ______
Port Jervis, N. Y _________________________________
Ilion, N. Y_________________ ___________________
Whiting, Ind_______________ _____________________
Crawfordsville, Ind_______________________________
Jeffersonville, Ind_____ __________________________
Cumberland, R. I___________ _____________________
Tonawanda, N. Y________________________________
Carthage, M o ________ ____________________ ______
Hoquiam, Wash_______ __________________ ________
Dover, Mass_______ ____________________ _____
Amesburv, Mass__________________________________
Dothan. Ala..__________________ __________________
11 Not reported.
1612 park areas, totaling 5.912.3 acres, lie without, city limits.
i7 Not in 1920 census—population, 10?040 in 1925; not included in general total; tabulated separately.



ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED PARKS
T

able

2 .—

27

Aggregate park acreage in municipalities of 5,000 population and over,
1925-26— Continued

Cities
Fostoria, Ohio..................................................
Franklin, Pa....................................................
Douglas City, Ariz..........................................
Connersville, Ind............................................
Taylor, Pa........................................... ...........
Wabash, Ind.....................................................
River Rouge, Mich.........................................
Mount Vernon, 111........................................
Dover, N. J.......................................................
Athol, Mass.....................................................
Newton, Kans..................................................
Cadillac, Mich.................................................
Shelbyville, Ind...............................................
Hopkinsville, K y...........................................
Rochester, N. H ................. . ...........................
Beatrice, Nebr........... .....................................
Wallingford, Conn. (borough)......................
Bowling Green, K y.......................................
Fremont, Nebr.................................................
Marion, 111........... ............................................
Redlands, Calif................................................
Goshen, Ind....................................................
Sumter, S. C............................... -...................
Rutherford, N. J..............................................
Shelton, Conn..................................................
Webster Groves, Mo.......................................
Westbrook, M e................................................
Oskaloosa, Iowa________ ________-............
Nutley, N. J.....................................................
Milton, Mass.................................................
New Brighton, Pa..........................................
Chico, C alif.............................-.....................
Watertown, Wis..............................................
Brazil, Ind.........................................................
Orlando, Fla.....................................................
Salamanca, N. Y ....... ...................................
South Portland, Me........................................
Red Bank, N. J...............................................
Modesto, Calif.................................................
North Attleboro, Mass...................................
Mount Vernon, Ohio......................................
Harvey, 111____________________________
Bisbee, Ariz......................................................
Sheridan, Wyo.................................................
Chippewa Falls, Wis......................................
Suffolk, Va.......................................................
Xenia, Ohio............................................... .......
Alhambra, Calif.............................................
Tyrone, Pa........................................................
Bedford, Ind.....................................................
Burlington, N. J..............................................
Ottawa, Kans...................................................
Ellwood City, Pa...........................................
Lawton, Okla..................................................
Bremerton, Wash............................................
Defiance, Ohio................................................
Peru, HI.............................................................
Santa Rosa, Calif...........................................
Fort Collins, Colo............................................
Washington, Ind.............................................
Greenwood, S. C..............................................
Monongahela, P a ...........................................
Hanover, P a....................................................
Glen Cove, N. Y__.......................................
Milton, Pa........................................................
Norfolk, Nebr..................................................
Freeport, N. Y.................................................
Sidney, Ohio.....................................................
Johnson City, N. Y........................................
Ridgefield Park, N .J ....................................
Lock Haven, Pa..............................................
Ware, Mass....... .............................................
Grafton, W. Va..............................................
Iola, K a n s...---------------------- ------ --------5 Approximate area.

85671°—28-----3



Popula­
tion 1920

City area
in acres

9,987
9,970
9,916
9,901
9.876
9,872
9,822
9,815
9,803
9,792
9,781
9,750
9,701
9,696
9,673
9,664
9,648
9,638
9,605
9,582
9,571
9,525
9,508
9,497
9,475
9,474
9,453
9,427
9,421
9,382
9,361
9,339
9,299
9,293
9,282
9,276
9,254
9,251
9,241
9,238
9,237
9,216
9,205
9,175
9,130
9,123
9,110
9,096
9,084
9,076
9,049
9,018
8,958
8,930
8,918
8.876
8,869
8,758
8,755
8,743
8,703
8.664
8.664
8,638
8,634
8,590
8,587
8,575
8,557
8,525
8,517
8,513

2.240.0

(“)
(“)
1.920.0
(“)
(“)

2.368.0
2.560.0
1.920.0
18.937.0
2.240.0
00
1.920.0
2.540.0
22.140.0
4.480.0
2.400.0
2.560.0
1.600.0
10.240.0
2.240.0
1.350.0
12.776.0
3.434.0
14,000.0
2,353.9
2.235.0
5 8,448.1
3.461.0
1.472.0
7.680.0
3.774.0
5.120.0
1.250.0
1.932.0
10.648.0
1.400.0
2.400.0
/ 676.0
\ 753.0
1.472.0
4.880.0
1.504.1
1.075.2
6.400.0
640.0
1.920.0
1.600.0
1.920.0
800.0
3.840.0
3.200.0
1.600.0
1,280.0
1, 556.1
(»)
2,880.0
1.133.0
4.480.0
3.400.0
2.458.0
1.109.0
2.560.0

(“)
2,010.6
(“)
(“)

(“)

(“)
<»)
1.100.0
(“)
(“)
(“)
2.240.0

1 Not reported,
1

Area of
parks in
acres
11.4
33.0
19.0
85.2
5.0
45.0
15.0
42.1
28.0
20.5
5.0
42.1
5.0
39.3
98.5
24.7
24.5
8.5
18.5
73.0
15.0
6.5
10.2
17.1
1.3
4.0
1.5
22.5
36.8
.7
2,398.0
25.0
38.2
208.0
47.1
11.5
50.0
11.3
5.0
3.0
70.0
265.0
118.7
1.0
14.5
39.0

8.8

2.2

8.0

2.0
2.0
11.0
59.0

68.2

8.0

9.5
22.5
20.7
237.0
43.5
105.9
7.5
1.5
27.6
2.0
51.0
5.4
37.3
7.5
9.0
5.0

100.0
10.0

35.0

Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park
875
302
522
116
1,975
219
655
2,331
350
487
1,956
232
1,940

1,101

391
352
114
464
131
635
1,463
931
555
7,288
2,363
6, 218
419
252
12,650
4
372
241
45
197
4,224
804
184
812
817
1,843
3,068
132
34
77
9,110
627
4,542
233
4,525
132
814
150
1,114
934
394
424
369
201
82
115
5,776
314
4,319
169
1,592
230
1,145
953
1,711
85
852
228

PARK RECREATION AREAS

28
T

able

£.— Aggregate park acreage in municipalities of 5,000 population and over,
1925-26— Continued

Cities

8,603
St. Charles, Mo.................
Centerville, la ...................
8,481
Conshohocken, Pa*.........
8,478
Mitchell, S. D ak ............
8,463
Middleborough, Mass—
8,438
Bridgewater, Mass..........
8,432
Titusville, Pa......... ..........
8,354
Albion, Mich...................
8,333
Winchester, Ky------------8,324
Twin Falls, Idaho............
8,302
Huron, S. Dak..................
8,268
Andover, Mass.................
8,268
Norwich, N. Y___...........
8,257
Texarkana, Ark.18.........
8,251
Iron Mountain, Mich—
8,248
Winsted, Conn.................
8,245
Bogalusa, L a„.................
Brownwood, Tex............
8,223
8,198
Bellevue, Pa....................
8,196
Thomasville, Ga.............
8,175
Lodi, N. J______ ______
Mechanicsville, N. Y —
8,166
8,157
Gulfport, Miss............. —
Clarksville, Tenn............
Swampscott, Mass..........
8,078
Sayre, P a .........................
8,064
Idaho Falls, Idaho-------Bristol, Tenn. .............
8,047
Poplar Bluff, Mo--------8,042
8,034
Creston, Iowa.................
Huntsville, Ala_______
8,018
Whittier, Calif________
7,997
Miles City, M ont...........
7,937
Stoneham, Mass---------7,873
7,871
De Kalb, 111___________
Warren, R. I....................
7,841
Olympia, Wash...............
7,795
Baker, Oreg_....................
7,729
Rockville, Conn_______
7,726
North Providence, R. I_
7,697
Montague, Mass______
7,675
South Pasadena, Calif...
7,652
Nampa, Idaho.................
7,621
Hudson, M ass................
7,607
St. Albans, V t............... .
7,588
Ridgewood, N . J.............
7,580
Centralia, Wash.......... .
7,549
7,544
Rockland, Mass........
Hancock, Mich...............
7,527
Ludlow, Mass________
7,470
Mount Carmel, 111..........
7,456
Oelwein, Iowa____ ____
7,455
Reading, Mass................
7,439
Negaunee, Mich.............
7,419
Ypsilanti, Mich----------7,413
Pendleton, Oreg..............
7,387
Canandaigua, N. Y -----7,356
Solvay, N. Y...................
7,352
Brattleboro, V t...............
7.324
Marblehead, Mass------7.324
Two Rivers, Wis--------7,305
Fairhaven, Mass.............
7,291
Orangeburg, S. C...........
7,290
Ontario, C alif..............
7,280
Painesvillle, O hio.........
7,272
Ennis, Tex.......................
7,224
Blackwell, Okla..............
7,174
Kittanning, Pa-----------7,153
Whitman, Mass..........
7,147
Greenville, Ohio---------7,104
Lakeland, Fla..... .......... .
7,062
Ponca City, Okla...........
7,051
Needham, Mass............ .
7,012
West Pittston, Pa_____
6,968
Rochester, Pa_...............
6,957
11 Not reported.
w Adjoining Texarkana, Tex. (population, 11,480), which s
i9 Adjoining Bristol, Va. (population, 6,729), which see,



Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park

Popula­ City area
tion 1920 in acres

8,101
8,110

(“)

1,280.0
640.0
2.240.0
43.577.0
28,000.0
t, 640.0
1.500.0
1.280.0

(“>

20.480.0
1.425.0
1.920.0

(“>
(»)

1, £00.0
1, £00.0

640.0
502.7
689.0
650.0
9.6.00.0
1.814.0
1,981.4

1,6*00.0

2.650.0
1.600.0

(»)
2,660.0

6140.0
3, m o
2, £60.0
4,264. 5

750.0
mo
(“>
3.620.0
(ii)
2, m o

3,84a 0
4, €>66.0

2, m o
7,659.2

(“)
(")
14,080.0
(“)
2.660.0

3.840.0
1.5580.0
5.817.0

5.751.0
(u)

1.280.0
855.0

00

<
u)

1.500.0
1.400.0

1.010.0

7.497.0
2.008.0
9, (>00.0
1, (550.0
1.543.0

2.000.0

(")
4.054.0
1.200.0
17,920.0
2, o60.0
8,162.0

(i:.)
( i. )

13.0
28.0

1.0
36.0

10.0
60.0
7.9
45.0
3.0
6.5
53.5
107.0
26.5
13.0
145.0
4.5
50.0
101.0

6.0
5.0
11.7
52.5

43.7
1.5
43.6
.8

6.0
2.0

22.6

117.2
2.0
15.5
50.7
9.7
9.0
7.9
264.0
36.9
29.0

.2

18.5
45.9
32.5
28.5
115.0
25.0
40.1
35.5
50.0
13.9
30.0
54.5
22.5
20.0
30.0
43.3
38.0
33.0
5.0
49.3
44.5
37.7
23.0
4.0
3.0
68.0

46.5
2.0
14.0
24.5
151.0
31.0
26.7
17.0
5.0

654
303
8,481
236
845
141
1,069
186
2,777
1,281
155
77
312
635
57
1,833
165
81
1,366
156
1,635
700
187
5,406
186
10,771
357
1,341
4,021
69
4,009
516
157
812
874
987
30
209
266
41,381
415
167
204
267
66
303
188
210
151
538
249
137
330
371
246
171
194
223
1,465
148
164
193
313
1,689
2,460
106
154
3,577
511
331
47
227
262
410
1,351

ACREAGE OF MUNICIPALLY OWNED PARKS
T

able

2* —

29

Aggregate park acreage in municipalities of 5,000 population and over,
1925-26— Continued

Cities

?opulaion 1920

City area
in acres

Area of
parks in
acres

Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park

Ionia, Mich............................
6,935
1,260.0
80.0
123
Grafton, Mass.......................
6,887 12,760.0
2.0
3,444
Winchester, Va.....................
6,883
4.0
1,722
00
Stoughton, Mass_________
6,865 10,000.0
14.3
482
Johnston, R. I. (township).
6,855 17,140.0
12.8
537
Saco, Me.................................
6,817
22.9
297
00
Elkins, W. Va.......................
6,788
1,920.0
6.0
1,131
Napa, Calif.............................
6,757
992.0
19.3
351
Bristol, Va.20...........................
6,729
1,280.0
6.2
1,085
Somersworth, N. H__...........
6,688 10,240.0
12.0
557
Sheffield, A la.._....................
6,682
1,280.0
35.0
190
Newton City, Iowa...............
6,627
2,240.0
5.0
1,325
Cordele, Ga__.».......................
6,538
500.0
15.0
435
East Pittsburgh, Pa............ .
6,527
250.8
10.8
602
Valparaiso, Ind......................
6,518
2,560.0
4.0
1,630
Franklin, Mass........ ........... .
6,497 16,671.0
18.5
351
Dartmouth, Mass..................
6,493 36,151.0
10.0
649
Spring Valley, HI...................
6,493
2,500.0
9.0
721
Elberton, Ga......................... .
6,475
2,010.6
4.0
1,619
Concord, Mass.......................
6,461 22,039.0
3.8
1,723
Couer d’Alene, Idaho______
6,447
1,200.0
200.0
32
Sterling, Colo........................
6,415
640.0
100.0
64
6,389
Seneca Falls, N. Y............... .
2,400.0
4.0
1,597
6,380
Manistique, Mich................ .
80.0
80
00
Lexington, Mass....................
6,350 10,463.0
89.7
71
Cedar Falls, Iow a................
6,316
189.2
2,080.0
33
6,315
50.5
Great Barrington, Mass___
4,480.0
125
Bryan, Tex............................ .
6,307
10.0
631
00
Paragould, Ark......................
6,306
12.0
526
00
Laramie, Wyo........................
6,301 20,480.0
12.4
518
6,270
Ames, Iowa.............................
22.5
3,840.0
297
North Andover, Mass_____
6,265 15,000.0
12.1
521
6,264
Clairton, Pa............................
1,728.0
45.0
139
6,255
Mansfield, Mass....................
22.5
4,320.0
278
Petaluma, Calif......................
6,226
1,440.0
60.3
103
6,224
Wellesley, Mass.....................
137.5
7,516.0
45
Calexico, Calif........................
6,223
640.0
42.5
146
Ipswich, Mass........................
6,201 22,400.0
38.5
161
St. Augustine, Fla.................
6,192 13,440.0
400.0
15
Bozeman, Mont.....................
6,183
28.2
213
00
6,164
48.0
Clifton Forge, Va_________
128
00
Crowley, La............................
6,108
750.0
8.0
764
Calais, Me..............................
6,084 28,000.0
85.0
72
Lancaster, N. Y .....................
6,059
7.0
866
00
Medina, N. Y.........................
6,011
5,120.0
8.0
751
(21)
Wethersfield, Conn...............
8,597.0
20.0
300
Taylor, Tex_............................
5,965
65.0
92
ln)
Fairfield, Iowa_......................
5,948
1,440.0
3.0
1,983
Spencer, Mass........................
5,930 20,152.0
29.5
201
Middletown, Pa.....................
5,920
640.0
8.5
696
Winchendon, Mass................
5,904
4,018.6
16.0
369
Palo Alto, Calif.-...................
5,900
5,120.0
20.0
295
Clinton, 111..............................
5,898
5.0
1,180
00
San Luis Obispo, Calif.........
5,895
169.5
35
00
Willmar, Minn.......................
5,892
1,000.0
2.5
2,359
Fredericksburg, Va................
5,882
834.4
1.3
3,941
Tarrytown, N. Y ...................
5,807
11.0
528
00
Abington, Mass......................
5,787
5,960.0
166.0
36
Bellevue, Ohio........................
5,776
3.5
165
00
Visalia, Calif...........................
5,753
1,472.0
6.9
835
Delphos, Ohio.......................
5,745
800.0
40.0
144
Cliffside Park, N. J...............
5,709
400.0
4.5
1,268
San Leandro, Calif................
5,703
2,560.0
8.3
691
Chelmsford, Mass..................
5,682 13,374.0
1.9
2,983
St. Marys, Ohio....................
5,679
900.0
62.0
92
Millbury, Mass......................
5,653
5.0
1,131
Sheboygan, Mich...................
5,642
1.0
5,642
Tallahassee, Fla......................
5,637
1,440.0
16.0
352
Covington, Va........................
5,623
1,150.0
18.0
312
Fulton, M o..............................
5,595
800.0
5.0
1,119
Portage, Wis............................
5,582
5,080.0
82.0
69
Amherst, Mass.......................
5,550 16,123.0
6.0
925
Eaton, N. Mex.......................
5,544
2,560.0
3.0
1,848
Baraboo, Wis..........................
5,538
2,560.0
10.0
554
11 Not reported.
20 Adjoining Bristol, Tenn. (population, 8,047). which see.
Not in 1920 census—population, 6,000 (estimate) in 1925; not included in general total; tabulated
separately.



o')

30

PARK RECREATION AREAS

,

T a b l e 3 . — Aggregate park acreage in municipalities of 5,000 population and over

1925-26

—Continued

Popula­
tion 1920

Cities
South Hadley, Mass_______________________________
Atiahtfrn, Calif . _____ _______ _ _ -Ran Rafael, Calif
.
___ _ ____ ______ __
Monrovia, Calif___________________________________
Monterey, Calif___________________________________
East Rutherford, N. J_____________________________
Marysville, Calif__________________________________
Walpole, Mass____________________________________
Secaucus, N. J__ ______________________________
Orange, Mass
_______________________________
Uxbridge, Mass _ ________________________________
Grinnell, Iowa____________________________________
Reidsville, N. C___________________________________
McAllen, Tex _ .................. ..........
^
,
Brigham, Utah
__ __________________________
Dalton, Ga_______________________________________
Carlinville, 111............................................................ -..........
Nogales, Ariz_______________________________ ______
Chariton, Iowa _ ______________________________
De Pere, Wis
______________________________
Charlotte, Mich___________________________________
Caldwell, Idaho___________________________________
Palatka, Fla______________________________________
Marianna, Ark____________________________________
Albia, Iowa_______________________________________
Dodge City, Kans ______________________________
Yankton, S. Dak _______________________________
Lead, S. Dak..........................................................................
Watsonville, Calif - ___________________________
Prescott, Ariz ___________________________________
Norinan, Okla____________________________________
Fairfield, Ala_____________________________________

5,527
5,526
5,512
5,480
5,479
5,463
5,461
5,446
5,423
5,393
5,384
5,362
5,333
5,331
5,282
5,222
5,212
5,199
5,175
5,165
5,126
5,106
5,102
5,074
5,067
5,061
5,024
5.013
5.013
5,010
5,004
5,003

Area of
parks in
acres

City area
in acres
10,121.0
2,880.0
3.200.0
5.440.0
200.0
550.0
(»)
14,72-10
3,2010
20,469.0
17, 785.1
1,440.0
(“)
710.0
(“)
2,500.0
1,000.0
899.8
1,696.0
(n)
(n)
3,000.0
1,9C0.0
(»)
2,3S0.0
200.0
2,400.0
i")
800.0
(«)
1,04:0.0
1,280.0

4.0
20.0
21.0
27.0
12.0
4.8
125.0
40.0
.7
5.5
32.5
10.4
7.5
2.0
2.0
5.0
4.5
2.0
3.0
29.0
126.5
28.0
141.0
.8
10.0
40.0
44.2
5.0
10.1
7.0
20.9
20.0

Popula­
tion to 1
acre of
park
1,381
276
262
203
457
1,150
44
136
7,269
981
166
518
724
2,666
2,641
1,044
1,158
2,599
1,725
178
41
182
36
6,765
507
127
114
1,003
498
716
239
250

11 Not reported.

Table 3 shows the park acreage of four groups of cities, ranging
from 100,000 inhabitants to 1,000,000 or over, classified according to
acreage and giving the number of properties of each size.
,

T a b l e 3 . — Park and recreation areas in 67 cities having 100,000 or more inhabitants

by size of park area

[Population groups based on 1920 census]

Acres

1,000 and over--------500 and under 1,000__
250 and under 500...
100 and under 250...
75 and under 100----50 and under 75........
25 and under 50-----10 and under 2 5 . . . S.
5 and under 10-------0.5 and under 5 ........
Under 0.5...................
Unclassified...............
Total............

3 cities of
9 cities of
12 cities of
43 cities1 of Total 67 cities
1,000,000 and 500,000 and un­ 250,000 and un­ 100,000 and un­ of 100,000 and
over
der 1,000,000
der 500,000
der 250,000
over
Num­ Total Num­ Total Num­ Total Num­ Total Num­ Grand
ber of acreage ber of acreage ber of acreage ber cf acreage ber of total
areas
areas
areas
areas
areas acreage
5
7
5
17
5
11
25
64
74
222
163

9,141.7
4,765.1
1,504.9
2,886.5
434.6
670.5
907.8
986.2
512.4
482.4
29.2
146.1
598 22,467.4

4
4
11
40
7
15
26
69
70
271
192
41
750

5 7,848.3
7,339.6
3
7 4,725.1
28
2,564.9
3,715.0
14 5,295.4
18
45 7,226.7
65
6,434.7
602.2
16 1,377.1
28
29 1,830.5
40
890.9
972.4
46 1,591.9
74
1,028.3 101 1,595.2 165
486.4
92 660.7 163
541.2 784 727.8 .591
31.5 204
28.4 300
44 4,539.0
313.8
5
1,387 37,446.1 1,460
24,920.9

6,782.0
17 31, 111. 6
5,168.4 226 17,223.6
48 16,790.3
6,275.0
9,169.0 167 25,716.8
2,369.6
56 4,783.5
95 5,744.8
2,353.0
2,630.1 171 6,102.1
2,519.5 399 6,129.2
1,108.8 399 2,768.3
1,080.7 1,868 2,832.1
53.3 859
142.5
205.5
90 5,204.5
39,714.9 4,195 124,549.3

1 Memphis, Tenn., did not report this information for its parks of 1,155 acres.
* Plus one township park of 850 acres within city limits of Youngstown, Ohio.



PARK RECREATION AREAS

31

GROWTH OF PARK AREAS, 1880 TO 1926
With the exception of a few of the larger cities, the number of parks,
in most of the communities prior to 1880 was negligible. The excep­
tions were New York, which at that time had approximately 1,561
acres in parks, Chicago with 2,000 acres, Philadelphia with 2,824
acres, and perhaps 10 other large cities which had considerable park
areas. Although up to 1890 there had been no general awakening
as to the importance of parks, by 1905 relatively large and in many
cases enormous increases in park acreage were reported. In Cleve­
land the acreage grew from 93 in 1890 to 1,523.9 in 1905. During
this period more than 1,100 acres were added in Boston, 800 in Balti­
more, 400 in Pittsburgh, and 3,200 in Los Angeles. Minneapolis had
none in 1880, but had 1,489 acres in 1890 and 1,821 in 1905. The
movement for large park acreage in most of the southern and many
of the western cities has come since the World War, although in the
northeastern cities it began 10 years before that.
The cities vary considerably with reference to progress in acquiring
park acreage as compared with growth in population. While the
population of New York tripled from 1880 to 1926, its park area in­
creased six times. In this respect the metropolis has surpassed Phila­
delphia, Chicago, and many other larger cities. In Detroit during
this period the population became 11 times greater, but the park
acreage only five times greater. In Cleveland the park acreage
increased to 76 times that of 1880, but the acreage in 1880 was ex­
tremely small—only 29 acres. Boston’s big gain was between 1880
and 1905, since, except for its metropolitan park properties, it has
gained less than 400 acres since 1905. The population of Los Angeles
in 1905 was 1,000 times greater and the park acreage 800 times greater
than in 1880.
Table 4 shows the increase in park acreage in relation to the
increase in population during the period 1880 to 1926. The term
“other divisions’’ used throughout the table covers metropolitan park
properties, county, State, and Federal properties, and other areas
belonging to sanitary districts.
T a b le

4.— Growth of

municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 30,000 or more, 1880 to 1926

[The data for 1916 are taken from General Statistics of Cities, 1916, U. S. Bureau of the Census, Table 3,
p. 60. The figures given in another table in this report covering playgrounds and athletic fields in certain
of the cities have not been included in the totals given in this compilation as the ownership of these spaces
is not definitely reported]
City and year

Popula­
tion

New York:
1880................. 1,911,698
1890.................
1905..............
1916................
1926.................

2,607,414
3,888,180
5,468,190
5,924,000

* Not reported.




Cit:7 owned
par]Is: spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)
21

Remarks

1,561.8 Including 554.5 acres in 6 parks of Brooklyn, but exclusive
of 5 acres in several small squares. In addition there are
40 acres belonging to Kings County and 70 acres jointly
owned by city and Kings County, all of which are avail­
able to public.
61 5,786.0 Including 685 acres in 13 areas in Brooklyn.
(0 7.133.7 Including 154 acres in playgrounds owned by city.
184 7.712.8
217 10,178.5 Manhattan, 86 parks, 1,722.4 acres; Bronx, 26 parks, 4,109.7
acres; Brooklyn, 69 parks, 2,553.9 acres; Queens, 21 parks,
1,416.7 acres; Richmond, 15 parks, 375.9 acres.

32

PARK RECREATION AREAS

T a b le

4. — Growth of municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities
a population of SO,OOO or more, 1880 to 1926—Continued
City owned
park spaces

City and year

Popula­
tion

Chicago:
1880— ...........
1890...............
1904 2..............
1916................
1926.................

503,185
1,099,850
1,932,315
2,447,845
3,048,000

Philadelphia:
1880.................
1890...............1905.................
1916.................
1926.................

847,170 11
1,046,964 11
1,392,389 0)
1,683,664 20
2,008,000 177

Detroit:
1880................ 116,340
1890................. 205,876
1905-...............
0)
1916-............. 563,250
1926................. 1,290,000
Cleveland:
1880-...............
1890...........
1905................
1916.................
1926.................
St. Louis:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
Boston:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
Baltimore:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.............. .
1916.................
1926— ...........
Pittsburgh:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................




Num­ Area
ber (acres)
18
21
0)
120
204

12
12
0)
28
94

160,146
6
261,353
8
425,632 0)
657,311 28
960,000 52
350,518
451,770
642,626
749,183
830,000

18
19
0)
60
87

362,839
448,477
588,482

43
62
0)

746,084
787,000

100
85

4
322,313
434,439 15
538,765 0)
584,605 51
808,000 63
235,071
2
343,904
4
352,852 0)
i Not rep(>rted.

having

Remarks

2,000.0
2,006.0
4,313.0 Including 22 acres in playgrounds owned by city.
3,814.8
4,487.2 South Park Commission, 27 parks, 2,225 acres; West
Park Commission, 23 parks, 837.8 acres; Lincoln Park
Commission, 10 parks, 817.1 acres; 14 small park commis­
sions, 33 parks, 349.3 acres; bureau of parks and play­
grounds, 111 parks, 258 acres. Not including one small
property area of which is not stated; and Gage Farm of
160 acres, located outside city limits, a large portion of
which is used as a nursery. In addition there are 376.8
acres in 318 school playgrounds, and 1,378 acres in Cook
County preserves in city.
2,824.9 Not including 4 small unreported areas.
3,025.0
3,959.4
5,500.0
7,801.7 Fairmont Park Commission, 27 parks, 7,235.1 acres; bureau
of city properties (parks), 108 parks, 449.6 acres; bureau
of recreation, 42 parks, 116.9 acres; not including 160 acres
in school playgrounds and 4 small properties, area of
which is not stated.
714.1
763.0
1,195.1 Not including 20 acres inside limits but not owned by city.
932.1
3,732.7 Including 32 parks and 18 parkways under park depart­
ment and 548 acres under control of bureau of recreation,
314 acres of the latter being in summer camp site outside
city limits.
29.4
93.0
1,523.9 Including 300 acres outside city.
2,160.4
2,221.5 Including 47.5 acres in 26 playgrounds, not considering 2
privately owned areas; but not including 6,121 acres just
outside city under control of metropolitan park commis­
sion.
2,107.0
2,130.0
2,198.4 Not including 125 acres inside limits, but not owned by
city.
2,476.0
2,880.5 Not including 11.5 acres in 5 properties used by permit and
4.7 acres in 4 leased properties.
233.0 Including 48.3 acres in Boston Common purchased in 1G34.
1,130.0
2,295.6 Including 11 acres in playgrounds owned by city, but ex­
clusive of 497.5 acres in parks, and 225 acres in play­
grounds inside limits but not owned by city.
2,696.5
2,637.0 Not including 5 properties for which areas are not stated,
and 957.2 acres in 9 metropolitan park properties within
city limits, including 171.4 acres in 5 parkways.
774.8
866.0
1,632.0 Including 132 acres in playgrounds owned but excluding
17 acres not owned by city.
2,261.3
2,833.8 Not including 24.3 acres in 3 rented properties.
1.1
610.0
1,017.3 Including 6.7 acres in playgrounds owned by city but not
including 99 acres outside and not owned by city.
* Figures not obtainable for 1905.

GROWTH OF PARK AREAS

T a b le

4.— Growth of municipally owned

33

parks and park spaces in cities having .
a population of 30,000 or more 1880 to 1926

City and year

Popula­
tion

Pittsburgh—Con.
1916................
19253...............

571,984
631,563

City owned
park spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)
16
69

Los Angeles:
1880................ 11,183 <»>
1890................. 50,395
6
1905.................
0)
0)
1916................. 489, 589 31
1925 3............... 1,222,500 66
Buffalo:
1880.................
1890................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
San Francisco:
1880................
1890................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
Milwaukee:
1880.................
1890................
1905.................
1916.................
1926................
Washington:
1880.................
1890.................
1916.................
1926.................
Newark:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
Cincinnati:
1880.................
1890..............
1905..........
1916................
1926.................
New Orleans:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916................
1926.................
Minneapolis:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916................
1926.................

155,134 0)
255,664 10
372,033 0)
464,946 38
544,000 100
233,959
3
298,997 23
360,298 0
459, 762
567,000
115,587
204,468
298,050
428,062
517,000
177,624
230,392
361, 329
528,000
136,508
181,830
272,950
399,300
459,000
255,139
296,908
341,444
406,706
411,000
216,090
242,039
305,132
366,484
419,000

38
58
7
16
0)
39
49
0)
331
417
564
11
4

O

24
48

(97
(9
82
88
0)
36
0)
43
56

46,887
0
164,738 29
250,122 0)
353,460 93
434,000 132
1 Not repor ted.




,

—Continued

Remarks

1,321.0
1,591.9 Not including 113 acres in 30 properties under bureau of
recreation, 3 properties for which area was not stated; and
23.2 acres under Allegheny Playground and Vacation
School Association supported by public appropriations,
not including 1 property for which area was not specified.
6.0
522.0
3,755.1 Including 2 acres in playgrounds owned by city and approx­
imately 6 acres not owned by city.
4,127.2
4,889. 6 Including 23.8 acres in Sherman Way Boulevard not main­
tained, and 10.2 acres in 10 street properties; also 135.9
acres in ]9 properties under bureau of recreation, not
including 2 lots, areas of which are not specified.
600.0
638.0
1,058. 2 Including 9.2 acres in playgrounds owned by city.
978.1
1,598.3 Including 50 acres in .beach property outside city.
1,106. 2 Exclusive of 18 small unreported squares.
1,380.0
1,246. 0 Including approximately 11 acres in playgrounds owned
by city, but excluding approximately 610 acres in pleas­
ure grounds inside limits but not owned by city.
2,096.2
2, 535. 5 Including 61.9 acres under playground commission.
22.0
309.0
521.8
951. 7
1,001. 2
580.7 Including 513 acres in Government reservations and 66.6
in 10 squares.
2, 704. 0 Including all Government reservations.
3, 067. 4 Not including 623.4 acres in 5 areas owned by other divisions.
3, 424. 5 Exclusive of 110 acres in tidal basin.
17.5
76.0
19.2 Not including 578.3 acres in parks and 103 acres in play­
grounds owned by other divisions.
33.0 Not including 638.1 acres in 5 areas owned by other divi­
sions.
28.7 Not including 679.4 acres within city, owned by Essex
County park system.
388.0
539.0
435.8
2,500.0
2,718.9
1,084.4
459.0
1,217.9 Not including 220 acres not owned by city.
588.0
1,727.2. Not including approximately 157.8 acres in an unreported
number of areas.
0
1,489.0
1,821.0 Including 1 acre in playground owned by city, but exclu­
sive of 72.8 acres m parks not owned by city.
3,038.1
4,737.8
* Figures not obtainable for 1926.

34

PARK RECREATION AREAS

T a b le

4.— Growth of

municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 30,000 or more 1880 to 1926

City and year

Popula­
tion

,

CiPy owned
par z spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)

K a n sa s C i t y
(Mo.):
1880.................
1890................
1905................
1916-...............
1926.................
Seattle:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
19203...............
Indianapolis:
1880-.............
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................

55,785
132,716
176,168
292,278
375,000

1
0
<‘>
23
69

3,533
42,837
95,803
330,834
315,312

(*)
4
0)
87
130

Jersey City:
1880________
1890— ............
1905________
1916________
1926.................
Rochester:
1880................
1890.................
1905________
1916.................
1926________
Portland (Oreg.):
1880.................
1890— ...........
1905— .........
1916________
192/i 3...............
Denver:
1880— ............
1890.................
1905................
1916.................

120,722
163,003
227,445
299,615
318,000
89,366
133,896
177,228
250,747
321,000
17,377
46,385
101,398
271,814
282,383
35,629
106,713
148,714
253,161

4
6
0)
13
20
18
15
(*)
29
31
0)4
0)
28
55
2
4
(9
44

1926.................

285,000

42

Toledo:
1880.................
1890................
1905................
1916.................
1926.................
Providence:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
Columbus:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................

4
75,056
5
105,436
204,772 0)
265,578 20
367,000 70

50,137
81,434 0)
15
150,594 0)
187,840 38
294,000 69
104,857
132,146
194,027
248,791
275,000

0)
13
0)
43

51,647
88,150
138,796

(l)

55

—Continued

Remarks

2.1
2,067.0
1,989.2
3,237.7 Not including 8 small properties, areas of which are not
stated.
0)
200.0
548.4 Not including 1,009.6 acres not owned by city.
1,445.0
2,144.6 Including 231.2 acres in 13 boulevards, but not including
4 unreported areas.
150.0 Including 20 acres in 2 Si;ate-owned areas, maintained by
city.
305.0
1,300.0 Not including 7 acres not owned by city.
1,710.8 Not including 24.3 acres in 3 areas owned by other divisions.
2,566.2 Not including 25.3 acres in 3 areas owned by State, 90
acres in unreported Kessler Boulevard, and 51.79 acres
in golf course leased to private club; but including 450
acres in 5 parkways and boulevards.
6.4
5.0
30.1
53.8 Not including 207.8 acres owned by another division.
85.9 Not including 267.2 acres in 2 county park areas within
city, or small areas in two leased properties.
(9
475.0
871.1
1,603.3
1,771.9
49.0
55.0
248.0
1,117. 6
2,181.4
8.0
441.0
603.0
3,719.0 Including 2,439 acres in 7 properties outside city limits,
but not including 70 acres in 2 areas owned by other
divisions.
1,557.4 Not including 10,239.1 acres in Mountain Park system
outside city, of which 31.6 acres are held by lease and
permit.
41.0
95.0
5 850.0
1,535.4
1,592.7 Including 249.4 acres in 13 boulevards, but not including
7 acres in county courthouse grounds.
130.0
127.0
583.8 Not including 172.8 acros not owned by city.
671.0 Not including 115.7 acres in one area owned by another
division.
759.0 In addition there are 175.7 acres in 7 metropolitan park
properties and city water department land of 18.51 acres.

0)
195.8 Not including 1,132 acres in parks and 10 acres in play­
grounds not owned by city, of which 912 acres are
inside city limits.
1916................. 209,722 13
279.4 Not including 5 acres owned by another division.
1926................. 285,000 61
634.0
1 Not reported.
3 Figures not obtainable for 1926.
5 Estimated
2 Figures not available for 1905.
4 No record.




M

GROWTH OP PARK AREAS

T a b l e 4 .—

35

Growth of municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 30,000 or more, 1880 to 1926

—Continued

City and year

Popula­
tion

Louisville:
1880................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................

123,758
161,129
219,191
236,379
311,000

St. Paul:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
Oakland:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
Akron:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1925 »..............

Cit1i owned
par z spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)
2
2
0)
15

24

41,473
4
133,156 42
190,231 <»>
241,999
5
248,000 93
34,555
7
48,682 10
71,528 (*)
194,703 32
261,000 56
16,512
27,601
48,068
82,958
210,000

7
9
19
25

0)

6.0 Not including 166 acres to be used for zoological park.
400.0
1,327.4
1,500.0 Not including 4 acres in 2 areas owned by other divisions.
1,653.3 Not including 287 acres in 5 water department properties,
of which 65 acres are leased to private golf club, and 1
acre in Federal Government land.
mo
354.0 268 acres were in 8 improved areas.
1,323.4
1,990.3 Not including 10 acres owned by other divisions.
1,572.7 Not including 3.5 acres in 2 leased areas.
(*)
181.0
188.0 Not including 20 acres in parks and 36 acres in playgrounds
not owned by city.
388.9
915.9 Not including 300 acres in 2 mountain camps owned by
United States Government.
25.0
19.0
96.9 Not including 14 acres not owned by city.
175.0
479.8 Not including 123.3 leased acres of total 166.6 acres in Mar­
garet Park. In addition there are 248.3 acres in 4 pri­
vately owned properties used by city.
32.0 Not including 15 acres in 1 privately owned area outside
city, but open to public.
153.0
339.0
855.9
1,100.0

Atlanta:
1880................. 37,409
2
1890................. 65,533
3
1905................. 98,776
1916................. 184,873 0)
16
1925«.............. 227,710 63
Omaha:
30,518
3
1880________
85.5
1890................. 140,452
5
109.0
1905................ 116,963 (l)
605.8
1916#.............. 163,200 17 1,200.9
1926................. 215,400 31 1,348.5
Worcester:
1880................. 58,291
2
35.5
1890................ 84,655
9
337.0
1905................. 126,192 0)
981.2
1916................. 160,291 18 1,092.0
1926................. 193,000 25 1,172.9
Birmingham:
1880.................
3,068
(*)
1890................ 26,178 (4)0
0
1905................. 43,411 0)
29.6
1916................. 172,119 25
591.3
1926................. 211,000 30
687.4
Syracuse:
1880................. 51,792 0)
(0
1890................. 88,143 15
140.0
1905................. 115,374 0)
278.7
1916................. 152,534 58
343.5
1926................. 184,000 21
443.3
Richmond:
1880................. 63,600
5
40.0
1890................. 81,388
9
372.0
1905................. 86,514 (l)
377.7
1916................. 154,841 18
666.0
1926................. 189,000 29
696.6
1 Not reported.
8 Figures not obtainable for 1926.




Remarks

Not including 0.4 of an acre belonging to other divisions.
Not including 2 acres in 1 leased property.
Not including 490.8 acres in parks and 34.6 acres in play­
grounds not owned by city.
Not including 100 acres not owned by city.

Not including 160 acres in New Reservoir Park, outside
city, and acreage in old reservoir grounds.
Not including 181.8 acres not owned by city.
Not including 12 acres, owned by another division.
4 No record.
• Omaha and South Omaha consolidated since 1910.

36

T a b le

PARK RECREATION AREAS

4.— Growth of municipally

City and year

owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 80,000 or more, 1880 to 1926

Popula­
tion

New Haven:
1880................. 62,882
1890................. 81,298
1905................. 116,827
1916............... 147,095
1926................. 182,000
Memphis:
1880............... 33,592
1890................ 64,495
1905................. 117,452
1916-............. 146,113
1926-............. 177,000
San Antonio:
1880................. 20,550
1890................. 37,673
1905.................
0)
1916................. 121,274
1926................. 205,000
Dallas:
1880................. 10,358
1890................. 38,067
1905................
(0
1916................ 121,277
1926................ 200,000
Dayton:
1880................. 38,678
1890................. 61,220
1905................. 59,581
1916................. 125,509
1926................. 177,000
Bridgeport:
1880„............. 27,643
1890................. 48,866
1905................. 79,848
1916................. 119,220
1926................. 164,000
Houston:
1880................. 16,513
1890................. 27,557
1905................. 54,468
1916................. 108,172
1925 3............... 164,954
Hartford:
1880................. 42,015
1890................. 53,230
1905.................
0)
1916................. 109,452
1926................. 164,000
Scranton:
1880................. 45,850
1890................ 75,215
1905.................
0)
1916-............. 144,081
1926— .......... 143,000
Grand Rapids:
1880................. 32,016
1890................. 60,278
1905................
90,498
1916................. 126,392
1926................. 156,000
Paterson:
1880................. 51,031
1890................. 78,347
1905................. 110,257
1916— .......... 137,408
1925 3............. 141,695
Youngstown:
1880................. 15,435
1890................. 33,220
1905.................
50,081
1916................. 104,489
1926................. 165,000
1 Not reported.



City owned
park spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)
12
24
0)
29
39
0)4
0)
15
25
3
7
0)
29
61
4
3
0)
22
46
1
2
(0
18
30
4
6
0)8
11
0)
(4)
0)
17
29
6
9
(l)
26
26
0
0
0)
6
19
3
7
0)
24
43
0
2
0)
22
23
0
1
(0
7
19

—Continued

Remarks

31.0
969.0
1,185.2 Not including 30.6 acres net owned by city.
1,111.0
1,594.9
4.0
6.0
795.2
1,257.0
1,155.0
61.0
51.0
351.8
592.6
1,363.7
100.0
322.0
137.0
394.2
3,898.5
3.7
10.0
755.0
80.4
549.5 Not including 35 acres in one 99-year leased property, 24
acres in 3 leased, and 12 borrowed properties.
110.0
234.0
337.0
346.1
471.9
Texas State Fair grounds—open to public.
0)
(4)
29.0
745.6
2,467.5
51.5
60.0
852.6 Not including 694 acres not owned by city.
1,295.4 Not indudiug 16 acres owned by another division.
1,341.5
0
0
97.2 Not including 30 acres owned by other divisions.
131.0 Not including 5 acres in 1 area owned by another division.
221.1
19.0
65.0
140.6
398.0
858.5
0
75.0
91.0
163.3
292.5
0
50.0
112.5 Not including 456 acres not owned by city.
679.0
407.5 Not including 850 acres in township park inside city limits.
8 Figures not obtainable for 1926.
4 No record.

GROWTH OF PARK AREAS

T a b le

4.— Growth of

37

municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 80,000 or more, 1880 to 1926

City and year
Springfield
(Mass.):
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926................
Des Moines:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
New Bedford:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
19253............ .

Popula­
tion

33,340

—Continued

Cit;y owned
par k spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)
*
0

44,179 16
71,243 0)
102,989 54
145,000 82
22,408
1
50,093
0
71,928 0)
99,751 21
146,000 39
26,845
40,733 0)3
71,978
114,454 0)8
119,539 18

Fall River:
1880................. 48,961
1890................. 74,393
1905................. 105,582
1916................. 126,904
1926................. 131,000
Trenton:
1880................. 29,910
1890................. 57,458
4905................. 82,005
1916................. 109,609
1926................. 134,000
Nashville:
1880_............... 43,350
1890................. 76,168
1905................. 83,751
1916................. 115,978
1926................. 137,000
Salt Lake City:
1880................. 20.768
1890................. 44,843
1905................. 58,026
1916................. 113, 567
1926................. 133,000
Camden:
1880................. 41,659
1890................. 58,313
1905................. 81,877
1916................. 104,349
1926................. 131,000
Norfolk:
1880................. 21,966
1890................. 34,871
1905................. 56,662
1916................. 88,844
1926................. 174,000
Albany:
1880................. 99,758
1890................. 94,923
1905................. 97,071
1916................. 103,580
1926................. 119,000
Lowell:
1880................
59,475
1890................. 77,696
1905................ 94,905
1916................. 112,124
1925 3............... 110,296
1 Not reported.




2
4
0)9
20
0
2
0)
6
16
(*)1
0)
17
18
4
1
0)
6
15
0
0
0)6
22
0
0
(»)
16
23
11
8
0)
13
26
4
6
(0
32
48 I

Remarks

0 60 acres in Hampton Park, privately owned but open to
public. In addition there are 2 small unreported area’s,
but apparently not city owned; statistics not definite.
100.0
535.6 Including 25 acres in playgrounds, and not including 151
acres inside but not owned by city.
606.3
1,339.4
2.0
0
662.0 Not including 8 acres not owned by city.
717.3
1,105.5
10.0
9.0
200.0 Not including 1 acre in playground not owned by city.
220.6
254.4 Not including 1.9 leased acres of total 3.25 acres in grove
parks. There is also a Federal property of 72 acres within
limits.
66.6
90.0
99.2 Not including 5 acres not owned by city.
120.0
139.8
0
102.0
20.0 No record of park, but 20 acres in playgrounds owned by
city.
175.0
257.4
(<)
10.0
86.0 Not including 85 acres not owned by city.
465.5 Not including 8.8 acres in 2 areas owned by other division
519.7
40.0
100.0
150.0 Not including 50 acres in parks and approximately 15 acres
in playgrounds not owned by city.
168.0 Not including 20 acres owned by other divisions.
1,279.1 Not including 10 acres in borrowed property.
0
0
88.6
120.6
281.3
0
0
101.0
142.0
249.7
88.6 Including 74.62 acres in Washington Park under control of
special State commission.
135.0
314.6 Not including 98 acres not owned by city.
314.6 Not including 1 acre in 1 area not owned by city.
322.0
36.3
124.0
75.2
136.4
205.5 Not including 5.5 acres in 3 leased properties.
* Figures not obtainable for 1926.
4 No record.

38

T a b le

PARK RECREATION AREAS

4.— Growth of

municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 30,000 or more 1880 to 1926

City and year
Wilmington:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926................
Cambridge:
1880.................
1890................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................

Popula­
tion

City owned
park spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)

42,478
0
61,431
9
82,580 0)
93,713 22
124,000 23
39,634 16
52,669 14
96,324 0)
111, 997 29
122,000 23

Reading:
1880................ 43,278
1890................. 58,661
1905................ 87,081
1916................. 107,594
1926................. 114,000
Fort Worth:
6,663
1880................
1890................. 23,076
1916................. 99,528
1926................ 159,000
Spokane:
1890................
19,922
1905................. 43,620
1916________ 142,990
1926................. 109,000
Kans as City
(Kans.):
1880.................
3,200
1890................ 38,316
1905................ 57,710
1916................. 96,854
1926................. 117,000
Yonkers:
1880................. 18,892
1890................. 32,033
1905................. 58,710
1916................. 96,610
1926................. 116, .000
Lynn:
1880................. 38,274
1890................. 55,727
1905................. 75,336
1916................. 100,316
1926................. 104,000
Duluth:
3,483
1880.................
1890................. 33,115
1905................. 62,547
1916................. 91,913
1926................. 113,000
Tacoma:
1890................. 36,006
1905................. 48,532
1916................. 108,094
1926................. 106,000
Elizabeth:
1880................. 28,229
1890................ 37,764
1905................. 58,833
1916................. 85,620
1923 3............... 103,947
i Not reported.




,

0
230.0
278.3
532.0
608.9
17.0
16.0
331.9
163.7
72.1

—Continued

Remarks

Not including 85.6 acres not owned by city, of which 12.6
acres are inside limits.
Not including 110.5 acres not owned by city.
Not including 43.8 acres in 1 area owned by another divi­
sion.
Not including 324.8 acres in Kingsley Park owned by
water department and 237.6 acres in 3 metropolitan
park areas.

1
2
0)
24
31

5.0
90.0
201.1
250.0
469.2 Not including 29.5 acres in 4 water department properties
used as parks.
(4)
0)
0
0
24
426.0
37 3,501.3
10.0
0)
182.6 Not including 50 acres inside but not owned by city.
0)
26 1,934.0
46 2,218.1
(<)
0)
2
12.0
126.9
0)
24
275.0
298.9
36
0
0
0
0
10.3
0) 7
27.7
10
69.4
1
7.3
5 1,427.0 Including 1,400 acres from which water supply is taken.
Not including 227.5 acres owned by
0) 1,131.0 Not including 19.6 acres innot area ownedcity. another divi­
1
by
9 1,910.0
sion.
17 1,911.2 Not including 19.9 acres in 2 metropolitan park areas.
(<)
(4)
5
41.0
284.0 Not including 15 acres not owned by city.
(*)
412.7 Not including 3 acres in 1 area owned by another division.
19
50 1,893.8
(i\
(4)
v)
753.6
0) 1,106.8 Not including 300 acres outside limits not owned by city.
22
21 1,253.8
5
24.0
4
22.0
20.4
0)
24.2
8
33.0
6
8Figures not obtainable for 1926.
4 No record.

GROWTH OF PARK AREAS

T a b le

4.— Growth of

39

municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 80,000 or more, 1880 to 1926

City and year
Lawrence:
1880.................
1890.................
1905................
1916.................
1926.................
Utica:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926................
Erie:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1925 »...............

Popula­
tion

39,151
44,654
68,551
98,197
93,500
33,914
44,007
62,195
83,876
103,000

—Continued

City owned
park spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)
4
6
0)
20
23
3
3
0)
16
24

27,737
2
40,634
3
57,573 <l)
73,810
8
112,571 13

Somervillle:
1880................. 24,933
1890................. 40,152
1905................. 67,746
1916................. 85,460
1926................. 100,000
Waterbury:
1880................. 17,806
1890................. 28,646
1905................. 58,315
1916................. 84,745
1924 3.............. 112,366
Flint:
. 1880.................
8,409
9,803
1890.................
1916................. 52,594
1926................. 137,000
Jacksonville:
1880.................
7,650
1890................. 17,201
1905................. 33,926
1916................. 73,137
1926................. 96,500
Oklahoma City:
1890.................
4,151
1916................. 90,620
1924 a............... 104,080
Schenectady:
1880................. 13,655
1890................. 19,902
1905................. 54,492
1916................. 95,265
1926................. 93,000
Canton:
1880................. 12,258
1890................. 26,189
1905................. 32,549
1916................. 59,139
1926................. 110,000
Fort Wayne:
1880................. 26,880
1890................ 35,393
1905................. 49,003
1916................. 74,352
1926................ 99,900
Evansville:
1880................. 29,280
1890................. 50,756
1905................ 62,307
1916................. 72,125
1926................. 95,100
1 Not reported.



0)

2
2

7
19
1
2
0)
11
28
(4)
(4)
12
30
1
1
0)
11
36
(4)
20
31
(4)2
0) 5
10
(4)
0
0) 5
7
0
3
0)
17
28
4
7
0)
12
15

Remarks

39.3
51.0
132.3
161.5
188.6
7.0
8.0
12.9 Not including 310 acres not owned by city.
636.0
707.1 Including 50 acres formerly maintained privately, present
status of which is indefinite.
8.9
16.0
131.0 Not including 105.5 acres not owned by the city.
151.4
212.5 Not including 3,000 acres in State park partially owned
by city, and 10 acres in United States lighthouse station
site.
27.0
29.0
54.9 Not including 4.4 acres in parks and 4.7 acres in play­
grounds not owned by city.
44.8 Not including 9 acres owned by another division.
84.7 Not including 32.93 acres in 4 metropolitan park areas.
2.0
4.0
88.3
101.0 Not including 2 acres owned by another division.
238.9
(4)
(4)
174.0
1,060.0
1.0
1.0
84.5
119.0
385.0
(4)
2,000.0
2,243.0 Not including 5 acres in scattered parkings, number and
names of which were not reported.
(4)3.0
3.0 Not including 80 acres not owned by city.
192.0
209.6
(4)
0
161.0 Not including 210 acres outside and not owned by city.
172.7
194.3
0
13.0
95.7
228.0
568.0
9.2
91.0
96.0 Not including 154 acres in parks and 20 acres in play­
grounds not owned by city.
250.0
623.2
3 Figures not obtainable for 1926.
* No record.

40

T a b le

PARK RECREATION AREAS

4.— Growth of municipally

owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 30,000 or more 1880 to 1926

City and year

Popula­
tion

Savannah:
1880................. 30,709
1890................. 43,189
1905.— .......... 66,026
1916................. 68,361
1926................. 94,900
Manchester:
1880................. 32,630
1890— ...........
44,126
1905________
62,131
1916________
76,959
1926________
84,000
St. Joseph:
1880..............
32,431
1890.........
52,324
1905________ 112,979
1916-— .......... 84,361
1926________
78,400
Knoxville:
1880________
9,693
1890— -.......... 22,535
1905................
34,913
1916................. 38,206
1926................. 98,800
El Paso:
1880.................
636
1890................. 10,338
1916................. 60,754
1926................. 109,000
Bayonne:
1880...............9,372
1890________
19,033
1905________
40,354
1916________
68,352
1926................. 91,000
Peoria:
1880................. 29,259
1890________
41,024
1905................. 63,687
1916................. 70,732
1926— .......... 82,500
Harrisburg:
1880________
30,762
1890________
39,385
1905................ 53,879
1916................. 70,754
1926................. 84,600
San Diego:
1880.................
2,637
1890................. 16,159
1905................ 30,442
1916............
51,115
1926................ 110,000
Wilkes-Barre:
1880................. 23,339
1890................. 37,718
1905................. 57,321
1916................. 75,231
1926...............
78,300
Allentown:
1880................. 18,063
1890..............
25,228
1905................. 39,552
1916................. 61,914
1926................. 94,600




City owned
pari spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)
25
27
<‘>
52
53
5
6
0)
15
18
3
6
0)
15
0)
(4)
(4)
0)
4
15
0)3
16
34
(<)
(4)
(l)
1
3
3
5
(0
8
13
(4)5
0)7
0)
(4)
13
(4)
12
34
1
1
0)
19
14
0
0
3
6
4

,

—Continued

Remarks

60.0
76.0
72.4
175.4
181.5 Not including 640 acres in county farm, turned over to
city for recreation (1925), located 4 miles outside of city.
20.5
25.0
155.1 Not including 100 acres not owned by city.
182.9
226.1
6.0
29.0
27.3
97.2 Not including 2 acres in 1 area owned by another division.
0)
(4)
<4)
1.0 Not including 120 acres outside and not owned by city.
5.0
55.3
(4)4.0
141.0
696.3
f4)
27.0
16.0
26.6
45.9
80.0
10.1
435.3
891.2
(4)
50.0
499.3
872.0
0)
(4)
1,500.0
(4)
1,985.0
2,260.1
18.0
16.0
36.3
199.4
328.6
0
0
6.5
32.3
29.8

»N ot rep<jrted.

Not including 94.2 acres in 2 areas owned by other divisions.
Not including 97.6 acres in county park within city limits.
Not including several small pleasure grounds privately
owned and outside city.
Not including 431.8 acres not owned by city, of which 103.1
acres are inside limits.
Not including 10 acres outside and not owned by city.
Not including 13 acres in one area owned by another
division.

Not including 7.1 acres in 1 leased property and 23.1 acres
belonging to water department.
* No record.

GROWTH OF PARK AREAS

T a b le

4.— Growth of municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities
a population of 80,000 or more, 1880 to 1926—Continued

City and year

Popula­
tion

Wichita:
1880................
4,911
1890................. 23,853
1905................. 31,857
1916................. 67,847
1926................. 92,500
Tulsa:
1926................. 133,000
Troy:
1880................. 56,747
1890................. 60,956
1905................ 75,989
77,738
1916-.............
72,300
1926-.............
Sioux City:
1880................
7,366
1890-............. 37,806
1905-............. 39,383
1916................. 55,960
1926-.............
78,000
South Bend:
1880-............... 13,280
1890— .......... 21,819
1905................. 41,778
1916................. 67,030
1926— .......... 81,700
Portland (Me.):
1880— .......... 33,810
1890-.............
36,425
1905 *..............
53,493
1916................. 63,014
75,333
1925________
Hoboken:
1880................. 30,999
1890-............. 43,648
1905................. 64,247
1916________
76,483
1920 3..............
68,166
Charleston:
1880................. 49,984
1890-.............
54,955
1905................
56,147
1916................. 60,427
1926— ............ 74,100
Johnstown:
1880.................
8,380
1890................. 21,805
1905................. 41,070
1916-.............
66,601
1926................. 72,200
Binghamton:
1880-.............
17,317
1890-.............
35,005
1905................. 42,409
1916................. 53,082
1926................. 72,900
East St. Louis:
1880.................
9,185
1890-.............
15,169
1905................. 37,812
1916................. 72,105
1926................. 72,300
Brockton:
1880................. 13,608
1890„.............
27,294
1905................. 46,247
1916................. 65,604
1925 3............... 65,731
1 Not reported.




Cit y owned
par t spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)

41
having

Remarks

(*)
(0
<4)
(4)
196.2
(l)
10
207.7
.20
519.5
35 2,583.5
1
4.0 Not including unreported areas in Washington Park.
<*)
(<)
86.0
(>)5
95.2
18
229.4
(*)
(4)3.0
1
25.7 Not including 300 acres not owned by city.
0)
17
900.9
26 1,120.3 Not including 2 parks for which area is not reported.
(*)
(4)
2
126.0
145.8 Not including approximately 7 acres not owned by city.
0)
18
242.5
23
512.5
4
71.5
4
82.0
111.7 Not including 38 acres in parks, and 0.5 acre in playground
0)
not owned by city.
13
183.0
18
435.7
3
7.0
2
6.0
9.5
0)4
1C. 4 Not including 7.4 acres in Hudson County Park property,
inside city limits.
4
16.0
Do.
53.0
0)
10
37.0
667.5
0)
12
667.6
476.4
14
(*)
(4)
(<)
(0
1.0 Not including 30 acres outside and not owned by city.
0)9
61.3
7
222.7 Not including 0.3 acre in squares, number not specified.
2
105.0
1
105.0
102.0
0)
6
192.5 Not including 4 acres owned by another division.
5
320.3
(4)3
(*)
75.0
1
6.0
11 1,212.0
14 1,351.3
1
2.0
1
1.0
1
1.5
5
50.0
10
96.8
3 Figures not obtainable for 1926.
« No record.

42

PARK RECREATION AREAS

T a b l e 4 . — Growth of municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having

—Continued

a population of 80,000 or more, 1880 to 1926

City and year
Terre Haute:
1880.................
1890-.............
1905.................
1916.................
1926— ............
Sacramento:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................

Popula­
tion

Num­ Area
ber (acres)

26,042 <4)
30,217
1
39,257 (l)
64,806
6
71,900 19
21,420
2
26,386 12
30,442 0

1916................. 64,806
1926................. 73,400
Rockford:
1880................. 13,129
1890................ 23,584
1905................ 33,991
1916................. 53,761
1926................. 78,400
Little Rock:
1880................ 13,138
25,874
1890..........—
1905................ 37,684
1916________
55,158
1926................. 75,900
Pawtucket:
1880................. 19,030
1890................. 27,633
1905...............- 42,551
1916________
58,156
1926-............... 71,000
Passaic:
1880.................
6,532
1890................. 13,028
1905................. 35,875
1916................. 70,377
1925 3............... 68,979
Saginaw:
1880................. 10,525
1890................. 46,322
1905________
46,610
1916-.............
55,228
1926________
73,300
Springfield
(Ohio):
1880................. 20,730
1890................ 31,895
1905................. 40,797
1916................. 50,804
1926................. 70,200
Mobile:
1880................. 29,132
1890................. 31,076
1905................. 41,425
1916................. 56,295
1926................. 66,800
Altoona:
1880................. 19,710
1890................. 30,337
1905................. 42,686
1916................. 57,606
1925 3............... 66,148
Holyoke:
1880................. 21,915
1890................. 35,637
1905................. 49,089
1916................. 63,968
1926................. 60,400
1 Not reported.




City owned
park spaces

12
18
2
4
<l>
25
39
(4)
0
0)2
3
1
(4)
0)8
9
(4)1
(l)6
6
(4)3
0)8
16
(4)
0
0)2
4
0)4
<*)5
18
0
0
0
3
8
1
5
0)
11
28

Remarks

0)
20.0
26.0
52.7
529.2
32.5
112.0
62.5 Not including 131.5 acres in parks (of which 35.5 acres are
inside limits) and 5.5 acres in playgrounds not owned by
city.
919.3 Not including 37 acres in 2 areas owned by other divisions.
1,184.5 Not including 36.5 acres in 3 leased areas, including 1 camp
of 35 acres owned by United States Government.
4.0
5.0
25.6
255.4
579.6 Not including 0.48 acre in leased park.
(4)
0
34.7 Not including 14 acres outside and not owned by city.
54.0
261.5
2.0
(4)
236.5
231.0
244.7
(4)
4.0
11.0
106.2
108.8
(4)
33.0
460.0
217.0 Not including 1 acre in 1 area owned by another division.
214.3
(4) 0
217.7
247.0
271.5
0)
56.0
5.8 Not including 5 acres outside and not owned by city.
11.0
385.8
0
0
0 Not including 129.3 acres (of which 16.3 acres are inside
limits) not owned by city.
23.0
39.9
4.0
7.0
45.7
110.0 Not including Mount Tom State Reservation.
228.9
3 Figures not obtainable for 1926.
* No record.

GROWTH OP PARK AREAS

T a b l e 4*—

43

Growth of municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 80,000 or more, 1880 to 1926

City and year
New Britain:
1880.................
1890.................
1916.............
1926.................
Springfield (HI.):
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
Racine:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926...............
Chester:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
Chattanooga:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................

—Continued

Popula­
tion

Cit y owned
par k spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)

Remarks

11,800
16,519
52,601
69,600
19,743
24,963
37,495
59,868
64,700
16,031
21,014
31,014
45,507
69,400
14,997
20,226
36,664
40,935
70,400
12,892
29,100
30,574
58,201
72,200

2
5
20
15
0
0
0
8
10
4
4
0)
8
14
0
(*)
0)
3
3
0
(4)
0)8
15

76.0
76.0
234.6
329.5
0
0
0
454.0
885.5
3.0
10.0
5.3
210.0
223.6
0
(4)
81.8
100.0
119.1
0
(4)
14.0
160.0
264.3

Lansing:
1880.................
8,319
1890................. 13,102
1916................. 39,503
1926................. 73,200
Covington:
1880................. 29,720
1890................ 37,371
1905................. 45,318
1916................. 56,520
1926................. 58,500
Davenport:
1880................. 21,831
1890................. 26.872
1905................. 38,888
1916................. 28,207
1925 3_.........
52,469
Wheeling:
1880................. 30,737
1890................. 34,522
1905................. 40,622
1916................ 43,237
1920 3............... 56,208
Berkeley:
1890.................
5,101
1916................. 56,266
1926................. 67,800
Lincoln:
1880................. 13,003
1890................. 55,154
1905................ 45,516
1916................. 45,900
1926................. 62,000
Haverhill:
1880................. 18,472
1890................. 27,412
1905................. 37,699
1916................. 47,774
1925 3............... 49,084
1 Not reported.

(4)
2
6
19
0
0
(4)
6
9
3
3
(0
9
21
0
0
0)3
12
(4)
1
19
1
1
0)6
12
2
2
0)
17
22

(4)
23.0
131.0
467.4 Not including 12 acres in leased golf course.
0
0
(4)
570.0
538.5
7.5
35.0
100.0 Not including 23.5 acres not owned by city.
107.5
750.9
0
0
2.0
12.0
130.9 Not including 12 parks, area not reported.
(4)
13.0
122.8
10.0
45.0
67.0
125.0 Not including 17 acres in 2 areas owned by other divisions.
619.0
0)3.0
383.3 Not including 25 acres not owned by city.
281.2
285.8 Not including 1 small donated park, area not reported.
3 Figures not obtainable for 1926.
4 No record.

85671°—28------ 1




Not including 249 acres (of which 50 acres are inside limits)
not owned by city.
Not including 14 acres in 2 areas owned by other divisions.
Not including 9 acres in 3 playgrounds, ownership not
specified.

Not including 23 acres outside and not owned by city.
Not including 1.6 acres in 3 privately owned properties
equipped and maintained by city, and 35 acres in Jack­
son Park which is Federal owned but used by city.

44

T a b le

PARK RECREATION AREAS

4.— Growth

of municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 30,000 or more 1880 to 1926

City and year
Lancaster:
1880............. .
1890— ...........
1905................
1916.................
1926.................
Macon:
1880.................
1890............. .
1905.................
1916— ........1926________
Augusta (Ga.):
1880________
1890.................
1905________
1916— . ..........
1926................
Tampa:
1880.................
1890.................
1916................
1926________
Roanoke:
1880________
1890________
1916— ...........
1926________
Niagara Falls:
1916.................
1926................
East Orange:
1916................
1926________
Atlantic City:
1880.................
1890________
3905................
1916.................
1926________
Huntington:
1880................
1890— ............
1916.................
1926.................
Topeka:
1880.................
1890________
1905________
1916.................
1926-...............
Malden:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926-...............

Popula­
tion

City owned
park spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)

25,769
32,011
45,239
50,512
57,100

<<)
0
0)
3
5

12,749
!2,746
12,544
*5,415
59,200
21,891
33,300
41,897
49,848
55, 700
720
5,532
52,506
102,000
669
16,159
41,929
61,900

1
0)
(*)
26
28
1
1
0)
3
5
0)
<4)
7
13
0)
(<)
4
9

36,240
58,300
41,155
61,700
5,477
13,055
35,642
55,806
53,800
3,174
10,108
44, 600
65, 300
15,452
31,007
39,149
0)
56, 500
12,017
23,031
37,162
50,067
52,400

6
7
1
4
0
0
0)4
18
(4)

Kalamazoo:
1880................. 11,937
1890................
17,853
1905________
0)
47,744
1916________
54,500
1926________
Winston-Salem:
4,194
1880________
10,729
1890________
30,448
1916________
1926................ 71,800
i Not reported.



,

(4
)
1

13
(0
2
0)
15
20
0
3
0)
6
11
1
3
0)
18
16
(4)
0)
3
11

—Continued

Remarks

(*)
0

154.0 Not including 17 acres outside and not owned by city.
175.0
259.0 Not including 40.6 acres in 1 private public park and 3
acres in 1 water bureau property.
720.0
0)
150.0
177.0
316.3
47.0
11.0
42.1 Not including 40 acres outside and not owned by city.
50.0
77.8
(*)

(*)
78.0
677.0
(4)
(4)
51.5
127.7 Not including 1.1 acres in 14 street intersections and 1 acre
in parkways.
3.8 Not including 412 acres in 1 area owned by another di­
vision.
326.9
9.0 Not including 6 acres in 1 area owned by another division.
26.0
0
0
1.3
23.0 Not including 2 acres in 1 area owned by another division.
400.0 Including 220 acres in 7 undeveloped city lands.
(4)
(4)
100.0
170.6
(4)8.0
119.3 Not including 17 acres outside and not owned by city.
213.0 Not including 20 acres in 1 area owned by another division.
295.3
0
12.0
66.0 Not including 154.1 acres not owned by city, 73.6 acres of
which are inside limits.
45.1 Not including 59.5 acres in 1 area owned by another di­
vision.
45.5 Not including 59.5 of total 110 acres in Pine Bank Park,
owned jointly by cities of Malden and Melrose, and
23.58 acres in 1 parkway under metropolitan district.
6.5
10.0
5.7
91.6
313.8 Not including 7 acres in small parks, number not reported.
(0
(4)
15.0
258.0
* Figures not obtainable for 1926.
4 No record.

GROWTH OF PARK AREAS

45

T a b l e 4 . — Growth of municipally owned parks and, park spaces in cities having

,

a population of 30,000 or more 1880 to 1926

City and year
Jackson:
18801890..
1916..
1926..
Quincy:
1880._
1890..
1916..
Bay City:
1880—
1890— .
1905—
1916—
1926—
York:
1880.........
1890..........
1905.........
1916..........
1925 3.......
McKeesport:
1880..........
1890..........
1905.........
1916Charlotte:
1880—
1890—
1916—
1926Newton:
1890..
1905..
19161926Elmira:
1880...............
1890................
1905................
1916................
1926................
Pasadena:
1890................
1910................
1926................
Fresno:
1880................
1890— ___
1916.............. .
1926................
New Castle (Pa.):
1880................
1890................
1905— ...........
1916.................

Popula­
tion

City owned
park
Num­ Area
ber (acres)

16,105
20,798
34, 730 (4)6
59,700
2
10,570 (4)
16,723
2
37,251
4
63,000 26
20,693
27,839
0)
47,718
49,200

(4)
0)
8
11

13,940
20,793
37,348
50,543
49,074
8,212
20,741
40,423
46,749
49,500
7,094
11,557 (4)0
39,199
1
54,600
5
16,995
24,379
36,179
43,085
54,700
20,541
30,893
35,717
37,968
49,000
4,882
0)
58,400
1,112
10,818
34,280
60,200
8,418
11,600
34,011
40,351
50,700




33
1
4
0)4
7

—Continued

Remarks

2.0

(4)
560.5
545.0 Not including 3 acres in small parks, number not reported.
(4)
137.0
109. Not including 2,600.2 acres in 2 areas owned by other di­
visions.
216.2 In addition there are 2,595.48 acres in 2 parks, and 103.86
acres in 2 parkways, or a total of 2,099.34 acres in 4 e
under metropolitan park district.
(4)
51.0
25.7
35.0
36.7 Not including 10 acres in boulevards, number of which
was unreported.
16.0
15.0
111.3
60.0
69.0
(4)7.0
8.5 Not including approximately 80 acres outside and not
owned by city.
9.2
12.8
(4)
0
52.0
101.5 Not including 28.4 acres in 5 private properties, and 125
of total 312 acres owned by water departments.
(4)
(4)
181.5 Not including 195.3 acres not owned by city.
111.5 Not including 190.5 acres in 2 areas owned by other divi­
sions.
284.0 Including 9 parks in Newtonville, 5 in West Newton, 4 in
Auburndale, 6 in Newton Center, 1 in Waban and 1 in
Lower Falls. Not including 187.8 acres in 2 parks, and
114.5 acres in 1 parkway, or a total of 302.3 acres in 3
properties under metropolitan park district.
1.0
75.0
100.7
115.2
125.2

(4)

6

16

(4)1
4
18
(4)1
0)

1,000.1
(4)
14.0
124.5 Not including 1 area of 15 acres owned by another division.
178.2
(4)
1.0
3.0 Not including 127 acres outside, and not owned by city.
44.0
32.5
* No record.
» Figures not obtainable for 1926,

46

T a b le

PARK RECREATION AREAS

4.— Growth of municipally

City and year

owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 30,000 or more, 1880 to 1926

Popula­
tion

City owned
park spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)

—Continued

Remarks

Galveston:
15.0
1880................ 22,248 (»)
4
20.0
1890................. 29,084
1905................. 32,613 0)
16.7
4
10.5
1916................. 41,207
1926— -.......... 49,100
7
22.3
Shreveport:
8,009 (4)
1880.................
(4)
11,979 <4)
1890________
(4)
1916................. 34,068
3
202.0
1925 3............... 57,875 23
462.7
Decatur:
9,547 (4)
1880.................
(4)
0
1890................. 16,841
0
1916________
38,961
7
183.0
1926___ ____
55,000 U1
731.0
Woonsocket:
1880................. 16,050
0
0
1890________
20,830
0
0
1905________
31,397 (!)
103.0
4
95.0
1916................. 43,355
1926................. 51,000
4
108.0
Montgomery:
1880— .......... 16,713
2
0)
1890— .......... 21,883
4
76.0
1905................. 38, 730 0)
50.0 Not including 12 acres in 1 area not owned by city.
1916-............. 42,908
5
59.0
Do.
1926................. 47,000 12
120.5 Including 1 acre in 2 street parkings.
Chelsea:
1
1880................ 21,782
4.0
1890................ 27,909
2
5.0
1905................. 36,645 0)
71.5
1916________
43,979
6
18.3
1926................ 48,200
9
39.0 Not including 1 triangle area not reported and 21.16 acres
in 1 parkway under metropolitan park board.
Pueblo:
3,217 (4)
1880................
(4)
24,558
1890............. 9
320.0
1905________
243.0 Including 21.8 acres outside and not owned by city.
(*)
282.1
1916................. 52,840 0)
30
1926...........—
43,900 22
308.0 Not including mountain park of 600 acres.
Mount Vernon:
1880.................
4,586 (4)
(4)
1890...............- 10,830
(4)8.0
1916................. 36,355 (4)8
21.7
1926................. 51,900 16
Salem:
1
8.5
1880................. 27,563
2
23.0
1890................. 30,801
1905................. 37,292 0)
110.0
8
378.0
1916................. 47,778
1926................. 42,900 21 ,398.0
Pittsfield:
1
0.8 Memorial monument.
1880................. 13.364
1890................. 17,281 (4)
(4)
231.7
1916................. 37,580 11
241.0
1926................. 48,100 15
Perth Amboy:
4,808 (<)
1880.................
(4)
9,512
1890.................
(4)
14.0
1916................. 39,725 (0 1
7
30.8
1926................. 48,100
Butte:
3,363 (4)
1880.................
(4)
0
0
1890................. 10,723
0
0 Not including 10 acres owned by other divisions.
1905................. 39,890
1
78.0
1916................. 43,004
3 3,678.4
1926................. 43,100
Lexington:
1880................. 16,656 (4)
(4)
0
0
1890................. 21,567
4
52.0
1916................. 39,703
67.7
1926................. 47,500 11
1 Not reported.
* Figures not obtainable for 1926.
4 No record.
* “Various tracts along river” aggregating 210 acres considered as 1 property.



GROWTH OF PARK AREAS

47

T a b l e 4 . — Growth of municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having

,

—Continued

a population of 30,000 or more 1880 to 1926

City and year
Lima:
1880.................
1890.................
1916.................
1926.................
Fitchburg:
1880.................
1906.................
1916.................
1926.................
Kenosha:
1880.................
1890.................
1916.................
1926.................
Stockton:
1880.................
1890.................
1916.................
1926.................

Popula­
tion

7,567
15,981
34,644
47,700
12,429
22,037
32,723
41,091
44,200
5,093
6,532
30,738
52,700
10,282
14,424
34,508
48,500

Cit y owned
par It spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)
(*)

0
2
2
1
3
(0
12
18
(<)
(«)
5
17
7
11
11
24

Everett:
1880.................
4,159
1890................. 11,068 (*)
1916................. 38,307 (<)5
1926................. 42,500 17
Superior:
1880.................
1,122
1890................. • 11,983 (4)0
1906................. 35,459 0)
1916................. 45,050 17
1920 3............... 39,671 20
San Jose:
1880................. 12,567 (*)
1890................. 18,060
2
1916................. 37,918 10
1926................. 44,200
9
Springfield (Mo.):
1880.................
6,522
1890................. 21,850 (4)0
1916................. 39,927
5
1926................. 42,600 12
Dubuque:
1880................. 22,254
2
1890................. 30,313
1905................. 40,812 0)4
1916................. 39,687
8
1926................. 41,600 10
J a m es to w n
(N. Y>):
1880.................
9,357
1890................. 16,038 (4)0
1916................. 35,871
4
1926................. 44,300 11
Waco:
1880.................
7,295
1890................. 14,445 (4)0
1916................. 32,913
9
1926................. 44,800 13
Madison:
1880................. 10,324
0
1890................. 13,426
1
1916................. 30,084 15
1926................. 47,600 22
Brookline:
1880.................
8,057
1890................. 12,103 (4)0
1916................. 31,934
7
1926................. 43,900 39
1

Not reported.




(*)

Remarks

0

130.0
115.0
0.8 Not including 1 small unreported area.
2.0
218.0
214.9
250.6
(4
)
(4
)

14.0
267.6
14.5
23.0
41.0 Not including 1 acre.
218.3 Not including 141 acres in 2 leased properties and 5.5 acres
in 2 privately owned properties available for public use
in active recreation.
(<)
(4
)
22.0
39.8 Exclusive of 31.16 acres in 1 parkway under metropolitan
park board.
(0
0
37.8
224.5
242.1
(4
)

12.0
650.5
659.4

(4)

0
75.0
254.4
Unreported area in square laid out by Government.
0)
6.0
8.7 Not including 122.2 acres, of which 2.2 acres are inside
limits, not owned by city.
162.2
169.0
(4
)

0

92.9
111.4
(4
)

0

224.0
571.8
0
3.0
268.0 Not including 16 acres in 1 area owned by another division.
340.0
(4
)

0

215.6
272.5 Not including 79.2 acres in 1 parkway under metropolitan
park board.
« Figures not obtainable for 1926.
* No record.

48

T a b le

PARK RECREATION AREAS

4.— Growth of

municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having
a population of 30,000 or more, 1880 to 1926

City and year
Columbia:
1880________
1890________
1905................
1916________
1926.................
Taunton:
1880...............1890— . ..........
1905________
1916-.............
1926-.............
Aurora:
1880— ...........
1890________
1916................
1926..............Waterloo:
1880.................
1890.................
1916.................
1926.................
New Rochelle:
1880-.............
1890.................
1916.................
1926________
Williamsport:
1880-...............
1890.................
1916.................
1926.................
Auburn (N. Y.):
1880.................
1890________
1905........... —
1916................
1925 3 .............
Battle Creek:
1880................
1890.............. 1926________
Council Bluffs:
1880.................
1890.................
1905............. 1916________
1926________
Quincy (111.):
1880.................
1890________
1905________
1916________
1926________
Rock Island:
1880.................
1890.................
1925 3..............
Austiu:
1880.................
1890.................
1916________
1926.................
Easton:
1880.................
1890— .........
1916.................
1926.................
Danville:
1880.................
1890............—
1916..........—
1926............—

Popula­
tion

10.036
15,353
56,147
30,058
41,800
21,213
25,448
30,981
35,930
39,800
11,873
19,688
33,613
40,900
5,630
6,674
34,488
36,900
5,276
9,057
36,326
45,800
18,934
27,132
33,495
43,100
21,924
25,858
32,091
31,219
35,677
7,063
13,197
43,500
18,063
21,474
25,346
0)
40,900
27,268
31,494
38,156
36,775
39,131
11,659
13,634
40,073
11,013
14,575
34,016
38,200
11,924
14,481
30,206
37,400
7,733
11,491
31,790
37,600

1 Not reported.




—Continued

City owned
park spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)
1
1
0)4
6
3
0
(9 4
10
0
2
3
4
(4)
(4)
9
12
(4)
(4)4
9
1
2
2
0)
1
2
0) 3
5
(4)2
12
4
5
(0
11
14
5
4
0)
13
17
0
2
7
4
5
16
8
(4)
0
6
10
(4)1
5
6

25.0
12.0
(*)
73.0
102.1
3.0
0
7.6
8.0
38.0
0
5.0
75.0
180.0
(4)
(4)
192.0
376.7
(4)
(4)
45.0
87.5
1.0
44.0
36.5
0
.9
27.0
1.8
17.9
34.5
(4)3.0
220.8
800.0
616.0
(4)
793.0
935.0
30.0
20.0
184.0
290.5
333.9
0
5.0
77.0
29.8
30.0
41.0
122.5
424.0
0
99.4
103.7
(4)
0
111 0
109. 0

Remarks

Not including 3 acres outside and not owned by city.

Not including 4 acres in 46 scattered parks.

Not including 3 acres in small triangles and squares.
Not including 37.6 acres in boulevards.

Not including 1.75 acres in boulevards.

3 Figures not obtainable for 1926.

* No record.

49

GROWTH OP PARK AREAS

T a b l e 4 . — Growth of municipally owned parks and park spaces in cities having

—Continued

a population of 30,000 or more, 1880 to 1920

City and year
Oshkosh:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1926.................
Ogden:
1880.................
1890.................
1916.................
1926.................
Norristown:
1880.................
1890.................
1916.................
1926.................
Watertown:
1880............—
1890.................
1926.................
Sheboygan:
1880.................
1890.................
1926.................
Waltham:
1880.................
1890.................
1916.................
1926.................
La Crosse:
1880.................
1890.................
1905.................
1916.................
1925«.............
Newburgh:
1880.................
1890.................
1926.................
Muskogee:
1890.................
1916..............
1926.........
Newport:
1880.................
1890.................
1925 3...............
Colorado Springs:
1880.................
18a0.................
1916.................
1920 3...............
Lynchburg:
1880.................
1890.................
1916.................
1926.................

Popula­
tion

Cifr t owned
par s spaces
Num­ Area
ber (acres)

15,748
0
22,836
2
30,116 (0
35,460
4
33,200
6
6,069 (4)
14,899
4
30,466
5
37,600
8
13,063
1
19,791
0
30,833
1
35,300
2
10,697
1
14,725
3
33,100
9
7,314
16,359 (*)2
34,000 19
11,712
18,707
31,166
35,700

1
1
3
10

14,505
25,090
29,041
31,522
30,421
18,049
23,087
30,400
0)
42,740
32,500
15,693
19,457
27,757

2
3
0)
10
17
1
2
14
0
37
28
4
4
13

4,573
12,928
32,344
30,105
15,959
19,709
32,431
30,500

(4)4
13
13
1
2
3
8

1 Not reported.




Remarks

0
85.0
96.0
101.9
179.1
(4)
40.0
41.0
89.1
.1
0
34.5
53.8
10.0
15.0
196.4
(4)
5.0
178.7 Not including 14.5 acres in 2 leased areas maintained by
city, and 7 acres in school property under park board.
8.0
8.0
145.0 Not including 81.4 acres in 2 areas owned by other divisions.
307.2 Not including 81.45 acres in 2 parks under Metropolitan
Park Board.
2.1
70.0 Not including 225 acres owned by other divisions.
202.5
926.4 Not including 2 acres in 1 area owned by another division.
518.7
3.0 Historical park owned by State, city paying half of cost of
upkeep.
16.0
68.0
0
348.6
234.8
0)
15.0
47.2 Not including 3.5 acres in 2 leased properties and 30.3 acres
in private memorial park.
(4)
650.0
2,571.5 Not including 1 area of 4 acres owned by another division.
2,788.1 Not including 33.6 acres in boulevards.
10.0
34.0
80.0
102.8
3 Figures not obtainable for 1926.

4

No record.

50

PARK RECREATION AREAS

COUNTY PARKS
Until nearly the close of the last century the county courthouse
site and the county fairgrounds were almost the only county properties
that functioned in any way as parks and their use for this purpose
was purely incidental to other primary functions. The courthouse
site in county seat municipalities, however, has always served as a
kind of “in town” park for the people of the local community and
the surrounding country, especially in rural districts. In many
communities the county fair ground is being used for athletics, civic
celebrations, and other forms of community recreation, and not a few
of them have been transformed into genuine community parks.
In 1895 Essex County, N. J., undertook the pioneering effort of
establishing a county park system. This idea was not of rural origin,
but grew out of the metropolitan park needs of cities and was no
doubt inspired in part by the example of the Boston Metropolitan
Park District, established a few years earlier.
The plan, while eminently successful in Essex County, was slow in
being adopted elsewhere. Eight years later (1903) Hudson County,
N. J., adopted the Essex County plan. In 1915 Cook County, 111.,
established a system of county forest preserves, and Du Page County,
111., took similar action. Since 1920 a number of county parks and
a few park systems have been established in the Middle Atlantic,
Southern, Middle Western, Southwestern, Rocky Mountain, and
Pacific Coast States. While the idea has spread to nearly every
section of the country, it has not as yet been intensively applied.
In Table 5 are listed 33 counties reported as having one or more
county parks. Comparatively few of these counties have what may
be strictly called a park system. The total area in the park prop­
erties of the 33 counties was 67,464.71 acres, and of this total two
counties alone possessed 47,600 acres or over 70 per cent. Reports
were received of 12 other counties having one or more properties
that are used wholly or in part for park purposes, but the data were
too insufficient to include in the list.
Considering the fact that there are approximately 3,050 counties
in the United States, the number of counties reported as having park
properties appears very small. The counties as political units are
admirably adapted to park planning under certain conditions, but
in fact they are undeveloped fields of tremendous importance in the
general outdoor recreation movement, providing a fundamental
link, as it were, between park provisions made by municipalities on
the one hand and by States and the National Government on the
other. Through the great systems of the New Jersey counties, West­
chester County, N. i ., ana the Cook County Forest Preserves, in
Illinois, they have proven their usefulness as units for handling metro­
politan park problems. But their greatest field of usefulness is per­
haps yet to be developed—that of providing recreation opportunities
for the rural districts and, in cooperation with the thousands of small
municipalities throughout the country, for the people of these small
centers of population.




T a b l e 5 . — Expenditures for, and number, acreage, government, and financing of county parks

County

Number of—
Date es­
tab­ Park
lished proper­ Acres in
1925
ties

Clark, Wash___

(a)

Clatsop, Oreg___
Converse, Wyo_.

(2)

Cook, HI___

1915

D u Page, 111
Erie, N. Y._
Essex, N . J.




Board of park commissioners of 5
members.
County supervisors and agricul­
tural agent.
Board of park commissioners of 5
members.
26.5 Board of county commissioners of Land (valued at $15,000) cost $6,000.
3 members elected for term of 2 Maintenance includes $1,200 to sup­
and 4 years.
erintendent and salary of assistant
(amount not reported). 1926 budget,
$4,000.
20
2,020 Board of county commissioners..
(2)
50

(3)

Will be financed in accordance with provisions of
special State law.
Will be financed in accordance with provisions of
State law relating to county parks. See Essex
and Hudson Counties.
Appropriations by county commissioners.

Ayers Park was a gift, and improvements have
been made by means of donations of citizens of
town of Douglas which is situated 16 miles from
park. Recently, county has made appropriations
for salary of caretaker and general maintenance.
Big Box Elder Park—2,000 acres—was deeded
to the county by the United States Government
unimproved.
Expenditures for land and improve­ Tax levies; bond issues; fees from revenue-bearing
ments thereon to Dec. 31, 1924, activities; donations, bequests, etc.
$13,669,948.18.
<2)............................................................... Tax levy yielding about $40,000 per year (1925);
bond issues.
(a>(2).

Board of commissioners of forestpreserve district of 15 members.
1915
13 623.2 Board of commissioners of the forest-preserve district of 16 mem­
bers elected for a term of 3 years.
1924
3 639 County park commission of 6
members appointed by the
county board of supervisors.
1895
22 3,647.7 County park commission of 5 Expenditures for 1925:
Special tax of not less than one-half mill nor more
members, 1 being appointed each L and............................ $150,935.81 than three-fourths mill on each dollar of county
year by the justice of the su­ Improvements.............. 175,468.42 ratables; bond issues not to exceed 1 per cent of
preme court presiding in county Expenses incidental to
county ratables; fees for revenue-bearing activ­
courts.
la n d ..........................
11,386.67 ities; miscellaneous, rentals, sales, etc.; gifts,
Special construction.. . 69,121.74 bequests, legacies, etc.
Maintenance................. 626,757.24
Total.
1,033,669.88
1 Authorized in 1926.
2 Not reported.
8 Plans prepared only.
(’)

31,600

How financed

PARKS

0)
(2)
1925

Expenditures

C XNY
OJ T

Bfergen, N. J___
Berkeley, W. Va.
Camden, N. J ...

How governed

Cn

T a b le 5 .— Expenditures for, and number, acreage, government, and financing of county parks— Continued

County

Number of—
Date es­
tab­ Park
lished proper­ Acres in
1925
ties

Grays Harbor, W ash... (2)
Guilford, N . C............... 1926-27

(2)

2 4 325
250

Henrv, Ind___________

(*)

1

Hudson, N . J_________

1903

7

Humboldt, Calif._____
Jackson, Mich________

(3)
1925

4
6

Jackson, Mo......... .........

1926

2

Kern, Calif______ ____

(»)

4




(2)......................................................... (2).........................................................
County commissioners appointed $9,000 to $10,000 ...............
two sponsors.

Under jurisdiction of county com­
missioners of patent No. 1.
110 Board of commissioners of 5 mem­
bers, 3 of whom are appointed
by county commissioners and 2
by county judge for a tern of 4
years.
587.1 County park commission of 4
members, appointed by judge
of the court of common pleas of
the county for 4 years, 1 being
appointed each year.
15

244.5
42.8 Parks are under jurisdiction of
county road commission of 5
members.
52.5 Board of park commissioners of
5 members appointed by
county court for term of 2 years.
496

Board of supervisors of 5 members
elected for 4 years (no adminis­
trative officers).

(2).
23 acres purchased; 19 acres in historic site, donated;
200 acres in city of Greensboro, and 17 acres addi­
tional to be purchased (1927). County to be
called upon to spend $9,000 to $10,000 (or more)
in making parks possible.
Original cost at $120 per acre, $1,800; Appropriation by county commissioners.
maintenance (from general fund,
1925), $752.42.
Expenditures for 1925 approximately Funds for maintenance and improvements pro­
$15,000.
vided through a special tax levy of 2l cents
A
on each $100 of assessed property in county; 70
acres originally county farm; 40 acres purchased
by Kiwanis Club of New Castle.
To Dec. 31, 1924 the total expenditures Special tax of not less than one-half mill nor more
of the commission were as follows: than three-fourths mill; bonds in an amount of
Acquisition of land... $2,714,269.01 not to exceed 1 per cent of county ratables; bonds
Improvements............ 2,670,736.91 may not run for a longer period than 50 years nor
bear interest exceeding 4 per cent; rentals, fees
Total........................ 5,385,005.92 for use of facilities, etc.; donations, bequests,
etc.
Appropriations by county board of supervisors.
Expenditures for parks, fiscal year
Do.
ending Sept. 8, 1926, $17,836.00.
Land ...............
$7,800 County appropriations.
Permanent improvements
900
Operation and maintenance... 300
Total..................................... 9,000
1926 b u d get.............................. 10,000
Land............................................. 25,000
Do.
Improvements............................ 2,500
Total__________________ 27,500
1926 budget................................. 15,000

AREAS

1

How financed

RECREATION

(l)

Expenditures

PR
AK

Harris, Tex......... ...........

How governed

Marathon, Wis..............

(2)

Milwaukee, Wis............

1923

Muskegon, Mich...........

(2)

Orange, Calif..................

1923

Orange, Fla.....................

(6)

Pueblo, Colo...................
Ramsay, Minn...............
Rockingham, N. C........

8
(2)

Santa Clara, Calif......... (2)
Tarrant, Tex................... 1925
Union, N. J..................... 1922

a Not reported.




(2)

(6)
164

10

1,030

County board of supervisors...
Park commission of 7 members ap­
pointed by county supervisors
for 7 years.
County park commission com­
posed of 7 members, 1 being ap­
pointed each year by county
board of supervisors.

County road commissioners have
charge of parks. There is also a
park committee of county board
of supervisors.
Board of supervisors of 5 members
160
elected for term of 4 years.
210.8 City park commission cooperates
with county board of commis­
sioners.
105
90
110 Committee or board of trustees of
3 members, leased site from
county, but control is in hands
of Rockingham County Play­
ground Association, a county
citizen organization.
402 County board of supervisors of 5
members elected for 4 years.
50 Board of commissioners of 16 mem­
bers appointed by county court.
i, 170 County park commission of 5
members, 1 appointed each year
by the justice of the supreme
court presiding in the county
courts.
53.8

8:

Total appropriations for improve­
ment, maintenance, and operation
of county parks including stadium
in Exposition Park, Los Angeles,
1925-26, $313,018.
Land cost for 2 parks............$8,326.25
Permanent improvements. 23,023.00
Operation and mainte­
nance.................................... 3,649.85
Total................................. 34,999.10
1926 budget............................. 10,000.00
To 1926:
Cost of land.................... $672,552.00
Improvements................ 144,625.84
Total............................. 817,177.84
Expenditures for county parks 1924,
$1,124.42; estimated expenditure for
1925, $1,625.00.
Permanent improvements, $45,000;
salary of custodian per year, $900;
1926 budget, $20,000.
1927 budget, $4,000; 1928 budget, prob­
ably $20,000.

Appropriations by county board of supervisors.
County assessments and donations.

Special tax of one-tenth of a mill; b o n d
issues; special assessment for acquisition of park­
ways within any city or village in Milwaukee
County and 1H miles outside; special appropria­
tions by county board of supervisors; fees
charged for certain activities.
Appropriations by county board of supervisors.
County tax levy, appropriations, donation of land.
Taxation for county parks; donations of land.

(2).
$25,000 appropriated annually for 3 Appropriations by county commissioners.
^ years, including current year.
Membership dues, contributions of interested
citizens.

Land, $27,500 (for purchase of 400-acre No appropriations since purchase of land.
park).
(2) ................................................................. Appropriations by county commissioners.
All expenditures up to June 30, 1925, have been
Expenditures from Jan. 1,
from bond issues; special tax levy not yet author­
1922 to June 30, 1925:
Land purchase.............. $742,171.30 ized but will be voted upon by the people soon;
Improvements.............. 945,595.99 fees from revenue-bearing activities; gifts,
General expense........... 53,606.50 legacies, etc.
Total........................... 1,741,373.79
5 No data on total acres. Big Pines Recreation Camp Park comprises 5,680 acres.
«May 5, 1927.

PARKS

(l)

CO N
U TY

Los Angeles, Calif_____

Ci
00

T a b le 5 .— Expenditures for, and number, acreage, government, and financing of county parks— Continued

County

Number of—
Date es­
tab­ Park
lished proper­ Acres in
1925
ties
1920

5

Westchester, N. Y ........

1922

23

How financed

by the
201 Board of county park trustees of Total expenditures for years 1924 and Appropriationsannual taxcounty board of super*
visors out of
levies.
3 members. Personnel of board 1925 were $223,111.26.
same as the board of county
road commissioners appointed
by the county board of super­
visors.
issues; tax revy; fees from
15,289 County park commission of 9 Since the organization of the park com­ Bond activities; donations, bequests,revenue-bear­
etc.
members, by board of super­ mission in 1922 approximately $30,- ing
visors of county; term of office 000,000 have been voted for acquisi­
3 years, 3 members being ap­ tion and improvement of land (1926).
pointed each year.

RECREATION
AREAS




Expenditures

PR
AK

Wayne, Mich________

How governed

PARKS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS

55

REQUIREMENTS OF A GOOD PARK SYSTEM

A well-planned park system should show a balanced relationship
among the several fundamental types of properties, such as chil­
dren’s playground areas, neighborhood playfield parks, neighborhood
parks, and large parks, reservations, and boulevards and parkways.
In such a system children’s playgrounds would be the most numerous,
with neighborhood playfield parks and neighborhood parks next,
each latter type being about equal in number. There would be
fewer large parks and reservations connected by boulevards or
parkways, but they would greatly exceed in acreage the smaller
types of park areas. Few park systems in the United States pre­
sent this balanced relationship, the greater percentage of them being
deficient in playground and neighborhood playfield areas.
The park system of Spokane, for example, is admirably laid out
from the point of view of accessibility. There is a total of 46 prop­
erties, which do not include a burdensome number of small areas of
the triangular or oval type. Practically every part of any residential
area in the city is within walking distance of a park, and the prop­
erties are for the most part of such size as to provide a wide range of
recreational opportunities. Much has also been done to preserve
park sites on the banks of the beautiful Spokane River which flows
through the city.
The accompanying map of Houston, Tex. (fig. 7, p. 78), which
shows the park and playground developments planned for that city,
illustrates a good distribution of neighborhood park areas and of
parkways and boulevards.
PARKS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS

A number of cities have acquired park properties outside their
regular limits. The largest of these is owned by Phoenix, Ariz.,
and comprises 15,080 acres in one property. Boulder, Colorado
Springs, and Denver, Colo.; Butte, Mont.; Dallas, Fort Worth, and
Houston, Tex.; and Tulsa, Okla., each have more than 2,000 acres in
outlying parks, while Minneapolis, Oklahoma City, and Spokane
each have more than 1,000 acres. One hundred and nine cities
have such outside parks.
The purchase of park areas outside of the city limits is a wise
municipal procedure because of the probability of great need for
such areas as the city expands. Such lands are, of course, much
cheaper than lands within the city limits. It is businesslike to
acquire them before the city expands and raises the market value.
There is a place for both easily accessible and more remote areas.
Wild tracts are desirable for picnicking, fishing, and camping. Many
such areas, particularly those which include hills and mountains,
are admirable for hiking and winter sports. Some remote areas are
used as camp sites, a development which has proceeded more rapidly
in California than in any other State.
The wisdom of acquiring comparatively remote pieces of land,
looking toward city growth, is illustrated by Jackson and Washington
Parks in Chicago. When these areas were purchased the action of
the park board was criticized, on the ground that the lands were too



PARK RECREATION AREAS

56

remote. The city has since grown up close to these areas, and this
has proved the wisdom of the park board.
Table 6 gives the cities in the United States which own park areas
outside of the city limits. Only those parks controlled by municipal
park governing authorities have been included. A number of cities
enjoy the advantages of outlying reservations and parks provided
by county and State governments, special park districts, and the
Federal Government. The metropolitan park districts of Boston,
Rhode Island, Cleveland, and the forest preserve district of Cook
County, 111.; the Union, Essex, and Hudson Counties park systems in
New Jersey; the Westchester County system in New York; the Los
Angeles County system in California; the Palisades and Allegany
State parks in New York; and the Federal forest reserve in many
States are examples.
T a b le

6 .— Cities owning park areas located outside of city limits

City and State

Number
of park
areas

Akron, O hio...................
Altoona, P a ....................
Anderson, In d .............. .
Asheville, N. C.............. .
Augusta, G a ..................
Baton Rouge, La........... .
Berkeley, Calif................
Bloomington, 111............
Boulder, Colo............. .
Buffalo, N. Y ..................
Burlington, Iowa............
Butte, Mont__________
Chattanooga, Tenn____
Colorado Springs, Colo..
Council Bluffs, Iowa__
Dallas, T ex .............. ......
Davenport, Iowa........... .
Dayton, Ohio..................
Decatur, 111.....................
Denver, Colo_________
Detroit, Mich..................
Duluth, M in n ............. .
Easton, Pa._....................
East St. Louis, 111...........
Elgin, 111................ .......
El Paso, T ex..................
Evansville, In d ..............
Everett, Wash................
Fargo, N. Dak...............
Fitchburg, Mass.
Fort Worth, Tex_
Fresno, CalifGalesburg, 111_______
Grand Rapids, Mich.
Green Bay, Wis..........
Greenville, S. C..........
Greenwich, Conn----Haverhill, Mass..........
Houston, Tex..............
Indianapolis, Ind........
Jacksonville, Fla........
Johnstown, Pa............
Joplin, M o..................
Kalamazoo, Mich___
Lancaster, P a .............
Lansing, Mich............
Logansport, Ind..........
Long Beach, Calif___
Macon, Ga................
1 Not verified; apparently correct.




Total
acreage
3.9
21.5
92
261
33.3
155
61.3
92
6,122.3
50
429
3, 520
125
2,400.7
U02
3,144
450
320
348
10,207.5
314
330
90.7
30
57
361
390
33.8
73
11.4
2,779
137.7
165
326
30
11.5
10
2.7
2,048.1
44
159.3
91.1
294
173.3
235
103
93
1.7
125

City and State
Marion, Ind..................
Memphis, Tenn..........
Miami, Fla....................
Michigan City, In d ...
Minneapolis, M inn__
Mobile, Ala...................
Montgomery, Ala........
Muskegon, Mich..........
Newport, K y................
Newport News, Va___
Norwich, Conn............
Oklahoma City, Okla.
Ottumwa, Iowa............
Paducah, Ky.................
Phoenix, A r i z ___
Pittsfield, Mass............
Portland, Oreg.............
Portsmouth, Va............
Pueblo, Colo.................
Quincy, 111.....................
Quincy, Mass...............
Racine, Wis...................
Rockford, 111.................
Sacramento, Calif____
San Antonio, Tex........
San Jose, Calif..............
Scranton, Pa.................
Seattle, Wash...............
Sheboygan, Wis............
Shreveport, La.............
South Bend, Ind..........
Spartanburg, S. C........
Spokane, Wash............
Springfield, 111..............
Springfield, Mo............
Stockton, Calif.............
Tacoma, Wash.............
Tampa, Fla...................
Toledo, Ohio.................
Topeka, Kans...............
Torrington, Conn........
Tulsa, O kla.................
Wichita, K a n s...........
Wichita Falls, Tex___
Wilkes-Barre, Pa.........
Wilmington, Del.........
Wilmington, N. C ___
Worcester, Mass..........
Zanesville, .Ohio...........

Number
of park
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
1
2
9
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
3
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
2
5
1
1
1
8
1
4
2
1
4
2
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
il

Total
acreage
45
55
0.2
20
1,071
270
60
32.2
4
40.
3
1,838
65
105
15,080
188.7
856.2
70
600
106
91.3
52
281.3
828
600
627
5
25.9
103
161
8
122
1,014.5
385
195
90
419.6
475
1214
172
60
2,200
4
260
232.8
206.6
125
113
143

PARK RECREATION AREAS

57

PARK STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS AND RECREATIONAL
FACILITIES
Table 7, on park structures and buildings, shows the wide social,
recreational, and educational use to which municipal parks are put.
This table, while incomplete, nevertheless shows the trends in the
park program. Among the more numerous of the facilities are band
stands, clubhouses, field houses, hotbeds, greenhouses, dancing pavil­
ions, refreshments, tourist camps, and picnic places.
A most significant trend in municipal park history in the last 25
years has been the use of parks for active recreation. When Jacob
Riis was fighting for a park in Mulberry Bend, New York City,
he shattered, among other things, the idea that a park was useful
solely as a breathing space. To-day 90 per cent of the park execu­
tives favor the active use of parks for recreation as well as for rest
and relaxation. Table 8 gives some idea of the recreation facilities
in parks, though it is far from complete.




PARK RECREATION AREAS

58

T a b l e 7 . — Structures and buildings in park recreation

Cities of 1,000,000 Cities of 500,000 Cities of 250,000 Cities of 100,000
to 500,000
to 250,000
to 1,000,000
and over
(43)
(13)
(3)
(9)
Structures and buildings
Cities Num­ Cities Num­ Cities Num­ Cities Num­
report­ ber of report­ ber of report­ ber of report­ ber of
ing facilities ing facilities ing facilities ing facilities
11
21
44
21
1
3
12
14
Administration buildings___
2
il
1
4
2
2
2
5
Art galleries..............................
8 75
il
58
4
8
40
12
31
Band stands............................
1049
H93
12
5
17
10
27
27
Bathhouses...............................
13
12
3
4
8
18
8
Boathouses...............................
14 5
11
U
4
3
3
5
6
1
Cabins......................................
19 53
13
17 18
2
21
«28
18
9
Clubhouses-.............................
2 11
1
1
2
2
4
Casinos___________________
8
Conservatories.........................
12
2
6
10
5
7
5
8
il
1
22
4
8
2
6
Docks........................................
11
11
3
101
120
24
Dwelling houses___________
45
11
41
29
2
14
8
17
Field houses............................
2717
12
4
9
Gymnasiums-..........................
33
2
8
10
28 14
2911
33
5
7
20
Grand stands_____________
35
3
o il
61
22
Greenhouses______________
10
649
11
14
185
5
3413
Hotbeds......... ...........................
« 10
(33) 5
11
1
29
2
Moving-picture booths_____
7
1
1
11
11
2
3910
« 10
2
Museums..................................
4
4
4
5
7
8
Outdoor theaters__________
Pavilions:
43 33
4216
U
35
3
7
Dancing.............................
16
7
46 4
16
U
37
15
33
6
7
Eating...............................
5
61
27 48144
Refreshment stands________
50
10
64
122
il
29 89 180
10
6
12
Shelter houses..........................
15
6128
3
3
4
8
20
U
Shops............... ........................
1
84 77
U
4
22
9
75
®25
Storehouses..............................
2
2
5
8
Storage cellars_____________
Toilets:
12
Buildings.........................
58 28
7
245
12 89 320
32 «0 366
1
«8
980
36 30 1,068
286
Number______________
3
14
3
«710
13
10
Tourist cam ps____________
24
24
12
2
8
8
8
10
Zoos.-------------------------------Miscellaneous facilities:
3 (33)
6 7 10,877
910 26,056
38 23 42,621
Benches.............................
Bridle paths...................
Drives________ ________
Footpaths.........................

U
11
3

Miles

Lakes__________ ______
Nurseries...........................

3
3

Acres

1.0
32.5
(33)
(33)
(33)

Number

95
2
2
67

95

Miles

13.0
28.0
164.0

Acres

Miles

6 7i 69.1
72 372.1
6 9 597.5
67

Acres

302.9
170

609 1,625.6
11 261

Number

Number

•8
34 22
3419

Miles

37.7
177.1
240.9

Acres

20 2,693.4
92

4020

Number

«9
209
3
169
145
*8
Ovens________________
i1
24
293
9 21
246
330
Picnic places.-------------8
910
04
34 21 2,037
U
2,183
140
9 9 3,406
Tables...............................
1 Not including data for New York City; Lincoln
18 Including 1 community building and 1 combina­
Park, Chicago; and bureau of recreation, Philadel­ tion clubhouse and casino.
19 Including 1 golf clubhouse.
phia.
2 Not including 2 in 1 city, owned by State and
20 Including 2 community clubhouses.
Federal Government, respectively.
21 Including 1 combination clubhouse and casino.
3 Not including 1 building which is not used and
22 Including 1 in auditorium.
23 Including 1 connected with golf club.
1 office in caretaker’s dwelling.
24 Including 1 combination conservatory-green4 Including 1 contemplated but not built at time
house and.l termed “propagating garden.”
of report.
25 Including 2 combmation buildings.
6 Including 4 portable stands.
26 Including 1 temporary field house.
# Including 1 which did not report number.
27 Including 1 unequipped, but not including 2 in
7 Including 5 portable stands.
8 Including 1 portable stand and 4 temporary old buildings (apparently not used).
28 Including 1 unused grand stand and 4 stadiums.
wooden platforms.
29 Including 2 stadiums.
9 Including 2 which did not report number.
30 Including 1 stadium.
10 Not including 1 locker building.
u Including 2 temporary and 1 floating bath­
31 Not including 1 auditorium.
32 Not including 3 not in parks.
houses.
33 Not reported.
12 Including 1 pavilion.
34 Including 3 which did not report number.
13 Including Greenwich, Conn.
35 Including 6 which did not report number.
14 Not including 11 private boathouses.
36 Including 5 which did not report number.
15 Including Girl Scout headquarters.
37 Including 11 not in parks.
w Including Greenwich, Conn., and including 1
38 Including 16 which did not report number.
memorial and 1 used by Boy Scouts.
17 Including 2 golf clubhouses,
39 Including 2 memorial cottages.



PARK STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS

59

areas in cities of 20,000 'population and over

Cities of 50,000
to 100,000
(76)

Cities of 25,000
to 50,000
(143)

Cities of 20,000
to 25,000
(74)

Total
(361)

Structures and buildings

Cities Num­ Cities Num­ Cities Num­ Cities Num­
report­ ber of report­ ber of report­ ber of report­ ber of
ing facilities ing facilities ing facilities ing facilities
14
3 24
1
1
44
99 Administration buildings.
10
16
2
13
16 Art galleries.
2
44
2
402 Band stands.
6 41
8123
25
39
9193
7 63
6 75
i2 77
13 18
327 Bathhouses.
13 22
138
25
42
51
137
64 Boathouses.
644
9
13 7
»8
8
8
63 Cabins.
i813
13 5
33
9
16 9
20
6
193 Clubhouses.
2024
4
4
76
23
45
17
23 3
22 2
12 Casinos.
9
2
3
24 8
37 Conservatories.
31
4
4
7
is i
64 Docks.
13 1
27
9
5
15
8
13 5
137
107
370 Dwelling houses.
29
28 53
35
78
182 Field houses.
62
19
28 29
14
26 22
1
2
77 Gymnasiums.
4
5
3
5
25
3114
166 Grand stands.
6 113
39
58
6 29
30 36
13
23
32 24
4
684
170 Greenhouses.
21
4
36
36 18
35 21
87 72
38 69 1,060 Hotbeds.
1
2
138
17
51 Moving-picture booths.
5
9
3
6
34 Museums.
4
4
1
1
6 32
3
5
26
28 Outdoor theaters.
3
3
8
8
Pavilions:
159
71
Dancing.
23
4 37
8
8
13
4 23
4
8
68
155
Eating.
21
47 37
8
8
10
4 20
4
443 Refreshment stands.
135
4 75
9
48
85
15
28
30
169
645 Shelter houses.
23
33
58
136
40
100
84
3
118 Shops.
8 31
2
23
83 34
3
26
325 Storehouses.
8 46
8
11
6 120
32
8 93
6
9
40
28
50 Storage cellars.
12
9
8 22
7
18
Toilets:
3 6 188
1,779
Buildings.
6 69
61 407
43
345
62 23
68
63 47
«
284 66 193 5,107
Number.
® 81 6 1 ,495
4
994
36 26
103 Tourist camps.
14 34100
6 33
6 35
8
8 27
7
6 15
6 26
99 Zoos.
6 95
24
9
623
22
21
9
36 19 1,738 70167 116,607 Miscellaneous facilities:
Benches.
69 39 18,273
38 66 17,042
62 12
36 36
63 30

Miles

26
25

Acres

9
38

29.5
160.3
153.5

296.1
131

Miles

Miles

629 8
42
34 41
29

38
6 21

Number

48.5
178.8
412. E

Acres

259.9
55

Number

1

62 18
6 14
16
64

6

64 41 Miles
198.8
73128 1 , 000.1
7* 118 1,630.0

Acres

131.4
29

78110 5,309.3
4i 89 738

Number

Number

(33)
51.2
61.8

Acres

Bridle paths.
Drives
Footpaths.
Lakes.
Nurseries.

77 81
63 28
61
183
1,014
Ovens.
76 247
68
38 18
36 78 150 1,427
Picnic places.
73 53
208
290
36 21
79 57
1,929
4,131
621 so 144 14,447
Tables.
87 Including 1 privately owned, financed by city.
40 Including 8 which did not report number.
88 Connected with field houses.
Including 22 which did not report number.
39 Including 7 pavilions.
42 Including 1 at casino.
<3 Including 6, use not specified, 1 of which was 60 Including 5 in connection with keepers’ houses.
61 Including 1 used as tool house.
in bathhouse.
44 Including 1 combination dancing and eating 62 Including 4 which did not report number.
63 Including 7 which did not report number.
pavilion.
45 Including 6 combination dancing and eating 64 Including 10 which did not report number.
avilions, 1 on commercial basis, and 1 not used for 65 Including 7 in tool house.
66 Including 28 which did not report number.
ancing.
67 Not including 1 naval reserve camp.
46 Operated on concession basis.
47 Including 6 combination dancing and eating 68 Including 1 undeveloped.
69 Including 9 which did not report number.
pavilions.
48 Including 3 in eating pavilions and 1 in bath­ 70 Including 42 which did not report number.
71 Including 46 miles in Washington, D. C.
house.
72 Including boulevards.
46 Including 2 in clubhouse.
73 Including 17 which did not report number.
50 Including 1 used as clinic.
51 Including 2 in same building with storehouses. 74 Including 18 which did not report number.
75 Including 14 which did not report number.
82 Including 3 combination buildings.
83 Including 2 combination shop and storehouse 76 Including 7 hot plates.
77 Including 13 which did not report number.
buildings (1 not in park) and 1 other not in park.
78 Including‘33 which did not report number.
54 Including 2 in same buildings with shops.
79 Including 20 which did not report number.
85 Including 4 combination buildings.
68 Including 2 combination shop and storehouse 80 Including 38 which did not report number.
buildings, 1 not in park.

25
39
63 31
3
4
38

85671°—28------5




PARK RECREATION AREAS

60

T a b l e 8 .—

Recreation

[Population groups based on 1920 census]
Cities of 1,000,000 Cities of 500,000
and over
to 1,000,000
(3)
(9)
Recreational facility

Children’s playgrounds...
Archery courts....................
Basket-ball courts-------------Baseball fields, regulation
diamonds.
Playground ball diamonds...
Bowling greens...................
Croquet courts...................
Football fields....................
Golf courses.........................
Hockey fields......................
Handball courts.................
Horseshoe courts................
Jumping pits......................
Polo fields............................
Quoit fields.........................
Roque courts......................
Running tracks..................
Shooting ranges..................
Soccer fields.......................
Tennis courts......................
Volley-ball courts_______
Bathing beaches.................
Boats....................................
Canoes.................................
Launches.............................
Sailboats.............................
Casting pools......................
Showers________ _______
Swimming pools................
Wading pools......................
Water slides......................
Coasting places...................
Skating rinks.....................
Ski jumps________ _____
Toboggan slides..... ........ ..

Num­
ber of
cities re­
porting

Num­
ber of
each
recre­
ational
facility

Num­
ber of
cities re­
porting

288
0)107
6

113
ii3
3
H3
113
113
3
3
3
u3
1
83
3
3
3
ii3
3
1

«20

0)

0)
642
66
63
626
626
0«22
)
620
63
0) 11
6
6 803
6 17
68
6 280
0)
(*)
0) 63
6 300
6 74
0)
0)

6
59
3
4
84
43

3 74+
7 312
163
9
35
93
20
1913
54
22
72
2
89
12
27
123
556
35
11
157
501
4
244
30
(9

0672
)
06 31
)

1 Not reported.
2 Not including 3 cities which did not report
number.
3 Including 15 indoor.
4 Including Greenwich, Conn. (Population: Bor­
ough, 22,123; town, 5,939.)
* Including 1 city which did not report number.
6 Not including Lincoln Park, Chicago, 111.
7 Not including 24 athletic fields in 2 cities.
8 Including 7 jointly used for regulation and play­
ground ball; not including 1 temporarily used.
9 Including 15 athletic fields for 3 cities; not
including 2 additional leased diamonds.
i°Not including 2 cities which did not report
number.
ii Including 2 cities which did not report number.




2

0)

3
3
1
2
113

Num­
ber of
each
recre­
ational
facility

121

2

7

Cities of 250,000
to 500,000
(13)
Num
ber of
cities re­
porting

Cities of 100,000
to 250,000
(43)

Num­
Num­
ber of Num­ ber of
each ber of each
recre­ cities re­ recre­
ational porting ational
facility
facility
379
3
1287
226
296
51
102
88
31
25
39
350
58
4
36
10
2
2
«29
679
137
22
464
337
7

30 81

22
(*) 11

19
52
5

40
4
27
5 40
26
9
10
33
20
14

12

22
12

5
6
4
19
5
27
38
26
14
8
3
1
3
5
1124
27
3742

12
11

18
3
5

1,239
10
178
432
317
14
79
213
16 32
*>36
34
369
96
5
33
13
34
23 20
143
866
271
2« 19
240
99
2
1
8
453
105
24
39
102
3«62
3+
5

12 Including 1 indoor.
Including 3 baseball fields used.
MNot including 6 cities which did not report
number,
i* Including 1 soccer field used.
16 Including 2 putting greens.
17 Including 1 under construction at time of report,
i®Including 1 used for children and 1 leased by
city to private club at time of report.
19 Including 3 ice fields.
20 Including 2 ice fields and 7 flooded areas.
21 Not including 5 cities which did not report
number.
22 Not including 1 city which did not report
number.
13

EE CREATION FACILITIES IN M UNICIPAL PARKS

61

facilities in park areas

[Population groups based on 1920 census]
Cities of 50,000
to 100,000
(76)
Num­
ber of
cities re­
porting
2

25
59
35
4
#16
44
24
10
9
6 31
17
2
8
6
25
2
25
51
30
13
9
54
1
1
1
8130

Num­
ber of
each
recre­
ational
facility
1,062
3
94
8 245
8 218
129
13 42
15106
17 34
20
23
277
55
2
42
24
32
2
24 56
555
107
13
128
25
3
3
1
350
«68
75
31
13
«50
17
« 32

Cities of 25,000
to 50,000
(143)
Num­
ber of
cities re­
porting
121

6

39
96
52
4
5 18
56
27
13
17
533
13
4
7
22

2

26
50
40
534
«16
4
1
32 36
31
44
12
*7
22

Num­
ber of
each
recre­
ational
facility
1,155
8
121
8 274
223
124
18 27
25
46
178
43
57
18
29
12 2
44
455
113
28 65
187
85
1

Cities of 20,000
to 25,000
(74)
Num­
ber of
cities re­
porting

Num­
ber of
each
recre­
ational
facility
308

4 32
1
4 11
42
“Vft




60
19
"'"I'
26
176
42

Num­
ber of
cities re­
porting
2 15
2 113
10 248
10 132
227
14 51
162
98
1046
44
2199
1049
2 12
2228
1024
10

46
422
4
5
285
2®4
41

319
76
17
15
46

3537

12

Including 2 trap shooting.
Including 1 football field used for soccer.
Not including 2 operated by State and 2 leased
by city.
26 Not including 2 leased out by recreation com­
mittee; including 1 under department of welfare.
27 Including 1 operated on commercial basis.
28 Including 2 cities which did not report number;
in 1 city facilities operated on a commercial basis.
29 2 cities did not report number; in 1 city facil­
ities operated on a commercial basis.
30 Not including 1 in field house.
31 Including 4 cities which did not report number.
32 Including 5 cities which did not report number.
23
24
25

’""IB
"

Total
(361)

17
74
6
27 8
10
9
1
34
36 12
16
2
10
10

75
2 11
10 99
10 183
10 109
2 76
14 47
1419
27
22
10

18
33 95
117
38 94
242
2130
2 79
29
25

22

Num­
ber of
each
recre­
ational
facility
4,819
26
569+
1,656
1,256
89
319
692
156
125
196
1,264
350
13
279
97
130
26
146
1,466
1,056
14
4
23
1,781
338
191
109
167
413
27+
124

Recreational facility

Children’s playgrounds.
Archery courts.
Basket-ball courts.
Baseball fields, regulation
diamonds.
Playground ball diamonds.
Bowling greens.
Croquet courts.
Football fields.
Golf courses.
Hockey fields.
Handball courts.
Horseshoe courts.
Jumping pits.
Polo fields.
Quoit fields.
Roque courts.
Running tracks.
Shooting ranges.
Soccer fields.
Tennis courts.
Volley-ball courts.
Bathing beaches.
Boats.
Canoes.
Launches.
Sailboats.
Casting pools.
Showers.
Swimming pools.
Wading pools.
Water slides.
Coasting places.
Skating rinks.
Ski jumps.
Toboggan slides.

33 Not including 12 cities which did not report
number.
*4 Including 2 small pools, one of which was re­
ported in F>oor condition.
35 Including 1 indoor pool; 1 small pool; 1 pool
under construction at time of report.
so Including 1 pond used as pool.
37 Including 31 cities which did not report number.
38 Not including 56 cities which did not report
number.
3» Not including 1 roller rink; including 1 pond in
playgrounds.
4 Including 1 football field used as skating rink.
0
41 Including 3 under construction at time of report.

62

PARK RECREATION AREAS

PARK ADMINISTRATION
The administrative control of parks varies according to the form
of the municipal government of the community. In the earliest
form, which is still found in smaller communities, there is direct control
by the city council or a committee of the council. In cities where
the commission form of government prevails, the parks are usually
under a single elective commissioner, often known as “commissioner
of parks and public properties.” In cities governed under the
Federal plan by a mayor and an elective council, the park commis­
sioner is ordinarily appointed by the mayor with the approval of
the council, while in those cities in which control is vested in a city
manager this official may assume direct charge of parks himself or
appoint an executive officer to administer them. An older form of
control and one in more general use than any other system except
that of committee of council is that of the park board or commission;
this body chooses the park superintendent. Members of park
boards or commissions are seldom paid and are so selected as to
have overlapping terms of office. They are elected, or appointed
by the mayor, and usually confirmed by the city council, though in
a few cases judges or governors of the State have this appointive
power. Boards of five members predominate, but three, four, six,
seven, and nine are common. Terms of two, three, four, or five years
are most frequent.
The differences between two of the principal forms of administration
may be illustrated by citing two cities. In Long Beach, Calif., a
city manager city, the department of public parks is under the direct
control of the city manager, who appoints the superintendent of
parks to serve during his pleasure. All other employees are appointed
by the park superintendent, subject to the city manager’s approval.
In Seattle a board of five commissioners is appointed by the mayor
to serve five years, one member being appointed each year. There
are no salaries. By ordinance the commissioners are given broad
powers of control and development of the parks, parkways, boule­
vards, drives, squares, playgrounds, and other recreation areas.
They recommend to the city council the widening and improvement
of streets to be used as parkways and the purchase of new parks; they
employ the superintendent and other help, and also have power to
expend the park fund created by law.
PARK EXPENDITURES IN 63 CITIES
Park expenditures in general include land purchase, city forestry,
improvement, athletic and recreation programs, maintenance and
operation, and in some cases the maintenance of special institutions
and activities. In New York, for example, $1,377,103.44 was
expended in 1925 for art and scientific purposes, and about three
times that amount for general park uses. Similar items are shown
for St. Louis and Washington, D. C.
The sources of financial support of parks include direct appro­
priations from the municipality, bond issues, special taxes, assess­
ments, sale of park products or lands, fees from golf courses, bathing
pools, and other facilities, commercial recreation licenses, donations,
and bequests.



63

PARK EXPENDITURES IN 63 CITIES

The following statement shows the park and recreation expenditures
in 63 cities of 100,000 population or over for both general park uses
and special institutions and activities:
Municipal park and recreation expenditures in 68 cities

1

New York, N. Y. (1925):
General fund accounts—
General park purposes—
General park board____________________________ $181, 720. 01
Manhattan Park Department___________________ 1, 454, 995. 65
Bronx Park Department_______________________
905, 642. 73
Brooklyn Park Department____________________ 1, 211, 929. 35
Queens Park Department______________________
384, 371. 45
Richmond Park Department____________________
98, 485. 69
Total________________ _________ _____________ 4, 237, 144. 88
Special institutions and activities—
Metropolitan Museum of Art_______________________
313, 937. 53
New York Zoological Society_______________________
306, 832. 58
New York Botanical Garden________________________
185, 512. 05
American Museum of Natural History_______________
318, 812. 56
Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences______________
242, 599. 82
Staten Island Institute of Arts and Sciences__________
9, 408. 90
Total___________________________________________ 1, 377,103. 44
Total general fund accounts______________________ 5, 614, 248. 32
Special revenue, bond fund accounts—
Manhattan________________________________________
58, 287. 99
Brooklyn__________________________________________
84, 073. 29
Bronx..____ ____________________________________ 61,723.78
Queens..._____ ___________________________________
2, 700. 00
Richmond_________________________________________
13, 996. 78
Total___________________________________________
220,781. 84
Corporate stock fund accounts—
Manhattan________________________________________
853, 397. 08
Brooklyn_________________________________________
173,384.26
31, 510. 94
Bronx____________________________________________
Total__________________________________________- 1,058,292.28
Tax note fund accounts—
Manhattan________________________________________
305, 433. 41
Brooklyn_________________________________________
280, 576. 15
Bronx_________________ __________________________
293,100. 78
Queens___________________________________________
178, 730. 19
Richmond_________________________________________
61, 442. 00
Total__________________________________________ 1, 119,282. 53
Special accounts—All boroughs_________________________
54, 751. 97
Grand total, 1925 expenditures----------------------------------- 8, 067, 356. 94
i No school board expenditures included.




64

PARK RECREATION AREAS

Chicago, 111. (1925):
Bureau of parks, playgrounds, and bathing beaches (ex­
pended from corporate purposes fund of city)---------------- $660, 839. 50
Committee on public recreation and athletics_____________
3, 820. 69
Large park districts2—
South Park district________________________________ 7, 015, 644. 07
West Park district_________________________________ 3, 145, 908. 58
Lincoln Park district (includes $2,645,734.29 for cur­
rent expenses and $348,987.42 for bond redemption) _ 2, 994, 721. 71
Total___________________________________________ 13,156,274.36
Small park districts2—
Ridge Avenue_____________________________________
38, 136. 84
North Shore_______________________________________
96, 927. 16
Calumet__________________________________________
8, 009. 91
Ridge_____________________________________________
19, 181. 05
Fernwood_________________________________________
10, 359. 25
Irwing____________________________________________
166, 053. 99
Northwest________________________________________
187, 486. 25
Old Portage_______________________________________
124, 433. 29
Edison____________________________________________
3, 030. 25
West Pullman_____________________________________
17, 977. 31
River Park________________________________________
81, 289. 15
Ravenswood Manor Gardens_______________________
9, 735. 80
Albany___________________________________________
28, 145. 17
Jefferson__________________________________________
29, 778. 29
Norwood__________________________________________
5, 211. 96
Total___________________________________________
825, 755. 67
Grand total_________________________________________ 14, 646, 690. 22
Philadelphia, Pa. (1924):
Fairmount Park Commission (includes $3,253,885.20 for
acquisition of property)______________________________ 5, 039, 779. 53
Bureau of recreation (includes $746,309.45 for acquisition
of property)_________________________________________ 1, 080, 413. 67
Bureau of city property_________________________________
(3)
Total__________________________________________ _____ 6, 120, 193. 20
Detroit, Mich. (1924-25)____________________________________ 2, 273, 716. 26
Expense figures open to doubt as to accuracy because of
discrepancies due to omission of detail of laborers’ wages.
Above figure includes $374,613.11 for land purchase; parks,
recreation, zoo, Belle Island Bridge maintenance; and public
entertainments.
Cleveland, Ohio (1925)_____________________________________
742, 079. 49
415, 204. 16
(1924) (Metropolitan park system)___________
St. Louis, Mo. (1925):
Division of parks and recreation_________________________ 4 1, 066, 519. 34
City forestry, separate budget expenditures______________
4 69, 273. 16
Zoological park, special tax funds_____________________ _ 4 366, 610. 66
Tower Grove Park_____________________________________
6 44, 425. 81
Total_____________________ _________________________ 1,546,828.97
* As expenditure figures for the large and small park districts were not reported, the figures used are the
gross revenue from taxation. The actual revenue will be less because of uncollectible taxes. In the case
of the large park districts there are additional revenues from consessions and from revenue-producing
activities conducted by the boards, but these are not included in the above figures.
* Not reported.
* Fiscal year ending Apr. 12, 1925.
* Calendar year 1925.



PARK EXPENDITURES IN 63 CITIES
65
Boston, Mass. (1924)____________________________ __________ $2, 286, 620. 83
Includes $567,259.02 for improvements and $236,729.67 for
land; does not include metropolitan park district expendi­
tures which were not available for 1924.
Baltimore, Md. (1924):
Park department (includes $447,844.49 capital expenditures
for improvements)___________________________________ 1, 297, 969. 86
Playground Athletic League____________________________
185, 200. 00
Total_______________________________________________ 1,483,169.86
Pittsburgh, Pa. (1924):
Bureau of parks________________________________________ 485, 677. 84
Bureau of recreation___________________________________
138, 495. 24
Total________________ ______________________________
624, 173.08
Los Angeles, Calif. (1924-25):
Park department (includes $140,066.29 for improvements).. 6 895, 947. 93
Playground and recreation commission (includes $13,697.49
for improvements)___________________________________
257,733.55
Total_______________________________________________ 1, 153, 681. 48
Buffalo, N. Y. (1924-25):
Bureau of parks (includes $90,750 for land purchases and
$489,079.12 for improvements)________________________ 1, 496, 317. 24
Bureau of recreation (includes $15,000 for land purchases
and $38,334.79 for improvements)__________________—
234, 053. 05
Total_______________________________________________ 1, 730, 370. 29
San Francisco, Calif. (1925):
Park department (includes $266,837.18 for land purchases
and $760,118.71 for improvements)____________________ 1, 727, 875. 23
Playground department (includes $92,568.20 for land
purchases and $13,071.28 for improvements)___________ 7 274, 522. 31
Music and celebrations_________________________________
44, 393. 92
Total_______________________________________________ 2, 046, 791. 46
Milwaukee, Wis. (1924):
Park department______________________________________ 1, 015, 251. 53
Department of public works____________________________
107, 296. 58
Total_______________________________________________ 1, 122, 548. 11
In addition bond issues totaling $1,300,000 authorized for
parks and playgrounds.
Washington, D. C. (year ending June 30, 1925):
Department of Public Buildings and Grounds_____________
704, 234. 64
National Capital Park Commission______________________
247, 827. 84
National Zoological Park_______________________________
147, 647. 64
National Botanic Gardens______________ _______________
105, 122. 60
Department of Playgrounds____________________________
165, 570. 00
Total___________________ _________ __________________ 1, 370, 402. 72
Newark, N. J. (1925)---------------------------------------------------------124, 231. 22
Entire amount for operation and maintenance. Does not
include Essex County Park Commission costs.
Cincinnati, Ohio (1924)------------------------------------------------------98, 504. 32
Also expended $24,446.09 from bond issue previously author­
ized.
6 Approximate.




7 Fiscal year ending June 30, 1925.

66

PARK RECREATION AREAS

New Orleans, La. (1924)____________________________________ $134, 874. 44
Minneapolis, Minn. (1925)--------------------------------------------------- 1, 511, 896. 13
Includes $90.24 for land purchases and $978,928.29 for im­
provements.
Kansas City, Mo. (year ending April 20, 1925)------------------------ 693, 229. 67
Seattle, Wash. (1924)_____________________________ _________
391, 439. 15
Includes $28,497.96 for land purchases and improvements.
Indianapolis, Ind. (1925)______________1------------------------------842, 542. 24
Includes $276,612.29 for land purchases and $150,928.82 for
improvements.
Rochester, N. Y. (1924):
Park department (includes $21,966 for improvements)------- 368, 490. 16
Bureau of playgrounds (includes $3,000for improvements)— 161, 440. 19
Total____ __________________________________________
529, 930. 35
Portland, Oreg. (1925)______________________________________ 5 715, 042. 45
Includes $4,801.25 for land purchases and $343,019.07 for
improvements.
Denver, Colo. (1925)_______________________________________
643, 921. 00
Includes $5,000 for land purchases and $25,000 for improve­
ments.
Toledo, Ohio (1925 budget allowance)________________________
109, 745. 00
Providence, R. I. (1925)____________________________________
268, 858. 72
Columbus, Ohio____________________________________________
103, 040. 95
Louisville, Ky. (1925)______________________________________
322, 162. 68
Of this amount $117,162.71 was for land purchase and
improvements.
St. Paul, Minn. (1925)______________________________________
613, 905. 00
Includes $450,000 for land purchase and $18,000 for improve­
ments.
438, 404. 99
Oakland, Calif. (1925)______________________________________
Includes $73,162.71 for land purchase and $13,849.19 for im­
provements.
Akron, Ohio (1925 budget allowance)________________________
38, 900. 00
Atlanta, Ga. (1926)_________________________________________ 261, 154. 72
Omaha, Nebr. (1925)_______________________________________
348, 530. 25
Includes $50,000 for land acquisition and $76,331.31 for im­
provements.
Worcester, Mass. (1925)____________________________________
194, 095. 81
Includes $29,745.62 for improvements.
Birmingham, Ala. (1925)____________________________________
42, 766. 89
Includes $8,557.37 for land acquisition and $17,311.90 for im­
provements.
Syracuse, N. Y. (1925)______________________________________
299, 034. 93
Includes $95,000.51 for land acquisition and $87,369.84 for
improvements.
Richmond, Va. (1924)_______________ ______________—............
147, 470. 17
Includes $35,900 for improvements.
New Haven, Conn. (1924)___________________________________ 522, 399. 91
Greater part of this expenditure was for land and improve­
ments.
San Antonio, Tex. (1925-26 budget allowance for operation and
maintenance)____________________________________________
125, 703. 15
Dallas, Tex. (1924-25)______________________________________
405, 096. 40
Includes $1,537.95 for land acquisition and $142,719.15 for
improvements.
Dayton, Ohio (1924-25 budget allowances)___________________
94, 735. 00
Bridgeport, Conn. (1925 budget allowances)__________________
156, 675. 00
Houston, Tex. (1924)_______________________________________
364, 756. 91
Includes $117,442.13 for land acquisition and $92,808.34 for
improvements.
Hartford, Conn. (1924)_____________________________________
264, 963. 44
*Approximate.



SALARIES OP PARK SUPERINTENDENTS

67

Scranton, Pa. (1925)________________________________________ $340, 960. 00
Includes gift to recreation bureau of $162,000 and bond issue
expenditure by same bureau of $80,000.
237, 247. 34
Grand Rapids, Mich. (1924-25)_____________________________
Includes $92,320.40 for improvements.
Paterson, N. J. (1925)______________________________________
179, 656. 50
Includes $55,400 for land acquisition and improvements.
Springfield, Mass. (1924)____________________________________ 333, 781. 68
Includes $41,557.61 for improvements.
Des Moines, Iowa (1925-26)________________________________
220, 000. 00
Includes $55,000 for improvements.
New Bedford, Mass. (1925)_________________________________
84, 961. 80
Trenton, N. J. (1925)_______________________________________ 122, 519. 32
Nashville, Tenn. (1924)_____________________________________ 286, 892. 61
Includes $159,681.48 for improvements.
Salt Lake City, Utah (1925)_________________________________ 139, 547. 90
Camden, N. J. (1925)_______________________________________ 115, 825. 60
Includes $47,793.72 for land acquisition.
Norfolk, Va. (1925)_________________________________________
55, 959. 20
Albany, N. Y. (1925)_______________________________________
222, 509. 00
Includes $30,000 for land acquisition and $24,009 for improve­
ments.
Lowell, Mass. (1925)_______________________________________
113, 073. 73
Includes $15,431.86 for land acquisition and $19,999.96 for
improvements.
Wilmington, Del. (1925)____________________________________
144, 153. 23
Includes $71,281.94 for improvements.
Reading, Pa. (1925)-----------------------------------------------------------81, 181. 00
Fort Worth, Tex. (1924-25)_________________________________
214, 043. 90
Spokane, Wash. (1924)_____________________________________
134, 480. 57
Includes $4,365.14 for land acquisition and $6,423.50 for im­
provements.
153, 091. 72
Kansas, City, Kans. (1925)_________________________________
Includes $1,850 for land acquisition and $21,257.85 for im­
provements.
Yonkers, N. Y. (1925)___________________________________117, 939. 00

SALARIES OF PARK SUPERINTENDENTS
The amount of the salary paid the park superintendent was reported
by 190 cities. A classification of the salaries according to the size
of the cities shows that the average salaries are low even in the larger
places. In a few cases a house, rent free, is included as part of the
salary. The average cash salary paid in the group of smallest cities—
20,000 to 25,000 inhabitants—is only $1,476 while in cities having
a population of 500,000 to 1,000,000 the average salary was $4,650.
In view of the sums invested in the property over which the super­
intendent has charge and his other heavy responsibilities it is evident
that park superintendents generally are not well paid.
Table 9 gives the salaries paid park superintendents in cities
ranging in size from 20,000 to 1,000,000 inhabitants.




68

T a b le

PARK RECREATION AREAS

9.— Salaries of

park superintendents in cities of 20,000 to 1,000,000 popu­
lation, 1925-26 by population groups

Cities having population
of—

,

Salary

Number
of super­
intend­
ents
having
specified
salary

$8,700
6,000
5,400
4,500
4,300
4,000
3,000
2,400
250,000 to 500,000........................ 9,000
5,500
4,800
4,544
3,600
3,000
4,800
100,000 to 250,000........................
4,500
4,200
4,000
3,900
3,800
3,650
3,600
3,500
3,000
2,220
2,100
1,800
50,000 to 100,000-....................... 5,000
4,200
4,000
3,900
3,750
3,600
3,500
3,200
3,000
12,700
2,600
2,500
2,400
2,220
2,200
2,100
2,000
1,800
1,740

500,000 to 1,000,000.....................

i And house in case of 1 superintendent.
8 And house.

Cities having population
of—

Number
of super­
intend­
ents
Salary
having
specified
salary

1 50,000 to 100,000 (continued).. $1,620
1,500
2
2 1,440
1
600
2
5,000
1 25,000 to 50,000...........................
4,200
2
3,600
2
3,500
1
3,200
1
3,000
1
2,700
1
2,600
1
2,520
3
2,500
3
2,496
1
2 2,460
2
3 2,400
1
12,200
3
2,150
1
2,100
1
2,040
1
2,016
6
2,000
2
2 1,920
6
11,800
1
1,620
1
31,500
4
1,380
2
1,200
1
900
2
1 20,000 to 25,000........................... 4 2,400
2,100
1
1,920
5
2 1,800
2
2 1,680
1
1,560
9
11,500
2
1,400
1
1
1,398
1,244
6
11,200
1
2 1,080
1
1,000
2
3
996
3
720
1

1
2

3 And house in case of 2 superintendents.
4 Part time in case of 1 superintendent.

METHOD OF POLICING PARKS
Although the majority of park executives are dependent upon the
municipal police department for police service, independent park
police forces are favored by many of them for the following reasons:
(1) There can be better administrative control over men selected
and trained by the executive head of the department than over those
who have been trained by and are responsible to the regular chief
of police.
(2) It is likely that a more adequate force in numbers can be
secured, and certainly a more careful selection can be made than if
the park police are assigned from the city police department.



METHOD OF POLICING PARKS

69

(3) Men selected and controlled by the department head can be
trained specifically for the duty of policing parks, and the men
themselves will not be confused by the control of two different
authorities.
(4) There is not likely to be such constant shifting of personnel
as there always is when regular city patrolmen are used.
While the problems of inadequate general finances, the absence
of a system of benefits and pensioning, and the seasonal character
of park activities, create problems for independent police forces that
must be solved, park men nevertheless favor separation from the
regular police department.
The following is a list of cities which reported that independent
police forces were maintained for their parks:
Alton, 111.
Anderson, Ind.
Baltimore, Md.
Canton, 111.
Chicago, 111.
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Columbus, Ohio.
Danville, 111.
Denver, Colo.
Dubuque, Iowa.
El Paso, Tex.
Flint, Mich.
Great Falls, Mont.
Indianapolis, Ind.




Kansas City, Mo.
La Crosse, Wis.
Lansing, Mich.
Milwaukee, Wis.
Minneapolis, Minn.
Muncie, Ind.
Nashville, Tenn.
New Bedford, Mass.
New Britain, Conn.
New Orleans, La.
Newport, Ky.
Omaha, Nebr.
Paterson, N. J.
Philadelphia, Pa.

Richmond, Ind.
Richmond, Va.
St. Louis, Mo.
San Diego, Calif.
Seattle, Wash.
Sioux City, Iowa.
Terre Haute, Ind.
Trenton, N. J.
Tulsa, Okla.
Washington, D. C.
Watertown, N. Y.
Waukegan, 111.
Wichita, Kans.
Youngstown, Ohio.




PARK RECREATION AREAS

MAPS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
The illustrations and city park plans presented here are, of course,
very far from being exhaustive. They have been selected from
those available merely as representative of some of the more in­
teresting developments in the field of park planning and park use
85671°—28------6




71







F ig. 1.—Map of metropolitan park district, Cleveland, Ohio




Ce d a r Falls , I owa .

PARK RECREATION

Birmingham- alabama
OUTLINE MAP SHOWINi.

PRESENT AND PROPOSED PARK AREAS
WITHIN THE C IT Y

F ig . 3. —Outline

map of present and proposed park areas, Birmingham, Ala.

AREAS




2 . W O R WW
t> O D O ILSON PARK (C ITO
AP L)
29 W O LAW PARK
OD N
30. W O W R PARK
OD AD

PARK RECREATION AREAS

lore

iorz

F ig .

4.—M ap show ing park areas, M arysville, Calif.




75

PARK RECREATION AREAS

76

MAP OF MINNEAPOLIS PARK SYSTEM - 1926

S how ing f
PAVED W UNPAVED
PORTIONS J PARKWAYS
< *!S f
”

BOARD -OF PARK COMMISSIONERS
- MINNEAPOLIS

C IT Y STREETS USED
" C O N N E C T I N G L IN K S .♦

Parkways

jC

—

Unpived Parkwsya
Ifeved City street Links — —
Vnpaved Gty street Unk
* **

L O C A T IO N f
GO LF
C O U R S E S . «A» EXISTING
•B» T O BE CONSTRUCTED

Existing
To be Constructed / — \

PARK A R E A * 4 7 5 2 7 8




• M IN N E S O T A ®

F ig . 5.— M ap of M inneapolis P ark System

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




F ig .

6.—M ap of park system, Union County, N. J.

-<r

PRESENT PARKS (J PLAYG UNDS
RO

SCHOOLS

PARK RECREATION
AREA




oo

HOU5 TON-TLXA5
M a p s h o w in g P r e s e n t a n d P ro p o s e d
Pa r k s -P l a y g r o u n d s 4 B o u l e v a r d s

LA D A AR H TS-C PL NE S
N SC PE C ITEC ITY ANR
Fig. 7.—Map of present and proposed park areas, Houston, Tex.




O

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




00

FIG. 9 — M U N I C I P A L P L A Y G R O U N D , B E T H L E H E M , PA.

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




FIG. 10.—A N G L I N G C O N T E S T IN C IT Y P A R K , LOS A N G E L E S , C A L I F .

GO

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




FIG. 1 1 —S K A T I N G , L A N C A S T E R P A R K , E R IE C O U N T Y , N. Y.

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




FI G

12 — H I G H - S C H O O L G I R L S P L A Y I N G H O C K E Y ON P U B L I C P L A Y G R O U N D

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




oo

FI G. 13.— F O O T B A L L G A M E .

T H E P O I N T S T A D I U M A N D R E C R E A T I O N C E N T E R , J O H N S T O W N , PA.




PARK RECREATION
AREAS




FIG. 15.— O P E N - A I R D A N C E , H A R T F O R D , C O N N .

85671
PARK RECREATION
AREAS




FIG. 1 6 — C H I L D R E N ' S P L A Y G R O U N D , C O L T P A R K , H A R T F O R D , C O N N .

00

-4

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




FIG. 17.— M U N I C I P A L G O L F COU RS E, H A R T F O R D , C O N N .

PARK RECREATION
AREAS

FIG .

18.— S W I M M I N G




POND

AND

SHELTER

HOUSE.

P O N D U SE D FOR S K A T I N G
N E W B E D F O R D , M AS S .

IN W I N T E R .

BROOKLAWN

PARK

PLAYGROUND,

00
CD

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




CO
o

F IG . 19.— B O W L I N G G R E E N , H A Z L E W O O D P A R K , N E W B E D F O R D , M A S S .

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




FIG. 20.—P I C N I C G R O U N D , D A Y T O N , O H I O

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




F I G . 21.— C O N S E R V A T O R Y IN G O L D E N G A T E P A R K , SA N F R A N C I S C O , C A LI F .

PARK RECREATION
AREAS




PARK RECREATION
AREAS




FIG. 2 3 — L A K E S C E N E IN S H E L B Y P A R K , N A S H V I L L E , T E N N .

PARK RECREATION AREAS

FIG.

24.— B A T H H O U S E A N D M A M M O T H
CONCRETE S W IM M IN G
B E T T S B R O O K P A R K , W E S T C H E S T E R C O U N T Y , N. Y.




95

POO L, T I B ­