S386630 .. I ý I. ý,.. I I I... I.. I ý I. I I I. I.. ý -. I I I. I ý. I I I I., ý.. ý. I., I ý.... - I I I.. I -... I I ý I I I I. ý ý I I I. I. I. I I I I I.,ý I. I ý. ý. I I I I ý.. I. I., - I.. I. ý I... I ý. I I ý ý ý ý I I I I I I ý.. ý ý. I. ý... ý ý, I... I I I.. I... I I.. ý I... ý. I ý I I ý... I I I I I I... I I... I.... I I. ý I I. I ý, I. ý I. ý. I... -, ý I I,. ý I ý ý ý I ý ý ý I. I I,. I I. I ý I ý. ý. I... I 11. I I -.. 1. I... I. I. I I I I.. ý. I, I - I ý I I,. I. 1, I ý. I. I. I.1. I 11.. I ý., I I I I 11. 1. I - ý I - ý 1. I I " I ý,:.. 11 ý.". I ý:... I I I I I I.. I I I,. ý... I I. ý I. ý -. I..... I - I. ý. ý ý..... ý.. I.. 1 ý I. ý.... I. ý ý ý I.. I I I I ý I, ý. I. I.1. I. - I t ý. j.":,ý ý: I I. I ý - ý ý, I. I - 1, I I ý.. I., I ý I.. I I. I I. I. I. ý I I I I. I.,. - I.1 ý 11. I. I. I I. I...... I., I I.. - I. I ý ý I " 1, I I I ý -:..- I I.. I I ý ý ý ý ý... ý, I ý I.. I ý - I I, I - I -. I ý,,...,.. ý ý. -. I. I. I,...,. ý I ý.. ý I ý. ý.. I I I. I. I 1..:. -, -,,, I I I I I,ý. I. I:,, I..,, ý. -,., I ý, I I. I.1 I. ý,...... I. I.. I, I, - ý: 1,. ý I I.,, 1 1,.. 11... ý ý '_ I ý ý.1 I. I I.1. I:....:. 11; I. I I,.., ý,,.,,:-. I.. ý... ý ý I I ý ý I I I - -.. I.. I., I. ý,,, " - ý. -. I. I.1 _',., I I.. I,... I ý - - ý, I I,:, ", - ý ýý -,: 1, '. ý.1:.:. ýý: ý, ý,,,,.' I I. ý I ý, ý. ý I ýA 1,.... I.. ý ý -,.... ý I. ý,.: - - -,.. I ý I 'ý,ý 1ý ý I ý. ý. I I -.,. ý. - I I I. ý I I ý I I I. 11, ý,.ý. '. ý,..,, - I.., ý: %.. ý: -, *. ý,: ý; I, - -, I. ý. I I ý. ý.. I. ý I. I.. I I ý ý ý,ý, "., I. - I ý I.. I.. I I.. I I I ý,.. ý,. I " I.. ý ý I I. I... I I. I ",.. I I ý ýý ý. ý _ý I I I I - A ý - ý,,, ý - I I I 11. I I I.:, I I ý I ý. -..1 ý ý.... I I,ý,ý. I I I ( 1... I ý, I... I -. I I I I I.. I, I I -. " I I ý, -,.... I I. I I ý I I I.,., I - I I. I. 1 1... - ý I ý... ý. I, I,. I ý ý I 1, ý ý I -,!ý:,, I I.,ý ý.. I",., ý ý ý I I. I I ý 1.. I, I I I I I. I I. 1,, ý,..., I I I I ý -. I -.. I ý.,:. I. I. I..,,,,ý I 1,. I.. I ý. I I ý. I ý ý,. I I ý. -. I. ý. I ý I I ý I.,. ý ý I ý -. I I I I", I I.,_ I I ý.. - I I... ý I I. I ý I I.1....,. I I ý. - I. ý I I,, ". I - 1.. ý. I. ý. I. I. ý %,...1 I. I I. ý. I ý ý. I. -. I 1 1 I ý I ý ý ý I I ý I - I I ý -,;., - ý -:, ý I I.. - I I. ý -.,.: 11 I. I.. I. ý I ý I -... I I - " ý., % 1ý: ý,,. ý,..,.,,,,, ý, ý I -.. ý ý I. I ý. I -. -., '.. I.. I...,. I I., I I ý I I I I..,ý - ý --, ý:,,- - 2..- I,,, ", ý,,, -,, - "; -.."-. I I I ý I...:.".. -.1 - I. -.,. ý, ý_, ý..,:.,. I ý.,. I. I I. I I '.,, ý:, " ".ý.:,,ý,,. I I i 11. -. I I... ý ý.. I I. I, I, I. I. I I I I I. I ý I ý I I..- ý - - ý,.,,,. ý - I I 1. I I. ý _ý I,,,., ý. ý.. I I.. -. 1, - I, I I.,. I I, ý, I.. - '. I I. I I I.. ý I I I I I,. _1ý ý, ý.. ",ý,, ý I -, " I ý,. ý.,; I ý I I ý I I. I. ý. I: I.. I..,: ý..,: I I ý I ý ý, ý..,. 1, I " - ý:, ý, " ý ý,, I ý _'. >!ý.,, ý, ý - I.,., -.. I I. I. ý. ý,,,.;,, - - I ý -,,,,, ý. ý 1,. - ý I, ý I ý I,, - -, I,,,, I, ý ý, - ý ý ý.. I I.. "ý ý I I ý I... I -. "., 1, 7, -,., ý. ý ý.. I I ý I I.. ý,. 1-.ý, I -,- -, ý,:., I, ý, " I.... -,.., ý..,. 1..,,: 1ý. -..ý..,ý I I I.,. ý.. I,,. I -, ",,,,,Yý -,ýz,,, ý.,.ý I.,.. ý I." -.,..,, 1ý - "' ",., -,, - ý ý ý_. ý c ý. I ý. I _. I I ý.., ý ý ý., " 'p,, ý I.. ý, ý I I.. I. I.. 1ý I,, 1., - I, I I I., ý, ý.:ý,. ý - 1., I ý. ý.,;,..,.. ý -. I, " '_ " -.- -,., %-,. ý ý,,.,.. 11 I:.. I.. I.,.,., ý_,ý,,,, I. I I..:1 ý.1 ý, ý.,ý ý I. I. I, ý. -.ý I:,,; ý,, - I,, ý I. I, ý -..,. ý,.. ",., ý, I, 7 1 - ýý o ý " ý. I: I I,, ý - -,. I. ý. -,.,. ".., -.,,,,., I. I., i I I. -.1. I % I I. I..: I. I. - ý - ý " I I I I "I ý -,,. I ý,, -, -, M..,_.,,.,,, ý,, ý ý,, I., ý.,!,,,,.., ý ". ý,,,, ý, - _, '_ I..,.., ý, ý.. -.,,.. - I., I.-. ý I' ý ý, %.'.,,. " ',ý- ',,.,,; ":ý " -,, %-ý,- ý. ý ý - -, ý,.,.,., -, - ý, I -,,, ý... " ý -..., tý 1,:ý I.ý, ýý_ ý_ - - '., I. -ý, ý.ý': ý. - ý,,.., -,- -, -:.". 1ýý5:, ý. ý... I ý ý I,, - -, - - 'I, ý.,,,. _ '.,_,,_,ý.,, ý. -.., ý ý ý ý,., ý.1 ý ý< ý' - -. --. ý I I, - I I ý -., ". --- ý., ý I,.. I ýý -, ý,. -, ý _. ý '.,ý,,':ý.,...,, ý _ý,, 4,.,.,ý, - I - I... ý ",,,.,,.,,,ý,ý....,.. e.,,.., ý '. ý, ", z ", ý,.- ý.. ý, ý_.., ý. ý -, -,, - -, ý I, ",,,,,!.. ýý ý -.,,ý",.,,,, a, ý,ý,,.,,.., k I, -, "..-,,.;;,.,, ý;!%,,, ý,.,, ý., 4,,.ýk,,. 0ý, - ", I - ýý: ý I ý.,, ý ý 1411ýý', V- -,.ý, -_,,,,,, ýý.,, ýý, - I ý.ý., I:, I I I.. ý I.... I - ý I, ý... I. I. I..,ý. 11 I I I I.. I.. I I ý ý I ý 1ý. -1. ý '.. ý ý.. ý,...,. I I I I -. I, I I.11 I...,, 1.. ý I... I I. I I, I. I I.. I I I I. I I I I ý - I...-.,,, -... ý. I ý- I ý I. ý - I I I. I I ý " I f -::,. I I. -., ý. ",,. ý I. I I.... - I 1.. ý, ý. -.. ý. I I I ý I. I. I. I - ý - ý I I. ý I I. ý ý I I ý.......1 I '. llý.. I. I. I,.,.. I. r I I. ý I,,. " I. I I ý. -,,: ý,. ý,,,ý ".. ý ý.. ý I I. I.. I I, I I. I ý.. I. I. -,,: - 'ý I.. I 1, -,ý ý,,.,.., ý, ý. 1,. I. I.: - -..1 I. 1ý ý,.. -.,, -1, ý.m,. -ý,5 ý I... I. I I ý: ",,,: I 1: ýý ý,.. I ý.. -.... -,ý I I I. I ýl I. ý. I. I. '..... I.. I -. I I I:, " 1 I I. -.... ý!, I I ý.,.ý.. %. ý... ý ý.. ý 1 ý. I., ý,..,,, ý ý,,, ý... I - ý,., -,.. I '...,.,ý -,, I I.. I.. I -. I,. -...,. ý. I ý. I I I r. I.,. ý.. ý_ ý I ý... ý I ý I:., I 1. - I ý I ýý_,ý, ý. -. ý I. I - I, -: I. " -.., ý... I ý I I ý I I 1..-.. ý,. ý I 1. ý _ I ` I... - I I.. I I I. - I I %, ý. ý I.. _; ý....; I, I -,; I..., I 1. -1 I - I ý - - ý., ý.,, - 1. ql 11, ',-, ---;ý'.-,., -. I I " ý,, ý ý,., ý ý -, I.. I.ý. ý I. I. I,., ý. ýý,, ý." ý., ý,,ý ".. ýý '. -, ý,,,... ýl.. I I: I -... ý. I ý. ý I I I I I,ý ý%ý:.1 a. I -:, " ý' I ", - ý'ý -,ý.,.ý, ý.,. ý... I 1.ý. I.. - I.,..,, ý: ".ý ý I - I " - I ""'...-,.",, -..,ý 11. ý,.;;,,,,.. I. I - _. p,. ý ý I I, I.,.,. ý. -; ý -.11 I - " ý,' -,,,., -,..,, 1. ý., ý, - '!, - " ",,.". -,,-,:. _.. ý. ý -.. I I I,, ". I ý p I..,..,__,_ I.,. - 4,.,.,.1..- ý. ". I ý ý ý _` I ý I - I,ý ý,.-I I, ý - 1. I,.., I. ý _-, -,.ý I, I. I I. I.1 ý I,, " I ý I.. I - I,,,, *,`ý, ý * -*. I ý I I.. I I:: I. I I I. ý - I ý I I.ý ý, ý, ",, ý -ý,-,, " *... I ý I. I,,.,-, -,..,, I ':,, - I. ý..., ý,...* ý - I " I,; 1. 1,.. I I.,, -. I,.. 1,, ý 4_ ý-, I I,ý.. I ý. - " ':,,,, 'j".,l;ý,ý-fl,,. - ý;,,.- '- ýy "ý,, - I I... ý ':, 1, -, I: 17'ý: ý ýý I. I ý I I. ý41. ý ýý "I %. -, ` I ý ý,: ý, I I.ý _ý I ý -1:.-,ýl ý. I", ý I,. ý I I, -,. ý,. ý -.. ý p, ",;",ý.'. I.I I ý - ý I,, I ': I,.. I,,, -ý " ý "ý, ý ý I I -,., I I. ý I "; - ý-, ý'ý'ir. ': ý ",, "'.,.. ý - -,A; ý ý I '. " ý - I ý I., ý. - I I,. ý ý.. ý ý 1, I. ýl '. I I -; I ý,., ý I I. "ý,ýl ': ýl.. -1 - ý - r. - - ý ý, " ý.. 1. I-',,ý,.,%ý.-' -. I ýý ý.. 1..1ý, I ý ý - -7 '::.: ".,.,ý I `,-ý.ý,,;,ý,,,ýy3k, I Iv,, -,2,r_,l,- I,;,,ý V. ý I I,,, ", I., ý I.. ý 1ý,,, ý. - I. - ý.,.- ý. - ý I.. I ý I - ý,. I,-,, ý,._, ý. _ý ý I 11 '_" 'i -'ý'A,., I ý '. ý. -, I - I al., ': 'I,:,,.:,. I I ýl - ý. 1 I I I., -,.. " ýe ý - "I I ",.ý.. %A-,,V;,7l.,.,- ý-ý. -11 " -Z, *,ý,),-ý--,,'--%',- ý,:ý.ý- ý ý., __ I..ý. I:,, '': " 'ýý ".ý_ A. I ý, " ý1 -,, - --, -1 I. _,.; ý W'M ý ý I ",,,ýý_.;", 'f", '. I -,ý.x. ý.%. 1: ý, I 1 t4v', - - A "'k-,t.-,:ý.,,, ý, ýý-_-'l, -ý -% ý.- ý. ýl. ýl _, -, '.. _,ý - ý,ý.. ", -, ý,'l ý: I. _:,,..,,4 / I..ý.,;:ýý 'ý,ý,l -, I ýt.ý ý;PýtX,--Z-,:-,j,ýý '-ý.ý.,_ I. ý ý I., - _ " - ý,... '.:,ý_ ý - " - - ",, ý,,,;, iV, -, ý- --,. I ý: z, I.. -, ý, ýý_, 1, 1.ýý -,..ý:, 1ý.,, ý,.,n I % I.. ý7 I 11 ý. I-,., ý eý 11 1; I. I - - " I '...,: '' r.",.ý, I.".,. - ", ` -- -.;, ":", - ".,- ` -,'.-',,, -,,.;., ý I I ý,,,, I I:.,_ 1: " ý,_.-,-,: ý: ý,.';ý,ý; " ý;,,,..:;ý I _. i I.. ýý,, ý ".1 i ý, I -; fý, -,., A.,,,ý-.. "'.., ý i- j ý'. ý iM P, 514;ý-ý,ý.,,ýý-"ý-'-', -:-, ý,.,ý-:` - " ý.'. ------, ", -'ý-'-;.., --,,ý__.._ -, I,, '.. _-,ý -1,11 "..",, 1ý.1,.,.ý,N&ýý.,,ý ý%rý_M s `; ' N' ' X.A 1. ý ý -.i ý i. -41 ", I.,ýz I "A -ýý - -ý-,ý,.-,;:,;"-'-.'-:-.I,'.ý I ý_ llý_.,,, t,,, ll.-ý"A l'.-W ý..ý I ý.,,,, ` ".,ý,,, "I, - 11,11 I ý,,. -jk -. -ý,,'- ý,, I I I I,ý I ý I ý.., 11 "'N " ý - ".., -ý.ý'ýý % -'ý,,,ý..." - I _--. -,ýn -7"., 'I -K 'ý,,,. ý, ý I '.1, 11 - -.;ýv 't i.11'.. I I ý I; ý ý. ý, J*,"ý- - " I ýZ., ý.. "ý -ý,,ý,ý,,,ýý - ý -f,-,,. ýc - I -, - ý,.M ý ý I, "-:,, ý,.. * W ",,, ýA l,ý,',ý ý'-.,;-ý- -.ý.1 I ý '.,ý.,ý--:--,.11 I 1: ý. -_-;' `ý ý - - jl o6ýý,;*,. _ ýý_.,..ý.,;4, N'Olki'vc,_i-io,ýk ý_,,.,I'.,,ý, " -.) 1, I. - N.I.-I'R Iý, ",. I.-,v'.., ý -,,.,, I - ` " ý,,- I I. - ".._`-, -ý - -%,,,ýý_'ýZj,-,,..;ý- I ý,..." I. I, 1, ý?ý.. " ý 1,,ý,ýý-,ý%, ýý<.;ýtox,ý,., i?,,,, ýý,,ý,17-;ýP'.N - A-;.ýz ý,., n'R.Xx 1. I ý. L,,ý, W'ýl ". " - - I. 1. J _ý -, K, `. ý ý,.;.1 1`-ý,,, _.11 - I,, ý,, ý - 11,, ' _.,,, ý.V 0,.X,. ýý,_ll.,-.,,, ý ý. 1. - -1,ý I ý;, '.' ý " ý:4.111,...,ýý ý,ý,ýý,-ý-le-",-*,,ý,,,'týiýý",ýýkt __ I -, - I,,. ý,ý ý ý -,,,. -, ý I,- _ý;,ýý,,,.ý ",,, 'v - -.; -, ý, - " I 4..,ý - -,, I -ýý*4r.,;ý,; -;.14 - I I, I, ý " ý - s T" Ký11111;tT;*,W.lý ý -, -,, I ý _ " ",;ý I - ýý,.,. I - I 'v -..,,ll',l, 1. ý " Jý,-' " -.. - _7!ýý,ý ý ý' '. ý,ýý,.:ýl '-,:, ý,%-ýz.,ý ý,,ý-;,%Zý -;,ý, --F!ýNpý_e - " -- - -, _w I,ýNf 1 Wýl, rl. -)6',V',.V".,ý - N; t'-'.ýý- " -.ýý ýfz,ý - 1-lv, -,,,,P -,;, -ýV.1, -...,3C, ý ".1 -,, ý.1, ýý l, _. I.." ý I.ýý,,, ý.,ý,;ý" ý ý " -_, ý I I -, '. ` - I- I jl "'. ý,,., "A l *-_lV.l,,,.?ý, _ý..,,ý,ý ",ý., ", - ý.... JL..,.ý t,\- i.,, -, ":,.,,,x I ý - ý1ý111 -- ý:.ý -, I I jv,--N-.ý.\ --,," _ýý _.ý ý,cax, 1.ý- I,,. I I ", - -f%,ýý:ý.,.,ý; "ý ý, It. - ý. -,ý, ", ý.. I - I ý,., " I I, ý1, 1ý1'1 'ý'_'ý.. I I 'ýW -., -" - -, I 'ý.. -, '. -ý - -ze'; "',-.0 N", - ý'ýý',ý-,,, - -0 i ', lo* -ýýý.- ','!ýý"1".",..ýý2;--.,, of, ".,ýý_- '_,ý,ý,.- *:..,ý - -11ý--,, -,ý ",, <ý I ('--;ý ";N:ý;- ý,.%'t,' i; ýX`4,,ý *ký I.-- ý, -,ý, - - '',ý6:.4,ýý, ý., -,ý.-.',-' -.. I ft I,... I I I - - ý I. ý-,--*ý.', ý:ý':,ý',. I ý f,ý- ýý ýýr'ý- -_'M I, ýK41, ýý___, ý, ý- - " I - V,, - -ý -ýi';ý.," -,ýý,' - - ý Xli -. - " ý. -, I., llll"ý 1. I 1.:- - - - " - _; ' _' ' -. - I ý..2'.A.-L-V,^ ";-il;.,ý:ýl M, W4ý -'ýV- x )ýlg ""g.;. - I--_ _-.ý- ý - "'ý ý -., I., '-ý I,ý,:',-k.'.ý - ýý -,'.ký 1?ý.., -, 'A,.; I fý- 1 >.,ý. Y _`ý%"-ý *ý 11 I I. - I, I ý ýý_ ý, ''I.ý I ý.;)ý,, I ý.2 '-ýi>rz, I k? I I, I -_- -,',- ýb,., ý *,)O ý I - ýý,,,,,. p.,v - " I i I * - ".-,. - ý Ci,,,,'tý,, I- - ý -I, I I ý f, 4%, - ýý;ýý... I -.., I 1,. I: I ý ý -,. I I.. I ý -,,..1 I I -ý ý1.,. ".:''. I I.-. I. I.. 1:.,. -. I.,. I. I I ý I I I.1 I -.: %ý - ý. ý I.. - - I.. - ýt. I. - I P I I I,. - I - 11 ý.. 1... I -. I - ý. I I -. ý I I I. I I. I. I... I I I I ý I. I I I. -... ý I '. I. I I I. ý I I... ý ý I. I ý. ý I -. I I I. ý ý I I I ý ý I I I. I ý Iý ý ý I. I I I I-.. I. I 1 1 ý. I. I. I. I ý.. ý I... I I. I ý I. I.. I. I. ý - ý ý I I ý I I I I. I. 11 I ý I. I. I I. I ý I I ý I.,.. I I. ý I.. I. I I. I. ý, I I I. I. ý I I I ý I I I I I I ý.. ý I I I I It ý I. ý I ý. ý.... I ý I 11 I I. ý. I I I I I I I. I. ý. I. I - ý. ý I.. 11 I I I I 1. ý. ý.... ý I I. ý.: I I I ý l I. I ý. I.. - ý.. I ý ý ý I,... -,,.. I I I.. I I ý.ý I. I.,.. I ý I,ý -. I ý. ý - I- I I ý ý I.. I ý. ý.. ý. ý ý I. ý -.. ýý ý I ý ý. 1 I. I I. ý: I I I -. ý -,. I., '- ý I ". I. 1. I... ý.ý; ý- ý.,, ý -.. I.. I I. - I I I I I I -. ý %,,,.. ý: I. - ý I I I. -1ý ýl I. - I: ý,, ý I... 1: ý., I, i. 1,:,,:- ý,ýý, '. ý * q,ý,.,,. j -.,.. I - ý. I.. ý. I..... ",*:., I., I, ý I ýý, ý ý... I. - I ý I - - - ý ý -, '.ý: ý,.. I I ý ý.. ý ý ý I ý I.1 I., ý I I.- - I -. ý ý - ý,,.,.., - 1,. I. -. ý, I ý,ý 1ý.,.., I I.1, I,.. I -. ý I I... - I.... - ý I -.. I ý 11.1 I. ý', ý ý ý. ý.::.. ý I ý ýý,ý-, ý, ",.. ý ýl I.. I ".. ý. I, ", -.1 I,.: -. I -. "....;, I ý - - - *,, ý ý. -: *,,: - -., - ý I 1..11. ý I I, ý I - I. -..- ý -.,, i,,ý - I, I I...,. ý -..,,. I -1. ý, I W -ý. I ý ý. ý, ý ý.,,,. ". -,ý I, x I ý. ý. - I -. ýý ýý;,,,.,,. I,.T:,. '. I 1. I f I.. I,- I.. 1. %. ý..,., ý. 1. -. -, ý -,;,,ý,,.:;. i.-., -. -... ý:.ý -. I ý. I I. I. ý.:, -:., " ý I I ý.. -, '.. ý ý I... I. ý ý I k ý.. -: ý.1 I - I I -., - ", I, - I:. ý,.. ý ý ý ý. ý ý - I, ". I I, I I ý. I,,..., I.. I, ý.,. ý I I.., m " I. I, - 1. ý d- ý4. ý'.ýl, I. I. I -. ý. '.. I ý.. I I.. ý - I.. ý ý I, I I I. I -ý,.; I I I, 1., I, -; -.. I I.... I I, I.,ý: I I. I ý -1.,,.7,..,, I '.; ý,:., I..; - - ý... -:. -. I - I ý I,.. I, I I I ý ý I ý,. -. I I I:ý ý,,..::.,.,ý I - I:,: " ý ý ý ý I I: - " ý: 1.,,, - - - I. ý ý I I.,.. ý-.., -, I., ý ý - ý " ý ý I I I I I,, I I ý ý ý I I I - I ý., I I I ý I. I I I".ý, ý ý ý- ý- I,- I - I: I I I.. 11 I-,, '. - I. I r.., I ý., ý. I I. I I I ý'. -..Iý:. I - -. ýr "I I I. I I I I ý ý ý....,. I- I,,, I I I..;,... I. I ý... I ý -1.,..:.,. - I, ý,ý.% ý ý,: ý. -. I' ý I 11 I. ý I.,. I ý " I.. -., -. ý. I -.,, I.,,ý.. I,. ý I I I I., "., ý - -., I I I I - ý, ý:- -, ý`,,- - - ý I ý. ý.,ý ý I,., - I I, ý I ý' ",,,, ý,, ý ý. I ý.,,- -, -, LI, I ý. I ý,,.1.. I I I,.. ý -. I I I - I.,.,::, I " -1 -. I, ý I.: I I 11.,ýý:I,.,, -, I % I I - I. I 1. --, I. 11. I ý. " -. I I. I. ý: I. ý. ý ý.. %,,,. - -, I ý I. I I,,. ",,.. ý,,,... I. I.:,.- t I ýl I,. ý -. ".. ý.;ý ý,,,, e 1, I ý,ý, I,ý:.,.. ý. I., ý. I - I. I -, ý., ý, "; ý-l. ý -: ý,., ý ý. - I I I. ýý,., I, " -,,, I I,. -. - -. I ý -,, ',-,., *. I ý, I. ý I I -. -l., - * ý ý. - ý, I-..,,. - I 1,.. - ý -.., ý I. -1 I., ý---,ý!5,;,!.:..... 1. ý I ý, ý,,ý,: - ý I... ý. ý. I "I I,.., ý I -, ý, ý I,. I k -., ý.,. ý I. I I ý ý -.,:-,* I.". 1,,. ý:.:- ý: ý -. ":, z, ý I ý.. I, I I I I.. ý I, I ý ý I. I I I 1,.1.1 ý '., - I, ý,,,, i e I I I. I I -, ':.. ý..,ý I-. I I I ý ý,. ý -... -,.,,,,, ý I I I ý I I I ý. ý I I. ý.,,, ý-:,,,ý, ý I I. I ý. ý, ý ý ý,,. I ý ý -., I,, I - ý, -, -ý - ý ý. '.'"... I ý. I, -. ý. ý ý,.. I -, I I.. I,.,,,,,,, -,.,, w,,, I ý, I.. I. ý I I - I.,, -, ",.. -. - ý.,,...-ý ý, -:. - ý ý...,,,,, ý,,. " '. ý,,, I, I. I:.1-,:., ':, I. - I. ý.: " e. t: mlý, I ý ý I,,., -. ",.1 1: ý.,, I I. I I,., ý ý,.ý ý:,:. ý; I I. 11 I: ý - I - I ý ", ý, e, I. I., ý I I.,. - -, ý. -: '. - -- ý ý- ý 0% -,.; ý " ý - - I ý ý1. - I I ý.. - ý ý I ý I I ý:,ý. -1 ý,. I I I -- -, ý,,,,..,,., 'i I I ý. ý ý I I I I.. ý I " I I ý, I,,!". -, - ý. ý I,.... I, ý,,.. -: ý I..:, - ý I ý I... I I I I I. - I I. I'- I I 1. I -,,. I I I, ý.. -,, ';ý... -,, ý I I ý. I, ý I., - ý., ý-, ý, -. -, ý,ý 1-ý,; " ý.,, " ý,,;ý, -e. -.,7t.- 1 ý.... I 1ý.,,ý,,. lll.ý.,. - I. - I. I.... - I I I I - ý,. ý ý.-. ý I ý, ý, v,,. I,. I ý. I..,ý,. -, ý:, ", ý * ýý,>,, -,,ý,, '. I- I - 't I ý, ýl ý ýl, ý, -,.,,- I.,. -. I ý,. - -.... ý,,, ý, -.1 - I,.,. ý.ýý -,.. - ý.. ýý I, ý, I ý ý - - * ý *,e ý,,` ý-,:,O,..1 -- - -,..;,ý?, ý -ý,., - ý,: ý,l % -,, ":,,,-..:,, " - I I I,,. ý- ý I I. ý. I ý,,;:1 I - ý ý. I ".,. I I I ý I I, - 1. I."..... '- 2-, - ý ".., - - '.:,, -, ý ý I. -.,, ý -, ý ý, I,, I:l.. I,., ý ý - -.. ý.,ý - I ý... I ý I,ý I. I I ý ý I.. I 1, I ý, ý. I;., - ý ýý- I, ý 1 -1.., -ý' I I.., 11 ý;..":.,, I,.. ý, I..,ý_.ý%.'l,.,.".. I.-., --,.,,., " - ý.., ý ",. I I ý ý ", ý. ", ý,.. I ý.1 - I ý,. ý,,, I, I..,, -,:ý, ", - -..-,,-,-, - I.. ý1',. - I.:. - ý., - I, -, ý -- I -.,,-:.,. I I. I I ý. I ý. I I ýl.. -..... ".,,ý",;,;ýe-, -I-, I ".. -,. ý,,',-,! ý. ". ý I. ý. -.,:."',ý,. ý ý,.. - It I.. ý...... -. ý, ý,, ý ý t. ý,,-!,,ý,.., ý, -.. ý.., ý ý,;-, " ý,:"-- ", ý,...,,. ý., I. - -,., I I I.1 ý ý. - ý ý, ý; d.. -., -'ý.ý,--ý'!%'ý-.' I. I. ý I *,;ý -. ý.. I I ý...,. ýl - I - I -7, ý -,, -,.' r, 1ý; -,., h.:ý,. ý, ý. ý,.,., - ý'-, ý,, -'.. -,%,., ý-, "., I " -, -,, - ý -,,'., -.ý., ) ", ý -'I'Zý. - '...%,':,.ý I ý, ý. ý'.. I. ý,. ý I ". -- "', - ý,. ý - ýý- /-:,*,, I -.,.,. ý - -,,, -ý,-,,, -, -.. - - - ", -. I. 11 ".,-.,, -,ý ý -;." -. W ý, ý1, 1, I., t 4 ý -.1 I ý:. I ý,t'-., -,,,,.,., I I ý - I, ýý., - I ", - 11 ý ý,.., ý..ý,, ý,, ý.,. ý, - '.,4. -.-, -,',, I,. ".!,,,, ': " ý '.,...,. ý.. ý.ýý - - I I,, I ý - ý, -,.1ý - -,ý I I ý ý,.,,ý ", - ý,,,...1 I 3" ý, I I ý I I.,,. I,-.,,. I,,,, ý,,.:,,, ý, ý...,,, ý -., -., - I -. I I,, -, --;ý ý. - ý -, -. ý,%- I - 'l-I'l.,,ý, - I I - - ý-ý,,,ý,,.', I,, ý.,,ýý,. 1ýý 1, - I I.ý ý I.ýý'., ý-;ý;".- I,ý,?, ýý, -.,ý-, ý, - fl, ý -, -, '. - " ý I ý, - -, ý ý,, -, - ý, ý,, ý,,, I -. " 1ý 1.,., -ý, - -, ", ý ", 'd,. ý. -;l -,, ý, -.,..,;_....ý. - -'I '., -,, ", -.1... ý.1.,., ýý,ý, ý,,; ":., - '. ý. ý ":,., I,.., I.,,.. ". ý,.,,,., '', - -- $1 I -ý, - ý ýýl - ': -, ý ý,, 11.,,, ý I., ý -,., -,,,.:,, I I ý li ",,. I ý,,,: ýZý.- *-ý`ý ',ý -,, I,,,,,,,; 4,17;1;,ý- - -;, -' - -, ý - I I ý., ý, ý, ý.,. I I 11 I.,. -1 - _.., - I, "..,,, l,",- ý " - ý,.,. " I, I I - I-.., ", ý - ý I...., ý -,, Z. I I I ý,, - I I. ",,, " -.,.,'ý'.'-'. ý " ý, -, ---.-I ý ý.,,, ': -, ý. ý.: " - ", ý,.,,,,,, I ".,, ",. ý I,,, I, ý,;ý...,, -. ý,..,,,- ':, ".\, ". 1: ýý, -. ",,,-,, ý ý,. I.'.1., -, 4 ý,,,. ý: I,:, '. ý- ".- " ý, ---,ý - '.l*.i'-l.,-,ý,,ý:,, ý,,,,, -.ý.. -I;,,,,,ý. - -..,ý,,. I I. ý: -,,ý -,--ý- ",-- -, I -1.1.,ý, ý, I ý. - ý,_',ý ý, - " " I -,,,.. ý,,ýrý -) -,ý-.:.,ý%.,.ý - b. I,,,, - - ý, -,,,. - ý-'l., ýý ý I',--.111. ýý,.t.;;.--.eýl t,,-;,ý'ý,, ý-,,',,'%.,:ý 4 ý -, - - ý,:., - ý, ý,,. - ". ý,: ":.. I I,,ý, I ý., I "'",. '_., -,,, - I, ý..., -, I I ý. ý I I.., -,, - -,::,,. ". " - ý. - -.,;,*,ý', -` -,- -1. - 4,.ý, ý',:, "a,.,,',--, I ".ýý,- 1ý* ",ý;, ý, ý!., -,' * -,:, 1ý ",, --ý, 1. ý,, ý,,..%,.%,. ý, -. -,,, ý,,,, *,,-.,, t -.., I, ý.,, ý -, 'A ý ý.', I "6 Z,,,, I.-,,,, '11, I,ý,! --"-,- ".,- I.,, -,, '(,ý -. r ý -, ý 11, I -..., ý;.l,, 1,ý - - - ý4,,:,ý.., 'f, 'Z- - -, "', -,.,,,,,ýr, ý-;, ýý., % ",, I. ýý.., 'I,,,,, ý',;,ý,,,, ý.,, I,, I!,.11,,,- ", '. " - ý,:, - ".;,ý'.. ý., -.,,ý -,,.,,,,.ý "". L., ý ý -.:,,-, ". -,,,.", ý'.,- ý ý I - -,, - ý, - -, ý.", --,ýYo I.1. -ý,ýý., ", ý. ý. - ýý, e,ý,t.-.--', ýký.ý,,,:, "....ý.ýý- ý., - - ý., ý -;,',- ýý','%.ý -<,. "I I' ý -,-, - - ý ".. I -..,,, ýr-,,,,,. - ý.,,.,, - 1, ý'.;,ý ýý -ý-,:;,, ', -..,,, -:,.z.., m., I ý..,. I." t.ý -.!;;.o, -..7-.."'. -ý ý, -,,,,,z I" - " 1ý,ý -,, - I I ",,,--"'-.,--.:: ý,,., ",ý- ý ý ".`ý', - I "' -l'...1'ý,ý,. ',, "" ý, -, ýl - ý -;;,ý: '' ý".ý ý I.1,.. -V \ýZ,'- Nj'ý,.,-;,:, ý."'.11, - -.,*, ý -, 4,, ý,, 1, - ýý.', I I I 'ý-% I -...-.., - ý ". I. - I'll, - ý ý.. 11, I., I -.. I. 1ý- ý,.,ý,l, I - -;", ",.,. I.,-":- ý - ý '., ý, ýl I,. -, ". -,ý " ý, C,. I " -. ý,,Iyý,ý:ýý ','ýý,L 5M.- ýý.,-'ý',"i"ý, ýv,--oý-. --"., - -, ý -,,ý,"-'- " -,, ý ý ý ý,,.1,,, " ý, ý,-.-.,;ýýl.,I',.. ý,,,. I ý;, -ý,,. -.,. ý - I.;ý -::..,. iký,,,ýý,-A-11ýil ", -:x ý,. 1--ý,,,., ý,.,,, -,ýr ';. 'Zý"Zýý"; ';ýl el--7"ý ý-- eý: '-*t,, - -,ým-, - - - -ý 1ý1, -ýý,ýý - - --ý,- ý,,.ý& - -- -,!;ý- - ý".,l.-ý,., 'ý. tý ýl ýý', -ý",',.- ',,:ýýý. 1,., - - I -.1- ý!ý,.. ".,. I ".,.. -, -,,.,.- - -ý " '.,. ýý, Z,' ý ý,. ---,ý!ý-_", ý,,. I I,, ý ý,;:. 11 - - ý - I.:ýý 1w. 1, - I ",.,.,ý;,,.;ý:- - '..ýrý. ý,., ý. - -, -, - '.o,-,-,'-. -, -ýý.I. 1 1 -,,, -, " ýl ý,",,ý. I,., - i..,- ý, w ý'."ý " - '. %, " ý,ý ý 1. -ý,. ý I 1: q. I ýý,' -ý,-."--,_ý;..ý,ý.-I'l-, I, ý,,P --.-- 1. - - 'il.-- -, '..'' ý,. I ý. ý. - I I I 1. -.-II.-I ý,,ýý*-,ý;,ý.,ý t,-ý,,, ýl I,;,ý --n,`ýý- -.,ý,ý<,' N,, -ý- ý - '', I, I -%l5g.e,,,,-. ý, 'ý;, ý " ý ý-,ýý. Lý ý:,eN-ý I -1 -.-" x,.,;,,ý,,*,ý!. " "..",--l-,, -'ý ý ý,.,,.) -1, - ý I -. -, -,A-,----Y,ý- W,,,,Y ",;ý;-IAZ.-"ý." ýý,.,ý,.., ýc lie, -.,,-ý:-;-,-,ý:ý,,--, -,ý ý 'A Z! 155 ---..,.-/-,ýý -- ''ý-4, - ".,., ý,. " -.14 - 1, ý, ý -,--, -,,--,',,.,, - -ý-! ý N. -., ý- * I ý. I ý;, f.-f R, -It -A ý_..,'ý;,'ý,, t C C ý?A ýý iý,-_ý,',,'-.";,*ý;ýý.-,ý,ý,;,ýý, 2-ý ', - ý - I ý -- ý ý!ý. -- " - - -1. 11 ", ýl ýýý.ý -. -, ý. Z,,,ý,ý ý -.ý, I, ý, " -,.,, -,--:%ýy--,ý --,- ". 1-11, -.,ý.,ýe,,:ý, ý01 -, "ý. - - " -- ý -., _:. I 1.,. -,ý.-I'-,-.ý --t ý'-'Zl,'*!'ý ý- - -.. - - -, ". ý - -. I ý.-.,, - I ý -, ý ý f,, " ý -gýý-i ý,. ý' A r. ý-'l ý, I 1, -t, -,.. '?', Me I,, 4ý --aý- ý I - ý,ý. -, ý; ý,-,, -,,",, "- -, " - I I I, ý I", I-.; i- I- 1, - -,-.. -,.,.ý ý -, - I - I ý ý.,ý-,.,,, - -- - tý,,, -,,,., - - % -'!- ýý..- I Nt., -- - 11 -1-- -1 I,, -.1111 -, ` - -, "14ý,ý..-ý,,Iý ' ",. " -1 " ý,- '17 1,, ", ýl,,ý. ýý.4 -ý.,. ýW,:,.,,ý,ý.,,,.",:.-ý',,ý-;,ýI."ýý"-,..,Il.ý 'ý,,,-- '-,, 1.ý I -. I,, I.,.,'.,-:-,.ý - ý ýI - -,,.. I '.. '.ý,,,;, -, -, vv:ý.., ý - I. -:ý, - ý lw r ý.ý 4ýý,ý, -ý -."-,I, -1 - -,,%ý -,,S-Iýýi;ý, I!,.",e,,,, - -, ý -.. ý,;ý l - ý,4.tý,ýý,ýý,,ý -ý...ý --- ýý.I,.,: ý ý. - I - I.,. iý,,...., - IT'ý, X.ýZ, I ýý'l R -;.ý,. ý..,:, ---ý,%4;ý. ý,, v,,". -., I - - r; z,;ý-,ý,,-. -,,ýý,,' -ýI, v - 'A ",-,* ý-..! -,ý,.,-- -:ý, ý.- 11", ý,., z ý- - ", ý ý,'ý, -,. 1-.,,, ý, ". -,, 4, ý - -, ý.- ý"., IE-',-., r--;,.1.111ý - 1 'ýý,.ý-.1-1-:l'-A-v.ý_,-,.,. " - - ýý-,_, ý,---- -- -. I.. I - I - ". %, 1.,,-,X ý ý ý,ý.. ý --ý, -1.,,,ý,,., W!;ý ý -," ý 1ý1 - -,- iv:;ý ao,;,ý,',ýfl&t.',ý.--,-,,,;.,'.ý',iý ý - -. ý I I- - -,. -,- ý;P.. "Iýý ýý -lýýýý ýý,;ýýý,,,ýý".,.-:ý.,-kt,ý,;,,,ý,ýý-,.ý ý, ý., ý ý. - -- ý, ''o,, -- - -.11. - N, llý, -ý -,,., 1. 1,.. - ý " ý '. "r, ý,,ý ".,. -,ý. ý --.-,,--, ýY,,: r.- -,.ý'kýýZt ý,, '4.- %,ý- -,, --' - ý, -,,f., - a 1-:-,;', -,. -,, -;v,,ý.;;ý, W-.,,, f" '. I I.;:,.,. - v - ljý &111 ý.,,,ý 1. I ";ý 1. goc "7k - 1 -I?ý '. -,-',ý,"". - -;".1 ý --,t,.'-'w ý - - -ý. ýý,-."-,."".,..ýl -.,."ýý.,'ýA -,ý--,,, -,,,,,f - --!o- -&ý'l - iý,,--,.., - -,_.- ý.,ý-,--,-, ý, '-,ý'ý:ý,ý.,-ý " '.. -, ý- -1, - ý,.,r. ý I. ": ",ý,W--wl,-,ýAý,ý -, - - ý- -,ý -, - 2 L -,. "..,., ý,,-ýg g.., I I:, I.1. I.. ý c: ý ",.ý ý.,-". '(,ý,ý ý k ýl. I. -.`,";, -ýý,,ý,,,'. ý" -, ý ý1ý6W R, - I I I ý -. I - ý,,,`,,,ý, ý, I -, -.ýý--ýýVwv:50 "No - ýk- - 1,,ý om. -.. I, -::, ý.-:,ý-.",Sr:ý,rr,ý,,,, '': ". I I %.. ý, - I. ý'..1 - 'I-, - " " --ý,U N ý. ý, I I 11.. -wx. 4,- -- ý -..ý - - I. -ý ý, - IANýýTl - ýj,,- ý ý,,ý;;r-7-7111Aýwl I -ý -1-.--.-)...5, --,;-e. A,";ý,.ý,ý,,-." -. ý,::.,..,. ý.. 1. ý W llý,Iýl I. I z 1:- -",-,A -,-_'ýý',ý'ýý',-, ý.ý. y:3,, I ý I ý ý - -,,,,.,-,- -F ", - ýý -,ý N11 I I.:, ýVý.. 1,. I I ýq, s... 1. ý -,ý -ýý,-ý.-,- 1.05p. A,--,",\,.;,. ",.ý "' - -'I W- IF,.cý a-';O.lr.1. ý,,,ý. - I. ý.--.-,-ýý,,,ýý"-.,r -ý N',k','-' - - 11. ý. ý.. - -- 1-1 - ý,, ý:kv. - I,.,.-'-ý:ý,ý--, ý ý.. I ý. I., "li"ý,ý,,;,Y,ý, ý-,f ý..,. ý I " - I ý. ý -,.. -.,, -o-.. m-, ý: -. ll, - - 1, 5;1 -,-, -NI ýý - ".1. I I.1 I I ý ", - I ý ý',I, ", ý.: - -- -',. ý,)C7! fýw ýe - -.-,- ----,.,;.`,lý,- ý -, N., R \. I.,ýý.ý;,!ý - 4 I - %ý I I ý I ",,.11 I I ý, 'N".ý ý Zý ý.1 V V49 N ~ ~ A! Nt ME ~~-,:- - 1837 z:'.': RTZscl A Ri~i~n r 5: S CIENTIAl7S: Z FjiTA S law am. 11 MIS R'S'PO(INS IRCUMSFIG 1TRY- Joý' REGI OF NEW ONAL SURVEY YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS VOLUME V PUBLIC RECREATION NATURE AND DEMOCRACY "Democracy most of all affiliates with the open air, is sunny and hardy and sane only with Nature-just as much as Art is. Something is required to temper both-to check them, restrain them from excess, morbidity. I have wanted, before departure, to bear special testimony to a very old lesson and requisite. American Democracy, in its myriad personalities, in factories, work-shops, stores, offices -through the dense streets and houses of cities, and all their manifold sophisticated life-must either be fibred, vitalized, by regular contact with out-door light and air and growths, farm-scenes, animals, fields, trees, birds, sun-warmth and free skies, or it will morbidly dwindle and pale. We cannot have grand races of mechanics, work people, and commonalty (the only specific purpose of America) on any less terms. I conceive of no flourishing and heroic elements of Democracy in the United States, or of Democracy m.aintaining itself at will, without the Nature-element forming a main partto be its health-element and beauty-element-to really underlie the whole politics, sanity, religion and art of the New World." From AUTOBIOGRAPHIA of Walt Whitman Courtesy, Palisades Interstate Park Commission RIVER APPROACH To BEAR MOUNTAIN PARK PUBLIC RECREATION A STUDY of PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS and OTHER OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES REGIONAL SURVEY * VOLUME V LEE P.'HANMER Director, Department of Recreation Russell Sage Foundation In collaboration with THOMAS ADAMS FREDERICK W. LOEDE, JR. CHARLES J. STOREY FRANK B. WILLIAMS NEW YORK REGIONAL PLAN OF NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS 1928 REGIONAL PLAN OF NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS Committee FREDERIC A. DELANO, Chairman ROBERT W. DE FOREST JOHN H. FINLEY JOHN M. GLENN HENRY JAMES GEORGE MCANENY DWIGHT W. MORROW FRANK L. POLK FREDERIC B. PRATT LAWSON PURDY General Director of Plans and Surveys THOMAS ADAMS SOCIAL DIVISION SHELBY M. HARRISON, Director Recreation Studies LEE F. HANMER CLARENCE A. PERRY CHARLES J. STOREY Consultant on Parks and Parkways FREDERICK W. LOEDE, JR. f.jegal Consultants EDWARD M. BASSETT FRANK B. WILLIAMS Copyright, 1928 COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL PLAN OF NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRQNS k 2Z-/a d' FOREWORD OPPORTUNITY for recreation has come to be regarded as one of the necessities of life. Play, especially in the open air, and other re-creative activities are potent influences having both negative and positive aspects. We know that wholesome play acts as a preventive of delinquency and of other misuses of time and energy; and we know also that it is a great educator physically, mentally and morally. It promotes health and, along with other leisure-time activities, aids toward a fuller development of well-rounded personality. These are conclusions regarding which there is at present little if any disagreement; they have come to be accepted as practically axiomatic-certainly with reference to children and young people living in cities-and as a result facilities for recreation, like school buildings and grounds, are being recognized more and more as essential parts of the public machinery of a well-equipped modern community. People insist on having them for their children, and they want them also for themselves; they accordingly give preference, as far as they find it possible, to localities where these wants are provided for. This study proceeded with these basic assumptions as a starting point. It was believed no longer necessary to bring forward evidence showing the social and public importance of providing for parks, playgrounds, athletic fields, public beaches and other breathing and play spaces. The study therefore took up at once the important and very practical question which comes next, namely: What are the recreation needs of the New York Region, and how can they be met? What is needed in the older parts of the Region where population density is the greatest and open space the most difficult to secure, and what in the more sparsely-settled parts where the uses to which the land is put are more easily changed? It was seen, however, that consideration of this general question could be given more satisfactorily if it were broken up into its more important parts. That is to say, in order to deal with present and future recreation needs of this Region, it would be helpful to get as much light as possible upon such questions as the following: What kinds or types of recreation space are required for a Region such as this? How much of each type is needed? How should they be distributed? How much of each do we now have, where is it located, and how used? How much more is required and what are the present opportunities for securing additional areas? What legal questions are involved in securing such areas (including waterfront space), and how can they be dealt with best? It is to these questions that the present study has been addressed. While the responsibility in this unit of the Plan's investigations has fallen chiefly upon Mr. Lee F. Hanmer, who has been in charge of the Recreation Section of the Social Division, it has greatly profited by the cooperation, assistance, and points of view brought to bear upon it by members of other divisions of the Regional Staff. Mr. Charles J. Storey, also of the Recreation Section, assisted throughout the study, his responsibility being mainly field work in investigating present conditions and needs. Mr. Frederick W. Loede, Jr., of the Engineering Division, made an important contribution in completing the inventory of open areas throughout the Region, and he and other members of the Engineering Division assisted in the preparation of maps and drawings showing different aspects of the problem. Mr. Frank B. Williams, in association with Mr. Edward M. Bassett, both of the Legal Division, assisted by contributing the valuable chapter dealing with the legal difficulties and opportunities to be encountered in attempting to develop a more adequate system of open spaces along the waterfront throughout the Region. As the General Director of Plans and Surveys, and out of his wide experience in city and regional planning here and abroad, Mr. Thomas Adams made invaluable contributions to the study at various points in its initiation and in its later developments. His views on the relation of open spaces to city and regional planning are stated in Chapter I. Valuable suggestions and editorial assistance were given by Mr. Henry James and Mr. Foster Ware in connection with the preparation of the report for publication. The data in this volume brought together by Mr. Hanmer and Mr. Storey represent a summary of some fourteen studies made by them, each of which has been reported upon separately, in more detail, to the Office of the Plan. These include information on the uses being made of the New York waterfront; on present use of recreation piers; the recreation possibilities of islands within Greater New York; municipal and private recreation facilities in the City as shown in some twelve congested districts or neighborhoods; space required by different population units for playgrounds, athletic fields, and bathing beaches; the degree to which Manhattan, Brooklyn, and the Bronx measure up to such requirements; recreation uses made of particular areas, one of these being Central Park; and the recreation needs of parts of the Region outside New York City. It should be pointed out, however, that the present report is one of the series of survey reports and is not a planning volume: its main purpose is to present recreation conditions and needs in the Region, and, except for a few illustrative cases, it has left questions as to how and where specifically these may best be provided to be dealt with by the later volumes presenting the Plan itself. It is recognized that these questions are related to other large considerations, such as future developments in traffic and transportation facilities in the Region; future trends in the location and development of industrial and commercial districts; trends in the development of different types of residential areas; and the practical limits of public funds available for acquiring open areas. It is realized, therefore, that the best recommendations as to new recreation areas to be secured and the purposes to which they should be assigned can come only after the many related considerations are taken into account as a comprehensive plan is worked out. Hence, specific proposals for increasing the open areas in the Region for recreation purposes are reserved for the later reports presenting the Regional Plan. As the report does not deal with proposals, it omits reference to the value which would accrue to the community from the preservation of large cultivated areas as a part of its open space. Within a radius of 20 miles of New York there are, however, vast areas of land in private ownership which serve many purposes of a park system. So long as they are open and in use for cultivation, golf courses, country estates, et cetera, people enjoy certain advantages from them without actual possession of or entrance to the land. All this land is, however, potentially building land unless it has actually been acquired as public open space. It is obvious that as the city grows outward and fills up the intervening open areas between the existing urban corridors, the community will lose the advantage of this extensive open area of private lands. For this reason alone it will be necessary to acquire more public space as the city extends over wider areas, but it should simultaneously take some steps to keep large areas of open land in private ownership. This is one of the matters that will also have to be dealt with in the Plan, which will contain proposals for zoning areas.for open uses. It is briefly referred to here because of the necessary limitations of this report, which deals with actual reservations of parks and recreational areas and does not include reference to the large open areis of private property. May, 1928 SHELBY MR. HARRISON TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1.-THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION AND THE GROWTH, DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION PAGE I. THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION................................... 20 Basis of Recreation Studies for the Regional Plan.................... 21 Value of Play.................................................. 22 Requirements and Difficulties in Obtaining Space.................... 24 Space for Large Reservations and Country Parks.................... 25 Space for City Parks and Playgrounds.............................2 5) Importance of Waterfront Reservations...............26 Means of Access to and through Parks............................. 27 Street Planning and the Recreation Problem........................ 29 Street Play and Traffic.......................................... 30 Relation between Private and Public Open Spaces................... 32 Coordination and Planning for Recreation Facilities.................. 34 Summary of the Problem........................................ 35 11. GROWTH AND VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATION GROUNDS..........3 7 Early Views Regarding Parks.................................... 377 Park Growth in New York City during Past Twenty-five Years........ 38 Manhattan.................................................. 39 The Bronx................................................... 40 Manhattan and The Bronx..................................... 40 Brooklyn................................................:....40 Queens..................................................... 40 Richmond................................................... 41 All Five Boroughs............................................ 41 Park Growth in Adjoining Counties of Westchester, Essex, Hudson, and Union.................................................... 41 Westchester County........................................... 41 Essex County................................................ 42 Hudson County.............................................. 43 Union County................................................ 44 The Value of Parks and Recreation Grounds to the Community........ 45 111. DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION.........49 General Distribution and Area of Open Spaces.................49 Comparison with Other Regions and Cities.......................... 52 Distribution by Counties........................................ 52 Comparison of Distribution in Municipalities of Over 25,000 Population. 55 Extent and Location of Large Reservations and Country Parks......... 55 Park Areas in Hudson River Valley................................ 58 'Park Areas in Northern New Jersey............................... 58 Possible Uses of Morris Canal Property...............60 8 CONTENTS PART I.--THE USE, SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXTENSION OF RECREATION FACILITIES PAGE IV. USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES............. 80 Reservations and Country Parks.................................. 80 Hiking Trails and Shelters........................................ 83 Nature Trails and M useums....................................... 86 Approaches to Country Parks by Parkways and Highways............ 86 Picnic G rounds.................................................. 88 C am p Sites..................................................... 89 W aterfront Parks and Beaches.................................... 90 General Recreation Uses of the Hudson River District................94 V. USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES.................. 96 Large City Parks................................................ 96 Central Park................................................97 Prospect Park................................................... 99 Waterfront Park Lands on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.......... 99 Van Cortlandt, Pelham Bay, and Forest Parks.......................100 B ronx Park..................................................... 100 Athletic Fields and Playfields...................103 Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds.............................. 104 School Playgrounds.............................................. 106 Interior Courts as Playgrounds.................................... 106 Roof Playgrounds............................................... 107 R ecreation Piers................................................. 109 City W aterfront Parks and Beaches................................ 113 VI. SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION................................117 Space Standards in Country Parks................................. 117 Space Standards in City Parks.................................... 117 Space Requirements for Children's Playgrounds......................118 Neighborhood Parks..........................................123 Athletic Fields and Playfields...................................125 Bathing Beaches................................................. 126 Standards of Space for a City Park System........................127 Summary of Space Requirements.................................. 133 VII. WAYS OF SECURING LAND FOR RECREATION.............................134 Purchase....................................................... 134 G iftt............................................................ 135 Transfer...................................................135 Designation for Temporary Use................................... 136 Statutory Requirements for Setting Aside Playgrounds on Plats before Official Approval............................................. 137 VIII. NEED OF RECREATION SPACE AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ITS EXTENSION.. 139 Manhattan................................................... 139 The Bronx.........................139 Brooklyn.................................................. 139 CONTENTS 9 PAGE Q ueens......................................................... 140 R ichm ond...................................................... 141 Needs in the Environs........................................ 141 W aterfront Facilities.......................................... 144 Playgrounds................................................ 144 Airplane Landing Fields........................................ 145 Open Spaces and Traffic.................................... 145 Need of Cooperation............................................. 145 PART III.-SPECIAL STUDIES OF FACILITIES AND AREAS IX. FACILITIES FOR ACTIVE RECREATION IN CENTRAL PARK................. 148 Field Houses and Shelters....................................... 149 Lakes.................................................. 149 Menagerie, Buildings and Concessions.............................. 150 Traffic Regulations and Policing................................... 151 Need of Extending Playgrounds in the Park...................... 151 X. PLAYGROUND ATTENDANCE.......................................... 153 XI. PLAYGROUND ADEQUACY............................................ 157 Play Districts.................................................... 157 Percentage of Adequacy.......................................... 158 XII. CHILDREN'S PLAY IN TWELVE CONGESTED DISTRICTS................... 167 M anhattan..................................................... 167 The Bronx.................................................. 170 Brooklyn...................................................... 171 XIII. WATERFRONT USES IN NEW YORK CITY.............................. 177 M anhattan..................................................... 177 The Bronx...................................................... 177 Brooklyn and Queens............................................ 178 R ichm ond..................................................... 179 XIV. THE EAST RIVER ISLANDS AS POTENTIAL RECREATION GROUNDS........ 181 Surrounding Population........................................ 181 Advantages of Island Parks....................................... 183 Possible Types of River Parks..................................... 183 Communications................................................. 185 XV. PARKS ON LONG ISLAND-BOTH REGIONAL AND LOCAL.................. 187 The Importance of Beaches....................................... 187 Barrier Beaches off the South Shore................................ 187 Special Merits as Bathing Resorts................................. 187 Particular Locations on the Outer Beaches.......................... 189 Parks on the Northern Edge of Great South Bay.................... 190 Waterfront Parks on the North Side............................... 191 Inland Areas for Parks........................................... 191 Tax-Title Lands........................................ 192 10 CONTENTS PAGE Camp Upton................................................... 192 What Regional Parks Should Be.................................,193 Local Parks........................................ *194 Key Spots Which Should Be Preserved............................. 194 The South Side-Trend of Development....................... 194 Neglected Opportunities along the South Shore..........195 The North Side............................................ 197 Town Beaches............................................. 198 Shore Drives and Foot-Paths................................. 198 PART IV.-FORESHORE AND RIGHTS IN LAND UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS IN THE NEW YORK REGION INTRODUCTION........................................................ 200 Rights to Waterfront........................................... 200 Recreational Possibilities of Public Waterfront......................... 201 XVI. LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER........................................... 202 COLONIAL LAW................................................. 202 Importance of Waterfront for Recreation......................... 202 Access to Water Dependent upon Right to Land Under It........... 202 The Law in England........................................... 202 In This Country Law Varies in Different States...........203 CONNECTICUT LAW.................................................... 203 The Law Entirely in Court Decisions............................. 203 Title in States.............................204 Riparian Owners' Rights....................................... 204 Regulation of Riparian Rights................................... 204 NEW JERSEY LAW..................................................... 205 At Time of Revolution, State the Sole Owner............205 The Wharf Act............................................... 206 Other Acts Authorizing Grants.................................. 206 Nature of Grantees' Rights..................................... 206 Planning Power of State........................................ 208 Riparian's Rights Entirely Statutory............................. 209 Rights of Public.............................................. 210 NEW YORK LAW................................................ 211 Importance of Grants.......................................... 211 Indian Titles.................................................. 211 Dutch Titles................................................. 211 Confirmation of Dutch Grants................................... 212 English Grants........................ I....................... 212 CONTENTS 11 PAGE Rights of State.................. I........................... 217 Rights of Riparian Owner..................................... 218 Rights of Public.............................................. 219 XVII. SURVEY OF LAND UNDER WATER IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP IN THE REGION. 224 The Survey in Connecticut..................................224 The Survey in New Jersey....................................225 The Survey in New York...................................... 225 Records and Maps of Waterfront Lands..........................226 General Observations........................................ 227 TEXT REFERENCE NOTES FOR CHAPTER XVI................................ 228 APPENDIX-STATISTICAL TABLES......................................... 237 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................. 243 IN D E X............................................................... 249 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS PAGE River Approach to Bear Mountain Park........................ Frontispiece The Palisades-One of the Region's Priceless Assets.......................... 18 Maple Moor Golf Course, Westchester County Park System.................. 22 Battery Park-New York's First Waterfront Park......................... 26 Cricket Game at Van Cortlandt Park................................... 27 Part of the 95-Acre Playfield at Van Cortlandt Park........................ 28 A Cul-de-Sac in Forest Hills Gardens, New York City....................... 30 Games in the Middle of the Street...................................... 31 A Second Later a Car Goes Through...................................31 An Interior Court at Sunnyside, Borough of Queens.................... 33 Ramapo River, Bergen County, New Jersey..............................35 A Fine Example of Waterfront Improvement, Montreux, Switzerland.......... 36 When Bowling Green Was a Residential Neighborhood...................... 37 Central Park in the Vicinity of 100th Street in the Early Days................. 38 Hockey Field for Girls in Prospect Park................................40 Bronx River Parkway, Woodlawn, New York City.......................... 42 Weequahic Park, Essex County...........................................43 Cedar Brook Park, Union County-Before and After Development............ 44 Branch Brook Park-Part of the Essex County Park System................. 45 The Abandoned Morris Canal near Clifton, N. J........................ 61 Commercially Operated Fresh Water Pool at North Beach, Queens............ 70 The Playfield at Bear Mountain Park.................................... 78 Saddle River, Bergen County, New Jersey................................ 80 Playground in Branch Brook Park, Newark................................ 81 Shelter for Overnight Campers in Bear Mountain Park...................... 83 Hikers on the Trail................................................. 85 Picnic in Woodlands Park, Westchester County.......................... 88 Picnic Grove at Baisleys Pond Park, Queens......................... 89 Marking for Inspected and Approved Camp Sites............................ 89 12 12 CONTENTS PAGE Tibbetts Brook Park-Swamp Before Improvement..........................'90 Tibbetts Brook Park-Lake After Improvement............................90 Swimming Pool in Tibbetts Brook Park................................... 91 Passaic River, North Arlington, New Jersey................................ 92 Public and Private Use of the Passaic River Waterfront...................... 92 A Mile Long Artificial Lake in Bear Mountain Park......................... 93 Public Bath House, Town of Oyster Bay.................................. 93 Driveway Along Reservoir in Hempstead State Park......................... 95 A May Day Festival in Central Park................................... 96-97 One of the Large Playflelds in Prospect Park............................... 99 West 129th Street District Showing Grade Crossing Elimination............... 100 Hudson River below Fort Washington Park............................... 100 Parks Crowded Even for Winter Sports................. 1.................. 101 Some of the 300 Tennis Courts in Prospect Park........ '**...........102 Neighborhood Baseball Game at Corlear's Hook Park...........-..........103 Board of Education Athletic Field in C:rotona Park.......................... 104 Traffic Barrage in Front of Thomas Jefferson Park Playground.........105 The Vanishing Vacant Lot.............................................. 105 Backyard Playground of the John Jay Tenement, Manhattan................. 107 Emil Bommer Playground, Brooklyn...................................... 108 Folk Dancing on a Public School Roof.................................... 109 A Well-Planned Roof on a New York Department Store..................... 109 Recreation Pier at West 129th Street, Manhattan.......................... 110 Along the East River Waterfront............... I......................... 113 The "Ole Swimmin' H-ole" at West 49th Street............................ 113 Hand Ball Courts at Manhattan Beach, Commercially Operated.............. 114 One of the Many Tennis Courts at Manhattan Beach....................... 114 The Crowd on Coney Island Beach One Day in August, 1926................. 115 Saturday Morning Near a Closed School Playground........................ 119 A Modern School Playground in Use after School Hours..................... 119 Comfortable Play Space................................................ 121 A Proposed Play Building with Terraces, Gymnasium and Baths.............. 123 An Attractive Neighborhood Park-Amersfort Park, Brooklyn................ 124 Playground Entrance Made Attractive by Good Planting...........124 A Neighborhood Playfleld in a New Housing Development- Sunnyside........ 131 Neighborhood Park at Russell Gardens, Great Neck, Long Island............. 132 Where Play Space -is at a Premium in Manhattan............................ 133 Children's Playground in McKinley Park, Brooklyn........................ 138 Aerial View Showing the Brooklyn Navy Yard between the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges................................................... 140 Hackensack River, Oradell, Bergen County, New Jersey...........141 The Palisades Opposite Dyckman Street, Manhattan........................ 142 Sparkill. Creek, Piermont, Rockland County, New York...................... 143 Mahwah River near Suffern, Rockland County, New York................... 143 CONTENTS 1 13 PAGE Coasting in Central Park-One of the Many Hills.......................... 149 A Central Park Lawn Appropriated by the Children........................ 15 0 A Section of Central Park Much Used for Play............................. 150 Wading Pool in Heckscher Playground, Central Park.............152 Handball on a Street Corner............................................ 169 "Play Ball "-Thomas Jefferson Playground............................... 169 Play Environment in Sanitary District No. 194............................. 169 Basketball on a Harlem Street.......................................... 170 -The School Playground across the Street Was Closed This Saturday........... 170 Wading Pool-Betsey Head Playground, Brooklyn......................... 173 Aerial View of Long Island above Jones Inlet.............................. 188 Beach on the North Shore, Long Island................................... 191 Hemlock Beach, South Shore, Long Island................................ 192 Caril's Brook, near Babylon............................................ 193 Private Development of a Park on a Small Stream......................... 194 Barrier Beach at Montauk, Aerial View................................... 196 The Rocky Waterfront in Hither Hills State Park.......................... 198 MAPS AND DIAGRAMS FIGURE 1. Plan of a Well-Parked Recreation Block in Minneapolis.................. 23) 2. Parks, Cemeteries and Other Open Spaces in New York and Environs, 192 1..50 3. Parks, Cemeteries and Other Open Spaces in New York and Environs, 1927..51 4. Public Parks, Parkways and Open Spaces in Other Metropolitan Regions...53 5. Diagram Showing Parks and Open Spaces in New York and Its Environs, 1921 and 1927........................................................ 54 6. Public Park Provision in Communities of Over 25,000 Population in New York and Environs............................................... 56 7. Public Parks and Forest Preserves of 1,000 Acres or More in the Larger District........................................................ 57 8. Recreation Facilities in the Hudson River \Jalley, 1921 and 1927........... 59 9. Recreation Facilities in Northern New Jersey, 1927...................... 60 10. Recreation Facilities on Long Island, 1927............................ 62-63 11. Municipal Playgrounds and Athletic Space, Manhattan, 1926........64 12. Municipal Playgrounds and Athletic Space, The Bronx, 1926.............. 65 13. Municipal Playgrounds and Athletic Space, Brooklyn, 1926.........66 14. Municipal Playgrounds and Athletic Space, Queens, 1926................. 67 15. Municipal Playgrounds and Athletic Space, Richmond, 1926............... 69 16. Public Park Spaces in Comparison with Priv-%ately Owned Areas Occupied by Golf and Country Clubs in Westchester and Adjoining Counties..........7 2 17. Public Park Spaces in Comparison with Privately Owned Areas Occupied by Golf and Country Clubs in Northern New Jersey and Staten Island, N. Y. 73 14 CONTENTS FIGURE PAGE 20. Trails, Roads and Camp Sites in Bear Mountain Park.................... 82 21. Combined School Site and Neighborhood Park, Chicago, Illinois........... 106 22. Industrial Blocks Cutting off Barrow Street Recreation Pier from the Residential Section....................................*.......**... 111 23. Industrial Blocks Adjoining Thomas Jefferson Park and Recreation Pier.... 112 24. Plan of Tompkins Square Playground................................119 25. Ground Plans for Two Modern New York City Schools, Showing Space for Play.........................................................120 26. Layout of Backyard Playground on a Private Lot, 40' x 120'............... 122 27. Chart Showing Intensive Use of Public School Athletic Field, Brooklyn.... 125 28. A Public School Athletic Field in Brooklyn............................ 125 29. Comparison by Sanitary Districts of the Child Population around Central Park............................................................ 151 30. Radius of Attendance at Tompkins Square Playground, July 14, 1927...... 153 31. Where 1701 Children Live Who Played on the Heckscher Playground in Central Park, July 14, 1927....................................... 155 32. Degree of Playground Adequacy by "Play Districts," Manhattan.......... 159 33. Key Map to "Play Districts," Manhattan.............................. 159 34. Degree of Playground Adequacy by "Play Districts," The Bronx......... 160 35. Key Map to "Play Districts," The Bronx...........................161 36. Degree of Playground Adequacy by "Play Districts," Brooklyn.......... 162 37. Key Map to "Play Districts," Brooklyn............................... 163 38. Some Environmental Influences in Sanitary District No. 36, Manhattan... 168 39. Some of the Environmental Influences and the Recreation Facilities of Sanitary District No. 914, Brooklyn.....................................172 40. The Uses of the New York City Waterfront..........................178 41. Distribution of Population around the East River Islands................ 182 42. Welfare Island as It Is Today and a Possible Rearrangement............184 43. Parks and Beaches in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, South Shore, Long Island.................................................Facing 190 44. Marsh Lands and Shallow Water Areas, South Shore, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island..................................... Facing 190 45. Map of Portion of Waterfront in New Jersey Showing Title to Land Under Water............................................................ 207 46. Map of Portion of Waterfront in New York State Showing Title to Land Under Water.................................................. 213 47. Suggestion for Inexpensive Recreation Development Where the Public Now Owns the Foreshore............................................... 219 OUTSTANDING FACTS Parks and Reservations. IN the New York Region, consisting of 5,528 square miles, or 3,537,249 acres, the total space occupied by public parks, cemeteries, municipal watersheds and the like-159,097 acres-represents 4.55 per cent of the total area of the Region. The space occupied solely by parks-90,001.8 acres- is only 2.55 per cent of the total area. THE outstanding recreation problem is that of providing an adequate, well- coordinated and properly distributed system of parks, parkways and playgrounds to meet the needs of a population of approximately 10,000,000 people, and to anticipate the needs of a future population of twice that number. The difficulties of this problem are intensified as a result of the fact that population densities vary from 261,000 persons to 16 persons per 'Square mile in different parts of the Region. IN- most of the counties of the Region the increase of park area from 1920 to 1925 has not kept pace with the growth of population during the same period. IN the period from 1900 to 1925, New York City had a population increase of over 70 per cent, while the increase in park area was only 50 per cent. OF the 90,002 acres of parks in the entire Region, 79,520 acres are outside of and 10,482 acres are within New York City. ON the basis of park space per capita of population, New York City ranks tenth among the ten largest cities of the United States. Its rank is fifth on the basis of percentage of park space area to total area. There is one acre of park for every 601 inhabitants within the city. WHILE many counties, cities and towns in the Region have made liberal provision for public recreation, there is great disparity, outside of the larger centers of population, between recreational facilities available to the public and those private facilities established by golf and country clubs for the exclusive use of their members. In Westchester County alone over $10,600,000 worth of land is owned by golf and country clubs. IN Greater New York there are still 83,600 acres of vacant land-more than eight times the area of open space dedicated to park purposes in the city. NEXT to the Bronx, Manhattan has the largest percentage of total area in parks, but it has also by far the largest population per acre of park. THE island of Manhattan has 1,245 people for every acre of park. The fact that it is nearly solidly built up means that it must depend, for extension of its recreation facilities, upon the Bronx, with its one acre of park for every 209 people, and upon Richmond, with few parks but fine possibilities. WITHIN 200 miles of New York City there are over 655,000 acres of forest reserves and public reservations of 1,000 acres or more each. STATE forest reserves are of value because they conserve the water supply, help to modify the climate, and contribute toward scenic preservation. They thus serve an economic, hygienic and educational purpose in the Regional scheme. Six of the 17 counties in the Region now have county park commissions. GOOD means of access to recreation spaces is a highly important factor in encouraging their use and in making them a profitable investment. A MORE even distribution of population and public open spaces is desirable. Crowded central areas with insufficient recreation facilities are seriously overloading the present means of access to the open spaces in outlying districts. A-Vaterjront THE New York Region has a frontage of approximately -1,800 miles on salt water and several hundred miles of Ifresh water shores. NEW York City has 191 miles' of waterfront and utilizes only about 25 miles for park purposes. Its public bathing e~beahfqacilties are confined to 4r/, miles, withann additional 921,, miles uinder constructrion. AT present 475 sewer outlets empty about 1,100,000,000 gallons of sewage daily into the Hudson, East and Harlem Rivers, rendering the waters around New York City unsuitable at most points for bathing and in some places offensive for nearby residential and park areas. ADDITIONAL waterfront parks and playgrounds are greatly needed in all parts of the Region. Great possibilities for extending these facilities exist in the reclaiming and development of "land under water"-the area between high and low tide-and uplands adjoining the water frontage. REGIONAL beaches serve both city and country, but their chief use by the urban population is limited to holidays, week-end outings and sumnmer camping. Adequate means of reaching them quickly and cheaply are needed for their more complete functioning. Play Areas THE growing interest in athletics by school children, -older boys and girls, and adults-, is making large areas of park and other athletic spaces more necessary than ever be-fore. THERE are in New York City 1,290,409 persons- between the ages of twelve and twenty-four years-all potential users of the 632 acres of athletic fields and playfields in the parks of the city. ON the basis of a minimtim1 standard of 1,000 square feet of space for every player on the fields at a given time, and the estimated frequency of use, New York City should have 1,481 acres, instead of its present total of 632 acres of athletic space for her young people. OF the 843 acres in Central Park, 79 acres, or about 9 per cent of the total park, are used as playflelds. THERE are 444 acres of school and park playground space in New York City, not including the areas devoted to athletics. Of this total, 308 acres are under the Board of Education and 136 acres are administered by the Park Department. Not all of the school play space is available for use outside of school hours, due chiefly to lack of funds for administration. NEWV York City has 93 park playgrounds and 623 school playgrounds. Of the latter, 2-13 are now operated as after-school playgrounds during the school term, and 403 are kept open in the summer as vacation playgrounds. 1 A MINIMUM requirement for a city system of playgrounds is 25 square feet of play space for every child between the ages of five and fifteen. New York City has only 17.4 square feet of play space per child. ON the basis of 25 square feet of municipal playground space per child, Manhattan has provision for only 46 per cent of all its children from five to fifteen years of age. In the congested parts of Brooklyn, only 55 per cent of the children can possibly be served by the present public playgrounds. THERE are over 150 instances in which roofs of buildings in New York City are used for recreational purposes. THERE are 22 interior court playgrounds now in operation in New York City. WVITHIN three-quarters of a mile of Central Park there are 868,884tpeople. Of these, approximately 150,000 are children between five and fifteen years of age. Playgrounds for these children are far from adequate. A THOROUGH and far-reaching playground plan for the entire City of New York is greatly needed, which would poide playgrounds at city-wide and borough-wide expense, as is done in the case of public schools. LACK of repairs and allotment to other uses have reduced the available number of recreation piers from 9 to 4 in the last eleven years. DUE to their location and physical characteristics, the East River islands, or parts of them at least, possess a special fitness for park and recreation use. Trails and Camp Sites THE lack of adequate paths and hiking trails has forced pedestrians to use the public highways, not only to their own peril, but also to the inconvenience of the users of motor vehicles. Planning SPACE for recreation should be acquired in the early stages of new developments, even though there may be no immediate means of improving it. IN 1811, the Commissioners in preparing the plan of Manhattan said that it was "improbable that for centuries to come the grounds north of the Haerlem would be covered with houses." THERE is clearly a need for increased cooperation among city, county and state authorities in planning for the Region its future system of parkways, reservations, parks, playfields and bathing beaches, and in providing adequate means of access to them. PLAYGROUNDS, when of large size and in residential neighborhoods, have been found to increase materially the value of land around them. VERY small plots used as playgrounds appear to have little effect one way or the other on surrounding values. ACCURATE studies have shown that the increase of land values surrounding county parks is directly attributable to park influences. In many instances it is several times the normal increase, and has substantially exceeded the cost of the parks. PROBABLY the greatest hindrance to sound development of urban areas in the past has been the lack of appreciation of the importance of reserving ample open areas for public recreation. The Foreshore and Rights in Land Under Navigable Waters LAND under water consists of the foreshore or land between high and low water mark and the land beyond the foreshore as far out as it may be possessed. Access to the water is dependent upon the right to this land, for it may be so used as to give the public the enjoyment of the water or cut them off from it. IN England title to land under tidal waters is presumptively, and except as previously granted away by it, in the crown. In this country in most states, with our larger bodies of fresh water, it is land beneath navigable waters the title to which is in the public authorities. In these lands the owner of the riparian upland and the general public have rights, varying somewhat in the different states. IN Connecticut title to all land under navigable water is in the state. The English Crown granted the colony only jurisdiction over it, and made no grants to individuals. At the time of the Revolution titlepassed to the state and, with unimportant exceptions, the state has made no transfers since. SUBJECT to regulation for the benefit and protection of navigation the riparian owner by immemorial custom has the right, in order to obtain access to deep water, of building wharves on land under water adjacent to him to the channel and also of filling in this land and thus practically obtaining full title to it. IN New Jersey, without large inland bodies of water, the state is the owner of lands under tidal waters, laying no claim to areas under other navigable water. In New Jersey, as in Connecticut, the crown transferred to the colonial authorities jurisdiction only to land under water, the state acquiring title by the Revolution. In these lands the owner of the upland has no rights except by statute or express grant from the state. Laws giving the owner of the upland the privilege of wharfing out over lands adjacent to him existed for a time, and later statutes give him the preference in any transfers the state may make through its agents in due course. The state itself may, however, freely grant these lands to other parties, and in a few cases has done so. IN New York many grants carrying title to land under navigable water were made by the crown to the colony, colonial local authorities, and private parties. The colony and local colonial governments, after they acquired title, also made private grants. Title to all ungranted lands passed to the state by the Revolution. As a rule the state, in so far as it deems it best to part with these lands, transfers them through the agency of the Land Board, and the forms employed for the purpose have materially influenced the development of the law on this subject. The owner of the upland has a vested property right of access to the channel, which can be taken or limited only by the state or the United States for the benefit of navigation. In the exercise of his right the owner of the upland may build wharves over land uinder water adjacent to him to the channel. In transfers of this land through the Land Board he has the preference. BY its situation the foreshore and the land under water beyond it are invaluable for navigation and recreanon. This special quality given it by nature the law recognizes and protects. To this land the owner of the upland and the general public each have the right of access, subject to the reasonable exercise of its right by the other. This land the state may alienate, but only in aid of navigation or recreation or when not needed for these purposes. The public right of recreation is clearly recognized in the New York cases. The courts of Connecticut and New Jersey will probably align themselves gradually with the New York position in this particular. ~^j~~~_.~.~~ ~-'"~~t...~ ~~. --' h`..~-. "~-.-T.~7.' ~~ ~" -". ''~' /~~~'7;~" "' -~.....,I~-.~ --- -~-~~-,-~ ~~~ ~-,- -~ -' '' --~..:.~.y- -.r --.. ~- r ~r.-~ ~--;--- ~--.--~---~---- I i r~~. ~~~ ~~ c`.. I ~-~ I~ c ---~-..~,Zr ~~`----II~--- 'r -p 'I A, II It ~~ ~I 1,1 ^F THE PALISADES-ONE OF THE REGION'S PRICELESS ASSETS (See page 142) Drawn by Robert Latou Dickinson. Courtesy of the American Geographical Society PART I THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION AND THE GROWTH, DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION I. THE PROBLEM OFT'UBLIC RECREATION The New York Region consists of the City of New York and a large number of other cities and incorporated areas that are related in their community life or economic activities to the metropolitan center which has grown up around the Port of New York. Within the Region, with its area of 5,528 square miles and a population of about ten million, there are demands and opportunities to provide all the usual types of open space for purposes of recreation. The three states, the counties, and the hundreds of cities, boroughs, villages, towns, and townships have sought, in varying degrees, separately or in cooperation, to meet these demands and to take advantage of these opportunities. The types of community in the Region include large and small centers of industry; commuter districts and self-contained towns and villages; seaside pleasure resorts and agricultural market towns; crowded central areas with some 261,000 people to the square mile and rural areas with as few as 16 persons to the square mile. The physical characteristics include mountainous areas, great plains and immense stretches of sea and river frontage. In some parts of the Region a high standard has been reached in the provision of parks and playfields. In other parts the standard is low and little has been done to supply existing needs, much less to provide for the future. Looking from any high building over lower Manhattan and the part of Brooklyn nearest to the East River and Lower Bay, one sees the most densely populated area perhaps in the world-unbroken by anything but tiny specks of open spaces. It is true that less recreation space is needed there than if it were entirely given up to residence and also that the "broad arms of the sea,' that intersperse these two highly concentrated areas of building, provide a "lung space" of unusual value. But nevertheless, the sparsity of park and playground on Manhattan below 59th Street and on that part 20 of Brooklyn nearest to the financial center of its sister borough is one of the most depressing facts about New York. There are millions. of inhabitants in these areas who have no place for outdoor recreation in the brief leisure hours of each day, other than the streets and a few crowded neighborhood parks. There are also millions of day workers who do not have adequate facilities for enjoying their short leisure in the open. The main problem of outdoor recreation in the New York Region is in these and similar densely built-up areas where open land is so much needed close to the homes of the people and where it is so high in cost that it is almost impossible to obtain it. It is no solution of this everyday recreation problem to provide distant parks in the country-however valuable these are for week-end and holiday use. Central and Prospect Parks fulfill a need in Manhattan and Brooklyn that could not have been met by reservations outside the city or even in its suburbs. Moreover, the space they occupy could not be more profitably used. The fact that they have been left open has not resulted, as was suggested when they were first proposed, in lessening the amount of building in the city. Probably it is exactly the contrary that is true. What they have done is to press building outward towards the periphery of the built areas and help to keep well-to-do residents within the city who might otherwise have been driven outside. Had these parks been built upon, some other areas in the city probably would have remained open, and the whole character of central Manhattan and Brooklyn would have been changed for the worse. This change, from the high standard of development that has taken place around the parks to a lower standard, would probably have meant that the result of building on them would have been to drive more people and therefore more building outside the city boundaries. There are over 83,000 acres of land unbuilt upon within / THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION 21 the five boroughs-mostly in Queens and Richmond. There are also thousands of acres of land occupied by poor structures of an uneconomic type scattered about the city. These two areas would have been larger if the present park areas had not existed. It follows that had more land been kept open as parks, vacant or badly used lots elsewhere would have been improved, and some of the emigration from the city by wellto-do residents would have been prevented. New York has probably lost hundreds of thousands of comparatively wealthy residents because of inadequacy of open spaces. People submit to crowded travelling to and from the suburbs because of their desire to live more in contact with nature than is possible in a city so sparsely provided with open space as New York City. The quality of the dwellings around Central Park and the pressure on the frontage of such minor open spaces as Gramercy Park and Washington Square Park are indications of the demand for an open prospect for those who can afford to pay for this treasured possession in the crowded city. More open space in the city would also have spread business, population, and land values more evenly and thus have prevented much of the traffic congestion that now affects parts of the city. So the problem of more open space is much more than a problem of recreation facilities for the children of the city. It is part of the problem of securing that well-balanced development under which industry and business may function efficiently because of the absence of congestion and because of greater freedom in movement. The general object of making a Regional Plan for this territory is to indicate in broad outline what improvements are needed in circulation (transportation, transit, and traffic) and in the utilization of the land for industry, business, residence, and recreation so as to ameliorate working and living conditions, relieve congestion and promote efficiency in industry. One of the greatest hindrances to the sound development of the Region in the past has been the popular disregard of the importance of ample open spaces. If the ratio of public parks and playfields to persons now prevailing in Westchester County existed in all other parts of the Region, it would mean a four-fold increase, from the present 90,000 acres to 360,000. This large area would be equal to approximately 10 per cent of the whole area of the Region. But well-balanced distribution must be taken into account as well as adequacy of area. Westchester's parks are not only extensive but they are so well distributed as to be accessible to all its inhabitants that live in the cities and villages of the county. Basis of Recreation Studies for the Regional Plan The following statement gives a general indication of the basis on which the recreation studies made on behalf of the Regional Plan Committee have been pursued. "While there is no way of arriving at an exact standard of space needed for large pleasure parks, it is possible to take as objectives such practical achievements as are illustrated in the park systems of Westchester, Essex, and Union Counties. "In the case of active recreation, the space required can be more accurately determined. This should be based upon a consideration of population densities, per capita space needs for different types of activities, probable amount of use, location, and means of access. The per capita requirements of open space increase with congestion. " Neighborhood parks and playgrounds should, in general, be located with reference to population, just as are elementary schools. Large playfields and athletic fields may be less numerous and farther away from residential centers. "Parks and bathing beaches within the city limits should be so distributed that those whom they are intended to serve can reach them quickly and cheaply. Larger parks and forest reserves may be somewhat remote from large population centers, but good means of access to such areas should be provided."' All urban communities should have adequate neighborhood parks and playgrounds, based on the consideration of such questions as are set forth in the foregoing statement, and on the needs of both adults and children for public recreation as a means of promoting health, safety, and good citizenship. They should also have facilities for bathing, and in cases of areas near the sea or inland lakes these facilities should be 1 PLANNING THE NEW YORK REGION. Regional Plan Bulletin No. 12. 22 PUBLIC RECREATION provided in the form of accessible beaches. Moreover, there should be within the reach of every community pleasure parks and forest reserves, with approaching and intersecting parkways. These should be provided in locations possessing natural beauty. The Regional Plan will contain proposals for a park system comprising open spaces of different kinds and qualities. One of the purposes of the Plan will be to show the relation between the different types of open area and the needs and enter into the details of proposals for small local parks and playgrounds. The graphic illustrations on the plan must be confined to suggestions for extending or increasing, first, the large park areas and forest reserves in outlying districts, that are ordinarily acquired for public use by county, state, and interstate agencies; and second, the city and suburban parks that comprise a fairly large acreage. The fact that the scope of the proposals on maps will be limited to the larger units of area MAPLE MOOR GOLF COURSE, WESTCHESTER COUNTY PARK SYSTEM opportunities for their coordination. The Plan will deal, however, with the problem of open space on a wider basis than that of providing, in the best form, for public recreation. It will be based on consideration of other related questions, such as the space about buildings on private land, and the spaciousness of the street system. Hence, when we consider the relation of open spaces to a general plan we have to think in broader terms than when we are confining attention strictly to public recreation. A plan for a large metropolitan area cannot does not mean that definite suggestions will not be put forward in the descriptive reports of the Plan for dealing with smaller units such as local parks and beaches, athletic fields, and playgrounds. Value of Play It is generally conceded that the provision of space for play for young people is essential in a civilized community. It is assumed too often that play has sentimental rather than practical qualities. Somewhat grudgingly it is accepted as THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION 23 having an indirect economic value by giving greater happiness and increasing the physical fitness of the young. Professor John A. Thomson, in his book, "Towards Health," says that play has an historic biologic purpose and significance, and that we should treat it seriously as "a form of work" for the young. In other words, the proper development of young people depends as much on the facilities provided for play as on those provided for mental instruction. "If," says Professor Thomson, "the biologists are right in their conclusion that play is more than a safety-valve for overflowing motor energy and high spirits, and more than social eurythmics, being in fact the young form of work and a relatively irresponsible period of apprenticeship to the business of life, then we must periodically revise the play-activities of youth." Support is given to this statement of the importance of play by Dr. M. Jane Reaney in "The Place of Play in Education," where the author states: "We are beginning to realize that the child's play is one of the most serious facts of its life and the basis of all natural education." Looked at from these points of view the community should not only have ample space for play but should see that proper consideration is given to the environment of the places in which play is carried on. Thus the playground becomes as important as the school building, and the environment of the playground becomes even more important than the mechanical apparatus with which it is equipped. Thus also the selection of areas for play, the planning of the playground and the park, the control of their surroundings, and the expert guidance of play are all of due importance in the city plan. In laying out the playground we have to consider not only whether it ministers to the need of the child in developing its physique, but what effect it has upon the mind of the child. How, for instance, is the child influenced by the surroundings of the place in which it plays? The playground and the park with beautiful natural scenery will act as a mental stimulus, without the child's knowledge, and help to refine and develop its character. On the other hand, a playground which is nothing more than a vacant piece of land, without planting, or with untidy surroundings, or with noisy traffic streets adjacent to it, although a better alternative than the street itself, will not serve the children and Courtesy, Minneapolis Park Department FIG. 1 PLAN OF A WTELL-PARKED RECREATION BLOCK IN MINNEAPOLIS the community to the best advantage in stimulating right ideals and reactions, however perfect may be its facilities for muscular development. What is meant when the statement is made 24 PUBLIC RECREATION that the playground is the best antidote to crime can only be properly appreciated when we realize that the child demands some outlet for his physical energy and that nature calls it to play as its "form of work." Failing provision for this form of work it may and often does seek an outlet in directions that are socially injurious. Suitable open spaces are needed not only for the child but also to meet the natural demands of adults for recreation in their leisure time. Such spaces are needed near to places in which people live. The location of athletic fields and of neighborhood parks has to be considered from the point of view of accessibility to the inhabitants during the hours when they are free to use them. Requirements and Difficulties in Obtaining Space Open spaces must not only be ample for the purposes for which they are acquired and used, but must be so distributed as to serve these purposes to the best advantage-both locally and regionally. Other important requirements are the suitability of the topography for the different kinds of use and locations which provide safe and convenient means of access. The practical difficulties that have prevented these requirements being met in the past in the New York Region are partly due to the want of competent planning. Where land in an urban area is developed without any well-conceived and well-balanced plan, it is inevitable that the usual evils of haphazard growth will result. Some parts of the area will be overcrowded and other parts undercrowded, and some parts will be over-accessible and other parts inaccessible. It is not usually considered that undercrowding or too scattered urban growth is an evil. Yet it is too apparent that many suburban areas in New York cannot obtain and maintain good facilities for recreation, as well as for sanitation and transit, because the population upon them is too scattered. It is true that there are some areas of this character that have spaces provided for them at the cost of and for the benefit of the crowded districts elsewhere, but, however beneficial this may be in certain respects, it is incidental to a bad system of distribution and is part of the cause of excessive travel and congested traffic conditions. Again, over-accessibility is not considered to be a disadvantage, but it must be so if it results in making one part of an area so accessible as to cause congestion and in leaving other parts without adequate means of access. All that is claimed here is that a better balanced systemi.e., a more evenly distributed urban pattern of growth-based on an intelligent plan, would permit a more ideal distribution of recreation facilities. It is admitted that there are practical difficulties in obtaining this ideal. For instance, lack of planning has not been the only cause of improper distribution of buildings and open space in the New York Region. Its topographical advantages as a port, with its numerous waterways interspersing its land areas, have presented natural obstructions to its outward growth, and much of its congestion is inevitable. As a result, recreation space as well as air space has been difficult to maintain in sufficient quantity during the growth of the city. If adequate public spaces are not maintained as part of the city's plan of expansion, it becomes almost prohibitive in cost to provide these after the land is appropriated and developed for private uses. Although these natural difficulties are being overcome, the need of public open space is today more pressing than ever before. There is now a general consensus of opinion in favor of planning for the future and of acquiring open space while land is still vacant. The coming of the motor car has given the majority of the people the means of reaching more distant open areas. As the periphery of the urban area has extended outwards and means of travel have been accelerated, access to vacant land has greatly increased. Much of this vacant land is not adaptable for building purposes, although admirably suited for parks. Perhaps the most important new factor is that in New York we have had to begin to look at the problem of metropolitan growth and of recreation in relation to this growth on a broad geographical scale without regard to political boundaries. Where it is impossible to provide the local parks that are needed, we can obtain a partial substitute for THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION 25 them, as well as opportunities for camping, picnicking and pleasure driving, in outlying parks and even in distant public reservations. Considered as a region, New York has no lack of space for all purposes. The fact that there are over 400 people to the acre in certain places and that many other places also have overcrowded populations may seem to indicate that there is a scarcity of space. But within easy commuting distance of the city is enough accessible land to accommodate double the present population at an average density of 30 people or 7 houses to the acre. If care were taken in the future to obtain a more evenly balanced distribution of population and industry; to ensure that all buildings had ample space about them for air, for local play and movement; and to acquire all areas for public recreation that are least suitable for building-the result would be that land in the Region would be more profitably utilized for the owners and the public than can be possible with haphazard growth. Space for Large Reservations and Country Parks No close study of the Region is necessary to show that there are extensive areas of land possessing great natural beauty, available in areas that are accessible to the city by rail and water for purposes of holiday and week-end recreation. More of these areas need to be acquired. As the crowded parts of the city expand over wider areas, the nearby parks become more and more congested on holidays. People in the cities have therefore to go farther from their homes for holiday recreation. But getting to and from outlying parks on holidays and weekends is causing overcrowding of the highways. As we shall see later, the problem of providing more large pleasure parks outside the city is much interwoven with the problem of improvement of highway communications. There is another aspect of this question that cannot be ignored. The crowding of the highways and the overrunning of the countryside between the cities and the large country parks cause annoyance to property owners and injury to property. Thus the taxpayers in the country districts do not welcome this movement in some of its aspects and are not interested in encouraging parks that attract holiday crowds. Notwithstanding this conflict of interest, the state and county authorities are finding it desirable to cooperate in the extension of large park areas and in the construction of parkways, pedestrian trails and other means of access to these public areas. Thus they are tending to lessen the encroachments on private property and the many irritations commonly incident to urban populations seeking recreation in the open country. It has to be borne in mind that the distant country parks are not in themselves a cause of people travelling into country districts, except to the extent that they may have the effect of changing the direction of such travel. Country parks are an effect and not a cause of people going in search of recreation. In other words, the park is not a reason for the migration of the people into the country, seeking places to rest and camp and overrunning private property for that purpose, to its possible injury, but a condition incidental to crowded urban growth. The holiday movement into the country will take place whether or not public reservations are made, but if such reservations are made in suitable locations, they should have the effect of diverting the migration of picnickers from private estates and thereby preventing the injury to property which now takes place. Space for City Parks and Playgrounds Opportunities still exist for adding to city parks in Brooklyn, Queens and Richmond in the City of New York, in all of the urban areas on the edge of the city boundaries, and in the much populated metropolitan districts of New Jersey. The greatest lost opportunity in the city was the failure to provide Queens with a central park, corresponding to Central and Prospect Parks, before the building of the Queensboro Bridge. A large proportion of the unbuilt land in the city is best suited for use as open space, but the dearness of this city land presents a great difficulty in acquiring the areas needed for parks and even for children's playgrounds. The latter are the most pressing need in all residential sections. Proposals have been made to erect play-buildings several stories high to provide space for 26 PUBLIC RECREATION children's play. These may prove to be necessary, but can never have the advantages for active recreation of space upon the ground. Space also is needed for athletics for young people, as well as for children's play. Small children will not and should not regularly go far from their homes for play. If there is no backyard playground, interior court playground, roof playground, or neighborhood playground, they will play in the streets and alleys and in the vacant lots, if there are any. Even where play space is provided, it will be difficult Importance of Waterfront Reservations The reservation of waterfront land for recreation purposes in the Regional Plan will be secondary only in importance to the reservation of sufficient water frontage for shipping, commerce and industry. There is ample water frontage in the New York Region for all these purposes, as well as for a reasonable amount of private use for residence. An investigation of port facilities and industrial areas made by the Engineering Division of the Regional Plan showed that the available unimproved waterfront areas suitable Photo by Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Inc., N. Y. C. BATTERY PARK-NEW YORK'S FIRST WATERFRONT PARK to keep the children off the streets. Only the most attractive, accessible, and best administered playgrounds can compete successfully with the streets. The increase of street accidents suggests the possible necessity of prohibiting the time-honored custom of street play. But such a measure in the interest of safety cannot be taken unless there are adequate playgrounds in existence. In cases where playgrounds are established, every inducement should be given to children to go to the playgrounds, and for this purpose well-trained play leaders should be provided to organize and promote the activities. for port development could furnish about three times the wharf length which it is estimated will be needed to accommodate additional requirements up to 1965.1 Apart from actual acquisition of land, more care needs to be exercised by the public authorities in protecting public rights to land under water and to uplands adjoining water frontage. Much of this land has been carelessly alienated to private persons without adequate compensation, and opportunities for conservation in the 1 See Regional Survey, Volume IV, Part II, entitled A STUDY OF PORT AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS, page 139. THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION 27 public interest have been lost. Investigations made by Messrs. Edward M. Bassett and Frank B. Williams show that many upland owners have built wharves and piers on the foreshore without proper title, that areas have been obtained by private parties at small cost or without payment, and that in some cases large prices have had to be paid by the public for repurchase. (See Part IV of this volume.) Such private uses may do injury to the public not only by the use they make of the land but by causing pollution of the water. More effective steps need to be taken to prevent both public and private pollution in the interests of safe bathing and pure air. The improvement of methods of sewage and garbage disposal is greatly needed, in connection with the use of nearby waters for bathing. Beach bathing in the central areas is no longer safe, and such favorable prospects for extension as that at Great Kills and elsewhere within the city limits are menaced by increasing water pollution. The question is beginning to be asked whether the use of the beaches must be discontinued. The problem can only be solved by interstate and joint action of the various communities in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. If the magnificent beaches of the south shore of Long Island are to be made available for public use, cities, townships, counties, and the State of New York must arrive at some plan of cooperative action for securing and developing these great stretches of waterfront, providing practical means of access to them and safeguarding them against pollution. Attractive possibilities for waterfront recreation still exist within the city limits, but the growing menace of water pollution must be prevented as part of a constructive program of development. In planning for the future extension of waterfront parks it will be necessary to give special attention to the provision of small areas along the margin of Manhattan in connection with general improvement schemes. There are also good opportunities for acquiring large areas of waterfront land for recreation in Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Richmond, where it is not adapted for other purposes. These areas could be made suitable for recreation uses with out excessive cost, having regard to the increased value that would be given to surrounding land. Means of Access to and through Parks The extension of transportation facilities by water, rail, and highway should to be taken into consideration in dealing with the recreation problems of the Region. It is necessary to consider the needs of both the city dwellers going to the country and country people coming to the city. The recreation value of a vacation or a holiday depends to a large extent upon the change that it affords from the routine of the normal working day and the variety that it offers to meet the needs of different individuals. Each type of park or playground requires separate consideration in regard to the means of access. The building of new parkways and the widening and extension of the arterial highway system are both involved in connection with the development of country parks. City parks have to be planned so that parkways through them may permit of fast traffic without danger to those on foot. Playgrounds have to be easily and safely reached by children. Traffic-crowded streets between the playgrounds and the children's homes are serious handicaps to the use of the playgrounds and make it about as dangerous to go to and from them as to play in the streets. Apart from the danger thus created the playground is rendered less profitable as an investment to the city. Means of access to athletic fields is a highly important consideration. This question is not CRICKET GAME AT VAN CORTLANDT PARK These teams came all the way from Harlem so much one of distance as of time and expense. If athletic fields and playfields are to be used 28 PUBLIC RECREATION extensively in the part of the working day that is free for recreation, as wrell as on Saturday afternoons, Sundays and holidays, it is necessary that they be within easy reach. PART OF THE 95-ACRE PLAYFIELD AT VAN CORTLANDT PARK Patronized by boys from all five boroughs More adequate rail and water facilities are needed to carry people to the public recreation areas and into the country on holidays. The New York papers reported that on July 4, 1927, the main highways of the Region were choked as never before with automobiles going to and from recreation grounds and places of amusement, and ferry boats and excursion steamers were filled to capacity. The crowd at the Grand Central Terminal increased 10 per cent over any previous holiday crowd, approximating 300,000. The total outward bound and incoming passengers for New York City during the holiday period was estimated at 1,656,000. It required 700 trains on the Pennsylvania and Long Island Railroads to handle their share of the New York City traffic. The roads to the ferries were blocked with lines of waiting vehicles a mile or more in extent, and at least 600,000 visitors went to Coney Island for the day. Many lives were lost and large numbers were injured on this national holiday, most of them while travelling, and chiefly in automobiles in the New York Region. Even if more road, rail, boat, ferry, bridge and tunnel facilities were provided, it is not certain that the crowding could be lessened. No doubt many more would travel on holidays than at present if everybody who wanted to go somewhere disregarded his personal comfort and went. An increasing number are ready to take advantage of every new facility and every increased traffic lane that is provided. Yet as things are-with increasing areas occupied by dense populations, and with the open country, the beaches, and the parks separated from them by long distances--more transport facilities must be provided. It is not practical to make fully adequate provision for peak loads on holidays, because if all were done that is demanded for the special holiday occasions, where the people flock en masse to the country, the railway companies and public authorities would bankrupt themselves. It should be recognized that in dealing with these conditions solely by providing more travelling facilities at great cost, we are ignoring the chief cause of the trouble. The fact is that too many people are crowded in the center and too few park and beach areas are provided within easy reach of the center. With a well-balanced development there would be more open spaces near to the homes in the central areas, and more people living and working near to the open areas in the environs of the city. If industry and population were more evenly distributed it would follow that open space would be more evenly distributed. The best place for a playground is at or very near the home, however small it may be, and the best place for some parks is in the heart of the city. Public reservations at a distance are invaluable and should be increased, but they cannot be reached in comfort on holidays, so long as overcrowded areas exist in which insufficient provision for recreation has been made. The danger is that the crowded areas will increase in extent and density more rapidly than new travelling facilities can be provided to outlying recreation places. This holiday crowding of travel facilities is another example of the folly of not providing more open spaces, getting rid of water pollution, and making more accessible beaches near to the centers of population. It is also an indication of the wisdom of thinning out the crowded centers so that those in the center would have more breathing space, those in the outskirts more ready access to existing open areas, and both be relieved to some extent of the necessity of under THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION 29 going the hazards and discomforts of holiday travel as it now exists. The wider distribution of industry must, however, be the first step in spreading the population and in bringing them, thereby, in closer contact with their social needs. Ample access to and through large parks is highly desirable and should be provided whenever practicable by wide boulevards or by parkways constructed through park strips. A system of parks should be linked together by narrow park strips with parkways passing through them. In addition to having access to large parks, ways should be provided for those who drive in vehicles to traverse them and to reach their interiors. Reasonable freedom of circulation across them is also desirable. The necessary construction of parkways between and through parks has to be considered in relation to uses of the park for play or walking. For instance, the use of Central Park for recreation is tied up with the use of the drives through the park for fast traffic. If a parkway is used for fast traffic, the walks and riding paths should be provided with crossings under or over the parkway. While a parkway, as distinguished from a boulevard or highway, is properly a driveway with park areas on both sides of it, it may occasionally, as in parts of the Bronx Parkway, abut on private property on one side only-or it may be broken in places for short distances and be connected in such places by boulevards through private property. In the places where the way has park areas on both sides, no buildings can be erected nearer to it than the outer edges of the park, and such buildings must have means of access provided to them from streets or highways outside the park. This gives a safety and freedom to those who live on adjacent land in using the park for recreation. Properly designed parkways afford pleasure to the motorist, without interference with the uses of parks for those who desire to ride, walk, or play. The making of narrow parks with parkways through them is the best means of providing combined access to, and park areas for, high-class residential land. The increased values given to land by such provision may yield suffi cient indirect revenue to the community to pay for the park reservation. Street Planning and the Recreation Problem The change in the use of highways and streets in recent years has not been accompanied by any considerable changes in the methods of planning the street system. In principle, streets are being laid out today as they always have been, subject to some variations in regard to the details of their width and crossings. It will be a special purpose of the Regional Plan to deal with the problem of adjusting highway and street pattern to suit modern conditions, and to indicate how the system of parks, athletic fields, and playgrounds should be selected and arranged with due regard to accessibility by highways, parkways, and transit lines. Such questions as the planning of principal traffic streets should not be considered without attention being paid to the need of non-traffic streets, of pedestrian trails or ways, and of separating grades at intersections, all in the combined interests of the motorist and pedestrian. A street system should not be designed for traffic alone, even if convenience of traffic movement were the only consideration. All streets should be designed as part of a system that takes into account all needs of the community-movement, living conditions, land values, and facilities for walking and recreation. Every street should be planned in relation to the purposes it serves, and consequently a street pattern which is based on hard and fast rules, and is generally applied under all conditions, as is done in New York City, is bound to be uneconomical and inefficient. Among other things a satisfactory street plan should include provision for quiet residential streets, in which through traffic is discouraged or deliberately shut off. Notwithstanding this, it has commonly been a policy of city governments to prevent the creation of such streets, which are known as dead-ends or cul-de-sacs. Wherever, owing to some reason of design or neglect, such a street occurs, there is soon an agitation to prolong it as a through street. Because in some circumstances cul-de-sacs have proved undesirable, this does not alter the fact that where they are properly designed and located 30 PUBLIC RECREATION they have been highly desirable, and are becoming almost essential for safety and for protection of property values in residential areas. To prohibit them generally by means of an official plan is economically unsound-for short non-traffic streets having narrow pavements of light construction are desirable in certain locations and can be made at much less cost than through streets requiring heavy and wide pavements. A large proportion of the streets do not need to be through streets, if a system of main through streets has been well planned. It is quite common in the suburbs of New York to see houses on sale for long periods when facing on main thoroughfares, and houses occupied as soon as completed would be needed, and much of the money now spent on streets of unnecessary width could be devoted to carrying out work for widening and strengthening the main thoroughfares. Street Play and Traffic Until the coming of the high-speed motor vehicle, streets and highways were much used for walking and for children's play. When traffic moved slowly there was little objection raised to the use of streets for recreative purposes by the inhabitants of the houses fronting upon them. Except in crowded areas with much through traffic, little danger arose from this use. In such areas sidewalks and, to some extent, roadside paths were provided. Children were 7, 1 A~2Y /~ A CUL-DE-SAC IN FOREST HILLS GARDENS, NEW YORK CITY Viewed from two angles when facing side streets in the same neighborhood. Non-traffic streets, whether they be indirect side streets or cul-de-sacs, are not only cheaper to make, but the land fronting upon them may be more valuable for residences than that on the main thoroughfares. These nontraffic streets are more private, quieter, cleaner, and generally more desirable. But they must be designed as part of the street system, and must not be the result of the whim of one owner trying to block the traffic from the estate of an adjoining owner. Permission to plan a street system, including indirect and dead-end streets, must be conditioned upon the zoning of the abutting land for residences with spacious surroundings. If this were done less public playground space accustomed to pass along and even to play on the streets, and pedestrians and riders of horses and bicycles used them freely, as well as owners of horse vehicles. When, however, the horse vehicle was replaced by the motor car, the speed of the latter created what was practically a new situation in regard to the use of streets. Today it is forgotten that streets and highways were once footways and play-places as much as traffic ways. The motorist who complains of children, walkers, or bicyclists using the streets forgets that the conversion of the highway into a speedway has destroyed certain privileges of these people. On the other hand, he does not recognize sufficiently that his own safety depends to a con THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION 31 siderable extent on the provision of space for pedestrians and for the recreation of children adjacent to the highway. He should be prepared to concede that the closing of certain streets in New York to traffic, so that they could be used as children's playgrounds, is merely a grant to the children of the use of certain streets for loss of partial use of all streets, in the interests of fast traffic. There is no going back, of course, to the time when the vehicle took a place second to the pedestrian in the use of the highway. The position of the motor car as the predominant user of street surface is now impregnable, and every other use has to give way to it. The whole policy and play, a larger proportion of the population than now lived in houses with garden or courts, and were within easy reach of open fields or vacant lots. Therefore, a great number used the street in combination with their own garden or court space, or as a way to reach private open areas in their neighborhood. It was only in those crowded areas of Manhattan and Brooklyn where few playgrounds existed that the street formed the principal open space. Unfortunately, it is in these crowded areas that traffic has become most congested and where it is most difficult to provide new space for play off the street. One extraordinary situation has arisen in GAMES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET A SECOND LATER A CAR GOES THROUGH of street development and construction is based on this fact. Most public improvements are initiated and carried out to relieve the pressure of traffic and not to re-establish any other uses of street space. However fortunate this circumstance may be from the point of view of business, of circulation, or of property values, it is unfortunate from the point of view of those whose personal uses of the street have been destroyed without adequate new facilities being given to them in exchange. In districts where a few small playgrounds were adequate when streets were safer for play, these are now totally inadequate. When the street or country road was available for walking streets in crowded centers that remain partly residential, but are partly given up to light industry. In these streets vehicles are using the sidewalks as well as the pavements. Pedestrians having lost the use of the pavements because of fast moving traffic, are now also being interfered with on the sidewalks by standing vehicles loading and unloading merchandise.' The public use of many streets for travel, both by moving vehicles and pedestrians, is seriously impaired by uses that should be confined to private property. Thus we see that in crowded centers the child has been denied space for play by reason of the 1 See Regional Survey, Volume III, Appendix B. 32 PUBLIC RECREATION absence of courtyards adjacent to the tenements in which they live. The street was their only playground. Later they were driven off the streets because of fast moving traffic. Now the children as well as the moving traffic are having their rights taken away on pavements and sidewalks by standing vehicles and goods in process of shipment. Off-the-street loading and unloading would be a more equitable demand than offthe-street play. Providing more space for play in central areas is not only what the health and well-being of the children demand, but it is a matter of simple justice, and it should be frankly recognized that it is a cost imposed on the community by those who use the streets for fast traffic and private gain, as well as by those who profit from crowding buildings too closely upon the land. While the automobile has greatly increased the need for more playgrounds and neighborhood parks in central areas, it has, as already observed, facilitated travel by the large numbers who own motor cars, to suburban parks, open country districts and seaside resorts. Instead, therefore, of being a wholly destructive agent in regard to recreation, it has modified the character and location of the facilities that are needed and has increased the demand for special kinds of recreation spaces. It has made the distant places more accessible, perhaps, to the majority. On the balance this may mean that most adults are as well off in regard to open-air recreation as ever they were, motor-riding having been substituted for walking or cycling and the distant park or beach for the local park. As this report repeatedly points out, however, the demand for daily opportunities for play within residential neighborhoods is not lessened by the existence of distant recreation grounds, however accessible by motor or other means of transit. Relation between Private and Public Open Spaces The relation between private and public open spaces has to be considered in any plan. It would be possible to lessen the extent of the public space that is needed for recreation if more adequate provision were made for space about buildings on private property, and for the reser vation of private open areas. For instance, on the latter point, much of the need for outlying open space could be met by zoning areas for country estates, golf courses, private parks, and the like, thereby saving the public the necessity of spending money to procure public parks. There are also areas which are predominantly agriculturali that should be permanently reserved for cultivation. Public policies should be directed so as to encourage the maintenance of large, private, open estates in suburban areas. Even without having access to such estates, the public enjoys the natural beauty which they possess, and the open country districts which they continue to preserve. Thus the openness and the beauty of the country adjacent to crowded urban areas can be preserved without cost to the community. Much more should be done, also, by cooperation with land developers to procure the setting apart of park areas and playgrounds in new subdivisions-either as public or as private open spaces. The reservation of small open spaces on private property can be accomplished to a large extent through zoning, and frequently it will be found that the extent of such spaces that can be secured under a zoning plan for purposes of health, safety, and general welfare in connection with building developments is a substantial contribution to the aggregate amount of space needed for recreation. By showing the relation between the public open areas and the areas to be set apart for residence, business, and industry, a zoning plan will give proper guidance in the selection and determination of the character of the recreation grounds. More control should be exercised, by this means, over private lands fronting on country roads, to prevent the erection of ugly buildings, gasoline stations, hot-dog stands, billboards, etc.-so that pleasant park-like roads may penetrate large open areas without the necessity of their public acquisition. While cities are small their residential areas remain comparatively open in their development and continue to be near to open country. As they grow larger the private lands become more closely built upon and the open country recedes farther from the central districts. In the small THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION 33 city or village as well as in the large city public open space is needed for recreation and safety, and the presence of large open areas of private lands is not a good reason for neglecting to obtain public reservations. Even if the immediate necessity may appear to be small, it is the future necessity that has to be thought of. The time extent, is accompanied by the resistance of powerful forces that tend to prevent this increase, and indeed have the effect of causing a decrease. For example, the price of land rises as the population and wealth of the community grow, and tax burdens increase as a result of meeting situations created by greater concen Courlesy, City Housing Corporation AN INTERIOR COURT AT SUNNYSIDE, BOROUGH OF QUEENS to acquire open space is in advance of a probable later demand. In the populated sections of the large city where there are no private estates with open fields and woodlands, the proportion of publicly owned open area to population should be greater than in the small city or village. Unfortunately, the need of increasing the proportion of open areas to built area, as the latter grows in density and tration. These values and burdens create difficulties of acquiring public open areas as the need for them becomes greater. Hence the necessity for restricting densities and extent of lots occupied by buildings by means of zoning, so as to procure the largest possible open space about buildings, as well as for purchasing land for public open spaces in advance of close building development. 34 PUBLIC RECREATION One of the most important contributions which the Regional Survey and Plan will make to the discussion of the problem of civic improvement will be that of showing the essential relationship of zoning, traffic, and recreation. Zoning, in the City of New York, is still defective in securing an adequate limitation of building density and in controlling unbuilt land. A large part of the vacant land in the city is not covered by the Zoning Resolution. Parts of this land should be purchased for parks and playgrounds, and other parts should be zoned so as to secure, among other things, adequate court space about dwellings. The latter is particularly needed in the case of apartment houses. Under the planning and zoning laws of New York State, cities, villages, and towns have ample power to limit densities of buildings and to procure the necessary amount of court space. In every new subdivision in suburban areas, provision should be made for gardens or courts or special playgrounds in close proximity to the dwellings and capable of being reached without crossing any important thoroughfare. If public authorities would require more ample provision of space on private property, the effect would be to set apart places for play in the best situation, reducing to reasonable limits the obligations of the public to purchase land for playgrounds, and incidentally securing more open space about buildings for sunlight, air, and the movement of traffic. What is said here as to the desirability of obtaining more space about buildings by means of zoning regulations is not intended as an argument that private owners should provide playground space in lieu of that which needs in any case to be provided by public authority. Whatever space may be obtained by reasonable restriction on the density of building will only slightly lessen the need for public playgrounds. The only way to obtain these playgrounds, together with park areas, is by public purchase. When the city or town has done all it can to secure spaces by regulation and planning, it will still be necessary for the public authority to acquire land for large parks or reservations, athletic fields, and playfields. Because this requires large expenditure of money, it is all the more reason why the fullest opportunity should be taken to secure the utmost that can be obtained in recreation facilities by planning and zoning. Coordination and Planning for Recreation Facilities Some systematic planning of parks, parkways and playgrounds has been accomplished in recent years in certain counties in the Region. In other counties sporadic efforts and piecemeal selection have been the chief characteristics of the policy pursued. In most cases there has been a lack of coordination of county parks and neighborhood parks and playgrounds; and in some cases, unfortunately, there has been neglect of making local provision because of the activity of the county authorities. A county park system can never be regarded as a proper alternative to a system of neighborhood parks and playgrounds, although it may provide the extra facilities needed for occasional use. Every community in the Region needs to prepare a comprehensive plan for its area dealing with all problems of civic growth. In this general plan the park and playground system would be an important element and should be unified and harmonized with all other land uses and with the means of circulation. A well conceived park and playground plan, as part of the general plan, is essential if for no other reason than that it is the only way in which the financial obligations involved in acquiring the open spaces needed can be ascertained. The average community cannot provide funds to meet its recreation needs satisfactorily if it selects areas piecemeal and in haphazard fashion. The careful and economical planning of a system of open spaces involves the consideration of the functions of each open space, of the suitability of the topography and situation for each particular function, of the question of preserving the beauty of the landscape and perhaps of utilizing waste lands. The proposals presented in the Regional Plan will deal in broad terms and general outline with the matters referred to in this and succeeding chapters of this report. The main purpose of such a plan is to afford guidance to the THE PROBLEM OF PUBLIC RECREATION 35 public authorities in the Region with regard to the general selection of areas, their characteristics, and the types of use for which they are adapted. The detailed planning of any system of open spaces and the acquisition of the land are matters solely for the administrative authority in each municipal area. Before making a regional plan, which embodies proposals for parks, playgrounds and other forms of open space, we have to know what are the existing recreation facilities, how they are distributed and what has been the manner of their growth. We have to consider what additional facilities are needed, what types are adapted for different parts of the Region, and what relationship exists or should exist between inland parks, waterfront parks, parkways, and playgrounds, and between all these public spaces and private spaces. The recreational functions, general characteristics of each open space, and the space requirements and playground adequacy of neighborhoods of different degrees of urban density have to be investigated. This report deals with these matters with the object of providing the knowledge necessary to make a Regional Plan and to afford general guidance to communities in regard to the needs and opportunities of their several areas. (1) It is desirable to increase parks and playfields in all parts of the Region to the standard now achieved in the Counties of Westchester, Essex and Union, so that areas already thickly populated may have adequate public space, and those that are undeveloped and in course of development may have the park and recreation lands needed for their potential population. (2) The open spaces and facilities needed in the Region include: Public Reservations and Country Parks, including hiking trails and shelters, camp and picnic grounds, and approaches by parkways and footpaths. City and Suburban Parks, including large parks of general utility and other types down to small neighborhood parks. Athletic Fields and Playgrounds, including those within public parks or in separate units. Waterfront Parks and Beaches, in relation to all types of parks and playgrounds. Private Open Spaces and Estates, including golf courses and country clubs. (3) Distribution of open spaces of varied types, according to a well-balanced system, is needed to make recreation facilities available for the everyday use of the inhabitants in urban areas, to lessen the necessity for travelling between the homes and open spaces; and to break the continuity of building development in the interests of more wholesome living conditions, greater public safety, and more convenience of traffic movement. (4) Open spaces help to conserve areas within the city for good-class residences, and thereby prevent the emigration of wellto-do citizens from the city because of the lack of the amenities they desire and are willing to pay for in higher land values. (5) Realities must be faced in regard to the fact that there is abundance of space for all purposes-either accessible or capable of being made accessible. (6) Advantage must be taken of all existing opportunities to acquire suitable land and the employment of all available funds for this purpose instead of for costly schemes of development. (7) Selection and reservation of waterfront parks and bathing beaches within the city limits should be made where they can be reached quickly and cheaply, and the pollution of river and ocean waters should be prevented. RAMAPO RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY Summary of the Problem In this chapter an effort has been made to set forth some of the most important phases of the recreation problem and to indicate their relation to the Regional Plan. From what has been said, it will be seen that the following considerations are regarded as worthy of emphasis: 36 PUBLIC RECREATION (8) Recognition should be given to the value of play as a biological and social necessity for children, and to the importance of having playgrounds situated in attractive surroundings as the best antidote for unnatural and anti-social tendencies. (9) Acquisition of large public reservations for week-end and holiday use in country areas should be continued coincident with the effort to obtain sufficient space in the urban areas for everyday use. (10) Improvement of the means of access to and through parks and the provision for more parkways for automobiles and paths and trails for riding and walking should go forward to satisfy present demands and future needs. (11) Narrow non-traffic streets should be planned in residential areas so as to give more privacy and safety to residents, reduce the area and cost, and save land for playgrounds and money for the construction of main highways and parkways. (12) The restriction of density of buildings and the increase of requirements for courts and yards so as to secure the maximum possible private open space about dwellings should be obtained by zoning regulations. (13) Reservation for neighborhood parks and playgrounds of a percentage of all land being converted from acreage to building lots should be obtained at the time of development. (14) Some part of the revenues from taxation of motor vehicles should be devoted to increasing playgrounds in congested districts in the interest of the traffic and as a matter of justice to the children of the city. (15) All recreation facilities should be coordi nated and planned as units in the park system, and related to the means of communication in the City and Region. T. A. A FINE EXAMPLE OF WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT, MONTREUX, SWITZERLAND II. GROWTH AND VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATION GROUNDS Early Views Regarding Parks The Commissioners who prepared the Plan of Manhattan in 1811 did not make adequate provision for open spaces, owing to two mistaken ideas-both quite natural at the time. The first was that they failed to foresee the rapid and dense growth of Manhattan, for they said it was "improbable that for centuries to come the grounds north of the Haerlem would be covered with houses." The second was that they relied on the fact that Manhattan was "embraced by large arms of the sea," without realizing that the margin of the island might become so built up as to shut out community access to most of the waterfront. They therefore permitted principles of economy to prevail, with what have proved to be disastrous results. The idea that setting apart reasonably ample space for recreation within a city is bound to prevent its growth, to limit its commercial expansion, or to withdraw land.from needed building WHEN B( purposes has long been a fallacy. The narrow limits of Manhattan Island gave unusual support to those who were of this belief during the last century.1 1 n an address delivered at the National Recreation Congress, Memphis, Tenn., October 4, 1927, Mr. C. C. Hieatt, President, National Association of Real Estate Boards, said: "My observation has been that in the early days of our country, the planners of our cities gave some thought to the necessity of recreation and park areas. You can see that in the City of New York-Battery Park, Bowling Green, City Hall Square, Gramercy Park, Union Square, Washington Square, Madison Square and on up the Island of Manhattan. It is a curious coincidence that as business marched up Broadway from the downtown section of New York, it halted at each one of those open spaces. The great Wanamaker store was built at 10th Street and there was a great business development around Union Square, In a message to the Board of Aldermen of New York delivered by Mayor Jacob A. Westervelt in January, 1854, he referred to the proposal to set apart land for Central Park as one which would deprive the citizens of the use of land for building purposes which could not be judiciously spared. He also condemned another proposal to lay out a park between Third Avenue and the East River from 66th to 75th Streets, comprising nearly one hundred acres, Courtesy, Ne-w York Public Library OWLING GREEN WAS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD stating that one park was quite enough for the city, and that it would be an unwise thing to embrace within the limits of a park any of the East River waterfront. Considering that the which at one time constituted the high-priced real estate of New York. Business next halted at 23rd Street, at Madison Square. That section was for a long time a great business section. Then there apparently developed a dark age, because there are no more squares until we reach Central Park. But at 34th Street there was the so-called Herald Square, with a small triangular building on it, a make-believe sort of square, and business paused there. Then it marched on up to 42nd Street or Times Square, which is really not a square at all, or not a park at all, and stopped there. Values grew, and now Columbus Circle and Central Park are the great developing sections. There is a direct relation between these open squares and real estate values." 37 38 PUBLIC RECREATION City of New York has more than sufficient waterfront land for all commercial purposes, and that probably its greatest loss during recent decades has been due to the difficulty in utilizing its waterfront to good advantage because of defective forms of development, one cannot but feel that a great blunder was made in not setting apart large waterfront reservations on the East River, as proposed in 1854. In 1857, the New York Herald, when referring to the effect of Central Park on adjacent property, said that the most desirable sites around it were for lager beer dealers and corner groggeries, and "that great Central Park which has cost so much money will be nothing but a huge beer garden for the lowest denizens of the city." No doubt there was foundation for this statement at pated that reservation of land for open space might mean that the city would come to a standstill. One of the arguments used was that Central Park "would drive people from the Island for habitations," whereas one of its results has been to keep many as city dwellers who otherwise would have gone elsewhere. When the Bronx Parks were purchased there was a great outcry against the expenditures proposed as being unsound and unwarranted. Probably the City of New York has made no better investment during its history. At a recent meeting of the National Conference on State Parks, Governor Alfred E. Smith said: "The great feature of park development at this time is to acquire land while it is reasonable in cost. Suppose the City of New York were com Courtesy, New York Public Library CENTRAL PARK IN THE VICINITY OF 100TH STREET IN 'THE EARLY DAYS the time, but it indicated a lack of vision of later possibilities, which have become the actualities of today. It was this lack of vision which prevented many, seventy years ago, from seeing that Central Park was something different from a blunder. This same inability to look into the future underlay the assumption that the commercial prosperity of the city depended upon the utilization of all its land for building and commercial purposes. It was not conceived that the future greatness of the city in matters of commerce might also depend on maintaining those spacious and agreeable qualities which go with the retaining of ample recreation facilities. This assumption was the basis of a petition presented by a large number of taxpayers to the Common Council of the city in March, 1854. They antici pelled to purchase the Bronx Parks at the present realty values in the Borough of the Bronx. Why, it would take the debt limit of the city for the next five years to come for the purchase of the real estate alone, not to speak of the development; but, thirty-five years ago, when they were acquired, they were up in what people considered the country." Park Growth in New York City during Past Twenty-five Years In planning the New York Region it is desirable to look forward about thirty-five years. Proposals for the future development of the park system will be based on the expected needs for that period. A hasty glance backward over a period of twenty-five years will give some idea of the growth of parks in New York City during GROWTH AND VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATION GROUNDS 39 PARK AREA AND POPULATION GROWTH IN NEW YORK CITY 1900-1925 Per cent Per centPopulation Per cent Borough Year Population increase Parkarea increase per acre of park over (acres) over per acre area to 1900 1900 of park total area Manhattan................... 1900 1,850,093.. 1,335.. 1,386 9.5 Area-14,038 acres 1910 2,331,542 26.0 1,453 8.9 1,605 10.3 1920 2,284,103 23.4 1,564 17.2 1,460 11.1 1925 1,945,029 5.1 1,722 29.0 1,130 12.3 The Bronx................... 1900 200,507.. 3,849.. 52 14.5 Area-26,524 acres 1910 430,980 115.2 3,932 2.2 110 14.8 1920 732,016 265.9 3,961 2.9 185 14.9 1925 872,168 335.0 4,109 6.8 212 15.5 Brooklyn..................... 1900 1,166,582.. 1,022.. 1,141 2.3 Area-43,898 acres 1910 1,634,351 40.0 1,153 12.8 1,417 2.6 1920 2,018,356 73.0 1,386 35.6 1,456 3.2 1925 2,203,991 88.9 2,550 149.2 864 5.8 Queens...................... 1900 152,999.. 551.. 278 0.8 Area-69,101 acres 1910 284,041 85.8 622 12.9 457 0.9 1920 469,042 206.5 1,118 102.8 420 1.6 1925 713,891 366.6 1,417 157.2 504 2.1 Richmond.................... 1900 67,021.. 3 Area-36,600 acres 1910 85,969 28.3 63.. 1,365 0.2 1920 116,531 74.0 79 25.4* 1,475 0.2 1925 138,277 106.0 375 495.2* 369 1.0 Total New York City.......... 1900 3,437,202.. 6,760.. 508 3.6 Area-190,161 acres 1910 4,766,883 38.6 7,223 6.9 660 3.8 1920 5,620,048 63.7 8,108 19.9 693 4.3 1925 5,873,356 70.8 10,173 50.5 577 5.3 Manhattan and the Bronx...... 1900 2,050,600.. 5,184.. 395 12.8 Area-40,562 acres 1910 2,762,522 34.7 5,385 3.9 513 13.3 1920 3,016,119 47.0 5,525 6.6 545 13.6 1925 2,817,197 37.4 5,831 12.5 483 14.4 * Per cent of increase over 1910. NOTE.-1925 population, State Census; other figures, U. S. Census. that time. For purposes of comparison, a table is included, showing the growth in park area and population in New York City since consolidation in 1898 into Greater New York. While some figures are available for the years preceding consolidation, no common basis for comparison is obtainable, since various annexations and changes in boundaries of the several communities now comprising the city render compilation of data difficult. What information has been obtained is from the most reliable sources, readily available. Mlanhattan. In 1900, Manhattan, with a population of 1,850,093 and 1,335 acres in parks, had very good park provision on an area basis, it representing 9.5 per cent of the total area. However, the density of population was so great that there was only one acre of park for every 1,386 inhabitants. With its population increasing up to 1910 and decreasing ever since, the rate of increase in park lands between 1900 and 1920 was much slower than the population increase. With population actually decreasing between 1920 and 1925 the park increase con 40 PUBLIC RECREATION tinued; yet in 1925, with 12.3 per cent of its area devoted to park lands, we find only one acre of park for every 1,130 inhabitants. With its total area almost solidly built up there is little opportunity for increase in park area, and while everything is being done to increase it, the one hope is in the smaller parks and neighborhood playgrounds, obtainable only at great expense. This shows the fallacy in basing park adequacy purely on a percentage basis, and how population density has to be taken into consideration, as will later be explained. The seeming impossibility of getting the desired increase of the Manhattan park area, added to the fact that it is so near and accessible to the Bronx by rapid transit, makes it reason there partly to take care of the needs of Manhattan Island. 3IManhattan and the Bronx. Taking the two together, we find an equalization in the widely divergent figures for the two boroughs as separate units. The population increased 37.4 per cent between 1900 and 1925, and park area 12.5 per cent. In 1900, there were in the two boroughs 395 inhabitants to one acre of park, and 12.8 per cent of the total area was in parks. This represented good provision, and even in 1925, with 766,600 more inhabitants, there still was one acre of park available for each 483 people, and the percentage of area in park land was 14.4. Brooklyn. Prior to consolidation with New York in 1898, Brooklyn was an independent city of 838,547 population, in which the beginnings of a park system were manifest. Prospect Park and about ten others were already in existence. In 1900, Brooklyn had set aside only 2.3 per cent of its area for parks, providing one acre for every 1,141 people. The population increase showed a steady gain, but the park provision was coming along more slowly. By 1920, population had increased 73.0 per cent and parks only 35.6 per cent; by 1925 the population increase was 88.9 per cent and park increase 149.2 per cent, due mainly to the acquisition of Marine Park, comprising 1,100 acres. This total increase in park area brought it up to 5.8 per cent of the total area, and provided for one acre to every 864 people. With the increase of available building land it is hoped that proper park provision can be made before Brooklyn finds its population density so great that it shares the fate of Manhattan in respect to park space provision. Queens. Starting with one large park-Forest Park, of 510 acres-and several smaller ones in 1900, Queens, with a population of only 152,999, had but 0.8 per cent of its total area in parks. This, however, represented one acre of park for every 278 people. During the quarter century to 1925, population increased 366.6 per cent, the largest increase in any of the five boroughs of the city. The park area increased 157.2 per cent, but naturally the provision per person dropped to one acre of park to 504 people. This is still a reasonable provision, but because there is so much unbuilt-upon land there is all the Courtesy, Department of Parks, Brooklyn HOCKEY FIELD FOR GIRLS IN PROSPECT PARK able to combine Manhattan with the Bronxwhere open land is still available-in order to arrive at a practical solution of the open space problem of the central borough. The Bronx. We find that in 1900 the Bronx represented a very good provision of parks, both on an area and a population basis. There was one acre of park for every 52 persons, representing 14.5 per cent of the total area. However, by 1925 its population had increased 335 per cent, while park area increased only 6.8 per cent, and yet we find very good space provisions, in that there was one acre of park for every 212 inhabitants and 15.5 per cent of the total area was set aside for parks. The large park areas existing in 1900 included the Bronx, Van Cortlandt and Pelham Bay Parks, and were undoubtedly established GROWTH AND VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATION GROUNDS 4 41 more reason to make adequate park provision for the future population. The rate of population increase in Manhattan, the Bronx and Brooklyn has fallen off during the period of 1920-1925, but in Queens, as also in Richmond, it is increasing. Richmond. With only 67,021 inhabitants living in an area of 36,600 acres, there was apparently little need for parks in 1900. By 1920, the park area had increased from 3 to 79 acres, and the population to 116,531, which was only 0. 2 per cent of its area in parks and one acre for every 1,475 people. By 1925, there were 138,277 people enjoying 375 acres of parks. This represented only 1 per cent of the total area, but was sufficient to provide one acre to every 369 inhabitants. Here also, as in Queens, the large amount of land still undeveloped suggests that considerable additional park space should be secured to provide for future population increases. These additional park areas would also help to serve the central densely populated parts of the city. This justifies the plan of acquiring new parks in Richmond and Queens at citywide expense. All Five Boroughs. Taking New York City as a whole, we find that in 1925 there was 5.31 per cent of its area in park lands, providing for.every 577 people one acre of park. When smaller units within the city are taken into consideration we find an even less favorable situation. In addition to this, a borough unit which shows a fairly good percentage of its total area in parks and a reasonable amount of park space with reference to population, may be inadequately served because of improper distribution of its parks. Accessibility to the various areas of population is highly important. This is particularly true of the small parks and playgrounds. That end can only be attained by intelligent planning on a city-wi~de basis, or even a regional basis. Park Growth in Adjoining Counties of Westchester, Essex, Hudson and Union New Jersey Counties of Essex, Hudson and Union. It is only in recent years that these county park systems have been developed, and probably the most useful information to give with regard to them is that which shows their cost and financial results. Further studies of the growth of park areas in these counties from 1921 to 1927, are included in Chapter III. Westchester Countyi. As far back as 1895, building developments along the Bronx River and the stream's resultant defilement with stable, sewer, cesspool and factory waste, made the river little better than an " open sewer." Protests and agitation resulted in the appointment, under Chapter 1021 of the Laws of 1895, of a nonpaid investigating commission which reported on conditions in 1896. The only tangible result was the appointment, in 1905, of the Bronx Valley Sewer Commission. Its report, dated December 2.1, 1906, recommended the creation of the Bronx River Park-way. While a commission of three was appointed for the task in 1907, -years elapsed before the work could be begun. Funds were not forthcoming, even though the legislature had specified that the cost should be apportioned three-fourths to New York City and one-fourth to Westchester County. It was not until June 15, 1911, that the Board of Estimate of the city appropriated $26,250 for preliminary studies, whereupon the county immediately appropriated its share. On the city's insistence, certain areas in the original proposal were omitted, and this requiring, legislative concurrence, it was not until June 5, 1913, that the Board of Estimate gave its final approval to the project. Between 1913 and 1925), $16,500,000 was appropriated. Half of this sum went for the purchase of 1,338 parcels of land, which on December 30, 1906, were assessed at $1,650,000. The other half wxent into the construction of the parkwayT with its 15Y2 miles of roadway, 37 highway bridges, and 60 foot bridges. Along the parkway 57,000 trees have been trimmed, 21,000 treated, and 17,000 removed; and 30,000 42 PUBLIC RECREATION secured power, under Chapter 292 of the Laws of 1922, to create a County Park Commission. During 1922, expenditures totalled $27,972. In 1923, the County Park program began to develop and during that year over $1,000,000 was spent, out of the $3,000,000 authorized. By the middle of 1925 authorizations totalled $17,000,000, and included 10,815 acres for acquisition. By the acres, or 5.6 per cent of the total area, were in parks and parkways during 1927, and there were 35.7 acres for every 1,000 persons, or one acre of park for every 28 persons. These figures include local as well as county parks. Essex County. The park movement in Essex County took definite shape in 1894, through the efforts of public-spirited citizens connected *,~L ^.m..>29Lr0 Courtesy, Bronx Parkway Commission BRONX RIVER PARKWAY, WOODLAWN, NEW YORK CITY 30th of April, 1927, at the end of its first five years of existence, the acreage included in the Westchester system reached 16,189 and the appropriations by the County Board of Supervisors aggregated nearly $29,000,000 for land and $10,500,000 for construction and improvements. The total length of parkways actual and projected is 140 miles. Of the total area of 286,720 acres in Westchester County, 16,007.6 with the Boards of Trade of Newark and Orange. The original bond issue of $2,500,000 in 1895 was augmented by $1,500,000 in 1898, and $1,000,000 in 1902. This $5,000,000 was believed to be sufficient, but the people themselves added in 1906, $300,000, in 1907, $200,000, in 1909, $250,000, in 1910, $150,000, and in 1912, $350,000. To complete these projects the GROWTH AND VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATION GROUNDS 43 Board in 1913 asked and obtained $525,000 more. In 1895, there were only 25 acres of park in the county. By 1913 there were under the control of the Park Board 3,233.28 acres. This area includes the following parks: Branch Brook, Eastside, Westside, Riverbank, Weequahic, Orange, Watsessing, Irvington, Anderson, Glenfield, Yanticaw, Eagle Rock Reservation, and South Mountain Reservation. From 1895 to 1900, inclusive, $2,417,655.54 was expended for land and $676,889.44 for improvements in Branch Brook, Weequahic, Independence, Westside, and Orange Parks, Oraton Parkway, and the reservations at Eagle Rock and South Mountain. Between 1915 and 1920, the war period, there was expended-most of it in 1915-$570,325.14 for land and $406,189.60 for improvements. In the period just after the war, 1920 to 1925, $497,431.20 was spent for land, and $570,488.08 went into improvements. Since 1925 and up to November, 1927, large extensions were made to Branch Brook Park, covering more than 200 acres, and additions to Riverbank and Verona Parks and Oraton Parkway. South Mountain Reservation and Ivy Hill, the latter a new project, accounted for a total of $898,565.31 devoted to land purchase. In the same short period $651,866.32 was expended for improvements. Even a cursory examination of these figures Courtesy, Essex County Park Commission WEEQUAHIC PARK, ESSEX COUNTY A well-equipped athletic field In the next five years up to 1905, Watsessing and Orange Parks were presented to the Commission, the former by the City of East Orange. There was spent for additional land in the older parks $140,669.51, and for improvements, $1,157,546.25. From 1905 to 1910, $471,349.41 was spent for land which included purchases for such new parks as Riverbank, Irvington and Glenfield, and during this same period $512,146.37 was expended for improvements. From 1910 to 1915, $337,489.98 went into land purchase, including Grover Cleveland and Yanticaw Parks, totalling together 70.23 acres, and a 315.97-acre addition to Weequahic Park. There were, of course, many other smaller additions, and in all the park area $713,786.03 was spent for improvements. reveals a consistent conservative program of expenditures, acquisition and development proceeding by five-year periods at a remarkably even rate. The grand totals for expenditures from 1895 to November, 1927, exclusive of administration, were-for land, $5,333,496.09, and for improvements, $4,688,912.09. The total county park acreage in 1927 was 3,744.7 acres, or 4.6 per cent of the county's 81,280 acres. The total local and county park acreage was 4,015.9, or 4.9 per cent of the total area, representing 5.3 acres of park per 1,000 population, or 188 people per acre of park. Hudson County. The Hudson County Park Commission was appointed June 23, 1903, under the park act known as Chapter 277 of the Laws of 1902, after the power of a supreme court 44 PUBLIC RECREATION justice to appoint such commission had been established in the cases of Ross vs. Board of Chosen Freeholders of Essex County and Diehl vs. Blair. Early studies indicated the advisability of fronting any parks to be acquired upon the line of the Hudson Boulevard, and this accordingly became the basis of the plan. Between 1904 and 1907, four bond issues totalling $1,940,000 were authorized. With this sum, portions of West Side Park, West Hudson Park, North Hudson Park and Hoboken Park were acquired and developed. Most of the county park area was acquired during this intensive early period, as indicated below: Since 1910 there have been very few purchases of land, the commission having devoted itself to development and administration. Union County. Beginning in 1921, the County of Union established a Park Commission along the lines of those in Essex and Hudson Counties. In six years ten parks and parkways have been acquired and developed, with an acreage of 3,900 at a cost of $3,900,000. The Watchung Reservation, with 1,800 acres, is the largest, but the Rahway River, Echo Lake and Galloping Hill Parks, totalling 1,328 acres, make a connected group of great importance. Cedar Brook, Warinanco and Monahegan Parks range from 75 to 200 Approximate Park Years of ark purchase Land cost Total cost Acres West Hudson............................ 1904-5-9 $235,000 $558,000 43.4 North Hudson........................... 1905-6-7-8-10 554,000 1,101,000 165.6 Hoboken................................ 1906-8 169,000 315,000 7.4 West Side............................... 1904-5 f 107.0 Additions............................. 1908-16-20 752,000 1,777,000 140.2 North Bayonne........................... 1905-10 27,000 27,000 5.9 Bayonne................................ 1909-10 411,000 1,292,000 97.6 Washington............................. 1918 559,000 699,000 20.0 Total................................ $2,707,000 $5,769,000 587.1 Courtesy, Union County Park Commission CEDAR BROOK PARK, UNION COUNTY-BEFORE AND AFTER DEVELOPMENT This meant that improvements in the park areas cost the county S3,062,000, or about 13 per cent more than the land itself. acres each, and these smaller parks, together with Green Brook, Wheeler and Elizabeth Parks, complete the system. GROWTH AND VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATION GROUNDS 45 The Value of Parks and Recreation Grounds to the Community Parks and playfields increase values to the community in three ways: (1) They promote health, efficiency, and good citizenship; (2) they increase land values; (3) and they produce revenues from recreational uses and concessions. The first type of value is obvious, and perhaps is the greatest. It is, of course, the chief objective for the establishment of parks, parkways, and the various other kinds of grounds for public valuation had grown to $1,143,871,106, an increase of $156,802,249 over the year 1925. The Westchester County Park Commission is able to claim that a large proportion of this increase is due to the park program, because the greatest enhancement of land values has taken place along the edges of parks, and many areas have been made ripe for development for which there was no previous demand. One of the best examples of the financial benefit which a community derives from developing a park and parkway is to Courtesy, Essex County Park Commission BRANCH BROOK PARK-PART OF THE ESSEX COUNTY PARK SYSTEM recreation. Their constant extension everywhere at enormous expense indicates a universal appreciation of their great social values. The story of the park development in Westchester County and its effect upon land values furnishes an illuminating instance of the second way in which public open spaces create values. In 1923, the year which witnessed the beginning of Westchester's park system, the total assessed valuation of the county was $788,029,496, representing an increase of $55,022,027 over the previous year. In the year 1926, the assessed be found in the case of the Bronx River Parkway, in this county, where a recent investigation of the values of land situated within 500 feet of the parkway showed an average increase of 800 per cent in fifteen years. In 1916, the Essex County Park Commission made a study of the increased values of property adjacent to four public parks in Newark between 1905 and 1916. It found that the four parks themselves increased in value from $1,000,000 to more than $5,000,000. The property immediately adjoining was assessed in 1905 46 46 PUBLIC RECREATION for $4,143,850 and in 1916, for $29,266,000, an increase of 606.3 per cent. Property in these taxing districts perhaps not wholly outside of the park influence was assessed at 836,606,907 in 1905, and $111 531,725)in 1916, again of 204.6 per cent. The cost of the four parks was $4,241,540. The increased valuation of adjoining property alone, beyond what it would have been if the parks had not been constructed, was sufficient to pay for all the parks in the county 20.4 times. The Commission agreed that the increased revenue to the county due to these parks was sufficient to pay the interest and sinking fund charges on the bonds issued for park construction and meet almost the entire cost of the annual maintenance. The normal increase for the entire city, less the value of parks and surrounding properties, from 1895 to 1916, was 3.08 times. TABLE OF, INCREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES Property Rest of Adjacent Park adjacent same tax- taxing to parks ing district districts Eastside.............. 9 times 2Y4 times 2Y2 times Westside.............135 " 3 I" 3 Weequahic...........14 It 7 4" 3 Branch Brook.........5 " 2'Y2 it 323 (part adjoins park) It is also interesting to note that in 1867 a commission was appointed to recommend a site for a park for Newark. It recommended an area of about 700 acres, for which the cost of acquisition and improvement was estimated at $1,000,000. This was considered too extravagant, and the matter was dropped. The Essex County Park Commission was formed in 1895. By 1913, Branch Brook Park, which was part of the tract recommended in 1867, contained 280.62 acres and cost $687,042.83 for land, S1,422,543.39 for improvements, and $538,580 for buildings. In 1927, 207 acres were added at a cost of $610,649.23 for land. In October, 1927, the Union County Park had improved and assessed valuations as well as the tax revenue increased, and that real estate adjoining had shown marked. enhancement in value, in some instances having trebled in three years. In the Tenth Ward of Elizabeth they claim: "The increase in assessed values outside the district adjoining Warinanco, Park, for the five-year period 1922-1927, is 64.1 percent. If the development of the district adjoining the park had been no greater than that for the rest of the ward, the increase in assessable values at that rate would be $450,722 for a total of 8,1,153,877, instead of the actual total of $3,769,825. The difference of $2,615,948 in assessed values is attributable directly to park influence." In another case they show a "difference of $1,205,275, again attributable to park influence.',1 While it is difficult to estimate the exact increment in va lues which is directly traceable to parks, great increases in assessed values which occur in the areas which are served by parks are so substantial as to prove the financial benefits which communities obtain from creating them. Generally speaking, scenic parks, by utilizing waste land, preserving natural beauty, protecting the public water supply and the environment of residential areas, have contributed largely to the value of nearby real estate. It is important to note, however, that the increase of land values adjoining parks is much greater where these parks are interspersed with means of rapid transit. The values which have been created in Westchester County adjacent to the Bronx Parkway have been large not only because of the reasons already indicated, but also because of the f act that there is a rapid electric railroad running through or adjacent to the parkway for most of its length. In laying I Governor Alfred E. Smith, in his annual message to the New York State Legislature, January 4, 1928, said: "Parks and parkways must be acquired with an eye to the future. The people of today cannot stop with doing their full duty to this generation, but they must be thinking of the generations to come when they acquire public lands. In a very few years probably all of this land would he beyond the power of the State to purchase except at GROWTH AND VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATION GROUNDS 4 47 out parks and parkways this question of transportation should not be ignored. While it is usually admitted that parks increase values, there is a prevalent idea that playgrounds decrease values. An investigation made by the staff of the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs with regard to the values of land adjacent to seven playgrounds in Manhattan and two in Brooklyn showed that playgrounds do not "cause any retardation in the natural rise of land values, and in some instances may be responsible for a considerable increase in value."' It. is evident that a playground's effect upon surrounding land values is dependent upon the use made of that land, the smaller rate of increase in real estate values around certain playgrounds being due in part to the fact that they were located in business and industrial neighborhoods. An outstanding example of the effect of a playground in a wholly residential district is found in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn. Here values in fifteen years have risen 175 per cent on land directly bordering the Betsey Head playground, while values on streets one to three blocks away have increased only 118 per cent. There is little business on these blocks. The whole neighborhood is of a residential character. This playground is also of sufficient size to have more effect on the land values than some of the other playgrounds studied, which are less than an acre in size. Although the figures did not prove it, it is highly probable that a small playground, located in a mixed business and residential neighborhood, has very little effect one way or another on the surrounding properties. On the other hand, a ten-acre playground, such as Betsey Head, gives light and air and a park-like quality to the space which is more beneficial to the neighborhood. This playground is zoned for residence on two sides and on two sides for business. The consideration of zoning has led to a rather important point. As the zoning map reflects the character of the neighborhood to a considerable grounds has been compared with the average increase in value of both the bordering and the adjacent blocks. This brought to light the fact that all those localities in which the playground has two or more sides zoned for residential purposes have by far the greater percentage of increase. It probably proves that in residential neighborhoods a playground does increase the value of surrounding property, and at a greater rate than in neighborhoods where business and industry are present. Some of the conclusions which have been reached in these studies are: (a) There have been no decreases in land values on the blocks bordering the playgrounds after the acquisition of the playgrounds. (b) Small plots used as playgrounds appear to have little effect one way or the other on surrounding values. (c) Large plots, when in a wholly residential district, increase the values of the bordering property in somewhat the same manner as do parks. (d) When business and industry extend into blocks bordering on or adjacent to a playground, the benefits of the playground to the neighborhood as reflected in the land values are very much decreased. (e) Where the neighborhood is wholly residential in character, the average increase in land values around the playground has been far greater than in other districts where business or industry is present. (f) Increases in land values around playgrounds take place more uniformly when all s ides of the playground are zoned for residential purposes only. (g) The playgrounds which are well landscaped, planted, equipped and supervised are the ones around which land values are most likely to show a substantial increase. The revenue obtainable from the use of parks, and from concessions granted to private persons for trading in parks, is the third form of return on the park investment. This is largely a 48 PUBLIC RECREATION derive a revenue. Where spaces are plentiful enough to accommodate buildings for refreshments and other suitable park services it is obviously an advantage to derive some revenue from such sources. Facilities for golfing, boating, bathing, fishing, picnicking, camping, and athletics may provide direct revenues which help in reducing the cost of administration. During the past year the Westchester Park Commission collected $465,000 in revenues from its golf courses, bathing pools, and concessions. This will be greatly increased during the coming year. As an instance of new sources of revenue, it will obtain $12,000 per annum for the rent of two gasoline stations to be erected by the Commission, for which attractive designs have been prepared. The public golf course at Mohansic produced a net revenue to the Commission of $13,373.70 in 1927. The financial position in relation to parks in the Bronx may be cited as an example of the relation between cost of administration arid the income obtainable from their operation. The administration expenses for the past fiscal year in the Bronx Park Department were about $1,106,000. Receipts from uses for which a charge is made totalled $211,694.22 during 1926. The cost of the Bronx park lands is given by the Department as about $15,000,000 and the present valuation is placed at "close to $100,000,000." A bulletin issued by the Bronx Park Department contains the following interesting statement of receipts during 1926: "The total receipts from golf last year, from our three 18-hole courses, namely, Pelham, Mosholu, and Van Cortlandt, were $132,996.50. "Season golf tags at $10 each amounted to $67,920. The daily fee of $1.00 amounted to $54,424, and locker receipts to $4,502.50. "Concessionaire privileges at the golf houses amounted to $6,150.00. "Tennis receipts were $4,464, which meant that 4,464 persons paid $1.00 each for the privilege of playing throughout the season. The introduction of the tennis charge in 1918 was to stop monopoly of favorite courts, and the identical charge has been followed elsewhere. "The receipts from bathing lockers were $21,524.50. This represents a 10-cent individual charge. Formerly there was no fee for tennis or bathing, and when it was introduced there was opposition, but the objections faded away on a realization that the charges were after all merely nominal, and as they covered special features, those enjoying special features could be reasonably expected to pay something towards the upkeep. " Receipts from the family camp reservation at Orchard Beach amounted last year to $18,690. The fee for camp sites was increased in 1918 from $10 to $20 for the season, and $25 for outside tents immediately facing the Sound. " Receipts from other sources, including Privileges and Rents, amounted to $39,983.91, making the total receipts $211,694.22." These figures show that a substantial return is obtained from certain types of park uses. If the income thus derived, with more that might be created, were applied to extension and improvement of parks, a way would be shown for increasing the acreage of open space in proportion to population growth. It would also encourage a forward-looking planning program and a study of park needs and functions. At present, all park receipts in New York City are turned back into the General Fund of the city. II.DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION General Distribution and Area of Open Spaces All but the smallest parks, parkways, public reservations, and other open spaces, including cemeteries, in the New York Region in 1921 and 1927, are shown in Figs. 2 and 3 respectively, and are included in the summary at the end of this chapter. Because the scale of both maps is necessarily small, no parks of less than one acre, or cemeteries of less than five acres, are shown. Cemeteries are included with full regard for the fact that they are neither intended nor available for public recreation. Nevertheless, they may be considered, and in fact are, permanent unbuilt areas, preserving and often enhancing the natural beauty of the landscape, and in this sense serving as part of the open spaces of the Region. Looking far ahead, some may be converted into parks, as has already been done in parts of the Region. An examination of the growth of open spaces between 1921 and 1927 clearly indicates a more or less permanency in local park areas but a decided increase in the large county parks. Westchester and Union Counties have been acquiring large park areas since 1922, Nassau and Suffolk Counties since 1924. Two sections in the inner metropolitan area stand out on the maps as lacking park facilities. One is in the northwest corner comprising Bergen and Passaic Counties. These two counties have lately appointed park commissions, for the purpose of making preliminary reports on needs and opportunities. Passaic County has gone one step further, having established a permanent commission at a public referendum in the fall of 1927. The other section is in the southwest corner of the maps where local demands are not j ust now pressing and where advantage should be taken of existing opportunities while low-cost vacant land is plentiful. Through this section passes an ever-increasing stream of pleasure traffic en route to and from the Jersey shore. It is desirable that new parkways should be constructed for the purpose of making attractive approaches to the shore resorts, as well as of increasing land values, and relieving highway* congestion. While a glance at Fig. 3 might suggest a fairly well distributed system of open spaces, it is a fact that the total space occupied by public parks, cemeteries, municipal reservoirs and the like represents not more than 4.5 per cent of the total area of the Region. The space occupied solely by parks, exclusive of watersheds and cemeteries, is not -more than 2.5 per cent of the total area of the Region. A conspicuous feature of both maps is the great Harriman and Bear Mountain Park under the jurisdiction of the Palisades Interstate Park Commission. The shaded area, in the northwest part of the Region, indicates property owned by the City of Newark surrounding the reservoirs of the Pequannock Watershed. Areas less extensive are owned by the City of New York around various reservoirs of the Croton Watershed. It would seem that consideration might well be given to the possibility of making these areas available to the public. The reservoirs themselves form a chain of lakes of rare beauty, and certain forms of recreation would not be in conflict with the primary functions of the watersheds. While the use of the shores of these lakes by large crowds of recreation seekers would be inconsistent with the proper protection of the water for domestic use, it might be possible without excessive cost for sanitary supervision, to give the public the benefit of access to the wooded areas surrounding the lakes. A precedent for action of this kind is found in Nassau County, where the Long Island State Park Commission has obtained the use for park 49 PUBLIC RECREATION NEW YORK AND ENVIRONS SHOWING PARKS CEMETERiES & OTHiER OPEN SPACES 1921 SCALE IN MILES 5/ 5010 1507050 50cfMvid ipal Heservoirs OAR Circles showo divances frcee He Yor-k City HallI 1~1 / N FIG. 2 DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION 51 I NEW YORK AND ENVIRONS SHOWING PARKS CEMETEPIES & OTHER OPEN SPACES7 1927 SCALE IN MILES / ~ 7 7% LEGEND: Boundaries Q N. State N County TownshipCicy etc ---- IeSIT0 le. o% 50rerteeeAcret Parks 5TO10 Iote50S omote ActsA Cemeteries 0 Municipal Reservoirs x/ 0N Circles show distancestfrom/N ~~NtewYorkl City Hall/4 / c, /. n/........ / ~-7 c~........~ IX.: It.X, \ x /CC Jý -k FIG. 3 52 PUBLIC RECREATION purposes of some 2,072 acres of land owned by New York City in connection with its water supply. Although not now in active use for its original purpose it is made a condition of the recreational use that the water supply shall not be interfered with or polluted. Comparison with Other Regions and Cities A glance at Fig. 4 shows the public park and open space systems of the regions around Chicago, Boston, Berlin, London, and Paris. These maps are drawn to the same scale as those in Figs. 2 and 3 and may be used for purposes of comparison, as only the larger parks and public reservations are shown. The system around Chicago includes the public forest preserves of Cook and Du Page Counties. The Boston system is that of the Metropolitan Park District. The Berlin, London, and Paris maps also include public forests or other reservations to which the public is admitted. In every instance these maps reveal a noticeably higher percentage of open space than is found in the New York Region. As evidence of what the cities of the United States are doing in park and recreation space development, the following facts are given from a national study of municipal parks made in 1926-27, by L. H. Weir of the Playground and Recreation Association of America: According to the 1920 Census there were 68 cities in the United States having a population of 100,000 and over. Reports received from these 68 cities show a total of 124,155 acres of park and recreation space. Reports from 72 of the 76 cities of 50,000 to 100,000 population show a total of 46,871 acres of park and recreation space. In the 25,000 to 50,000 population group, 133 of the 143 cities reported a total of 30,099 acres of park and recreation space. (One of these cities reported having no parks at all.) In the 10,000 to 25,000 population group, 384 of the 458 cities reported park and recreation space totaling 33,268 acres. (Thirty-nine of these cities reported no park space whatsoever.) Cities and villages below 10,000 population in the United States number 14,957 according to the 1920 Census. Of these 1,951 sent in reports showing park and recreation space amounting to 21,900 acres. (Eight hundred and ninety reported having no park space whatever.) This gives a grand total of 256,293 acres of park and recreation space in the 2,608 cities and villages that sent in detailed reports in Mr. Weir's 1926-27 study. Of this number, 930 reported having no parks. The estimated acreage for the 13,090 cities and villages that did not report is 89,557 acres of park and recreation space. This, therefore, makes the total reported and estimated park and recreation space for the 15,702 cities and villages in the United States 345,850 acres. Distribution by Counties In Fig. 5 will be found charts which show: 1. Percentage of total area in each county devoted to parks and other public open spaces in 1921 and 1927. 2. The number of acres of parks per 1,000 population in each county in 1921 and in 1927. In both these diagrams the Interstate Park areas controlled by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission are separately designated. The scarcity of population in the counties where Interstate Park areas occur causes an exaggeration of that part of the diagram. The largest percentage of total open space is found in Bronx County. The figure 19.1 per cent is even higher than in Rockland County, where there are 19,690 acres of the Palisades Interstate Park. Detailed statistics of park areas by counties will be found in the Appendix (Tables I, II and III). It is interesting to note the percentage of recent growth due to the Park Commissions which have been established in Westchester and Union Counties, and the Long Island State Park Commission which controls areas in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. In 1921, excluding Rockland and Orange Counties, Bronx County stood highest, with a provision of 5.8 acres per 1,000 population, while Essex County was second with 5.6 acres per 1,000. Since that date Suffolk has taken the lead, mainly because of the addition of 6,400 acres of National Forest Preserve at Camp Upton, with a total of 75 acres per 1,000 population. Westchester County comes second with nearly 36 acres and Union County third with 15 acres per 1,000. In respect to growth in park area between 1921 and 1927, 5.1 per cent of the DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION 53 county area has been added to the Westchester park system, which is more than 10 times as much park land in 1927 as there was in 1921. For On the reasonable assumption that a metropolitan district should set aside at least 10 per cent of its total area for parks and parkways, Map Showing PUBLIC PARKS PARKWAYS AND OPEN SPACES IN OTHER METROPOLITAN REGIONS FOR COMPARISON WITH NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS il /L SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 FIG. 4 Union County the figures are 5.4 per cent and 26 times respectively; for Nassau County 1.6 per cent and 50 times; and for Suffolk County 2 per cent and 40 times respectively. Westchester County may be considered to have made such provision so far as its southerly, or metropolitan, section is concerned. There is a large part of Westchester to the north, however, PARKS AND OPEN SPACES IN NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS 1921 AND 1927 New York Bronx Kings Queens Richmond Westchester Putnam Dutchess (Part of) Fa irfield (Poart of) Nassau Suffolk Rock land Orange (Port of) Bergen Passaic Essex Union Hudson Morris Somerset Middlesex Monmouth (Part of) TOTAL 0I RELATION OF PUBLIC PARK AREA TO POPULATION IN EACH COUNTY 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 14 15 - - P - I I-I-il- il3 75.7 75.0 379.9 O~: S~'~;iY/~F~'~332.0 c~;~'~';~('j~jc~.i C~~;c~~rZ 1215.4 - n i----n-i RELATION OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACES TO TOTAL AREA IN EACH COUNTY 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 New York Bronx ' Kings Queens Richmond Westchester Putnamrn Dutchess (Part of) Fairfield (Poart of) Nassau Suffolk Rockland ' ~* Orange (Pcrrt of) Bergen Passaic Essex Union Hudson, Morris Somerset Middlesex Monmouth (Part of) TOTAL 0 2 4 6 8 10 1ý 14- 16 18 Per Cent of Total Area L CEMETERIES AND MUNICIPAL RESERVOIRS C) tIH 03 z U - -I-I. - I-I-I-S 0 1 Z 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 H( 12 13 14 15 Acres of Parks per 1,000 Population S1921 FIGURES 1927 FIGURES MO INTERSTATE PARKS FIc. 5 DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION 55 which is sparsely settled, and which has a lower percentage of park lands, thus bringing the county's total park area below the 10 per cent standard. Union County, which is largely of a metropolitan character, is aiming to attain to this same standard. In some of the counties of the Region the increase of park area from 1921 to 1927 has not kept pace with the growth of population during the same period. Eleven counties show a lower ratio in 1927 than in 1921, 9 show a higher ratio, and 1 is unchanged. Westchester, Union, Somerset, Suffolk and Nassau Counties have greatly increased their park areas in relation to population, as is shown in Tables I and II of the Appendix. Comparison of Distribution in Municipalities of Over 25,000 Population In the New York Region, there are 27 municipalities, besides the City of New York, which have a population of 25,000 or more. The diagram (Fig. 6) indicates the provision of public parks per 1,000 population in all these communities. Six of the municipalities are in New York State, 19 are in New Jersey, and 3 are in Connecticut. There is a wide variation among them in providing park areas for the public. White Plains, with 21.4 acres of park to each 1,000 inhabitants, stands at the top of the list, while Union City and Perth Amboy stand at the foot. The city of Yonkers ranks second, with almost 15 acres per 1,000. White Plains and Yonkers would be well down the list were it not for the fact that much of the land acquired for the various Westchester County parks and parkways falls within their corporate limits. In the diagram, local and county parks are separated out for each community where there are parks under the two jurisdictions. This indicates the need of county park systems to help out the local situation where land values are high and desirable park land is unobtainable. County park commissions, in trying to satisfy the need of communities for open space, very often locate outside of corporate limits, so that considered from a community standpoint these needs are being met and park provision for cer tain cities or towns is better than the diagram indicates. However, many of the communities are still lacking in making proper provision for purely local needs, because most of them have less than two acres of park per thousand population, which is considerably below the standard as set forth in Chapter VI. While a county park commission can make provision for certain park needs, it should not be assumed that the local community is relieved of all responsibility, especially in the matter of providing local neighborhood parks. The functions of the two types of commissions are not necessarily alike, although they may well and should interlock. It is worth noting that the provision of park areas in New York City corresponds very closely with the average for all towns of 25,000 and over. At the bottom of the diagram is shown, by sectors of circles, the comparative distribution of land areas, population and park areas in New York City, in other communities of 25,000 population, and in the balance of the Region. The inclusion of the Palisades Interstate Park Commission's reservations gives such a large percentage to the park area outside of the municipalities that, to avoid confusion, another circle is shown giving the proportions exclusive of Interstate Park. In the Appendix (Table VI) will be found the statistics upon which these diagrams are based. Extent and Location of Large Reservations and Country Parks The territory comprising New York and its environs contains a number of large public reservations and forest reserves. Beyond the borders of the Region, and within a radius of 200 miles of New York, are still other reservations of this type. The map (Fig. 7) is designed to show the number and location of forest reserves and public reservations of 1,000 acres or more within this large area in 1924. These comprise a total area of 655,874 acres. Certain proposed reservations totaling 620,383 acres are also shown. Towns are indicated on the map by circles varying in size in proportion to the population of the community, all towns of 50,000 population or over being included. 56 PUBLIC RECREATION RELATION TO POPULATION 1 2 3 6 NEW YORK STATE New York City Yonkers Mount Vernon New Rochelle Newburgh +White Plains e NEW JERSEY SNework -Z Jersey City o Paterson o Elizabeth Bayonne o Passaic S Hoboken o Union City East Orange L Perth Amboy West New York New Brunswick ' Clifton Q) 4 Irvington ~ Orange E Montclair S Plainfield 0 u Kearny Bloomfield CONNECTICUT Bridgeport Stamford Norwalk TOTAL, 1 ~E~i~4$i`9~ / I I I I I I I / I / / I S 14.9 11.9 a A=?2.4 I t////7/V// //M/I7/Z / /, 8 Local Parks 22 County Parks 7VH1I ///F/// /// /// /// /// /// // 4 2223223 / /// /// /// /// /// ///}////}////8 2222$22 W~F~8e~lcc~RWl~t SL~F~THS~i~Fi~ 1,000 of of Acres Parks 3 per 4 Population DISTRIBUTION WITHIN 0F THE REGION AREA POPULATION PARK AREAS PARKS EXCL, OF INTERSTATE PARKS SNew York City E5Z Other Communities over 25,000 Population EZJ Balance of Region FIG. 6 PUBnLIC PARK PROVISION IN COMMUNfITIES OF OVER 25,000 PoPULATION IN NE W YORK AND ITs ENVIRONS DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION 57 ho lo4 0 -ot 9 2 z 4 58 PUBLIC RECREATION Public reservations and forest reserves are classed together because, under present conditions, it is not always possible to distinguish between them. In some states forest lands are set aside for educational purposes; in others they are held as state lands. In still others they are treated largely as parks for the public. The result is more or less confusion of purpose and nomenclature. In natural characteristics they differ but slightly, and though timber raising may in some instances be the main object there is little to interfere with the use of these tracts for recreational purposes. The desirability of such use has been recognized more and more in recent years, so that logically forest reserves may be considered as supplementing public reservations. A study of the map will show considerable variation among the states in providing forest reserves. New York, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts have large areas set aside for this purpose. New Jersey and Connecticut are not so well provided. Rhode Island has not a single reservation of more than 1,000 acres. The largest reservation within easy reach of the metropolitan center is the Catskill Park, with a total area at present of 138,200 acres and with a total proposed area of 576,120 acres. In the Delaware River Valley also are large areas (though less large), both existing and proposed, including the Kittatinny Forest Park, a considerable part of which is already owned by the state of New Jersey. The statistical material upon which this map is based will be found in the Appendix (Table IV). In addition to water and forest reservations there are large open spaces in the Region which lie relatively near the city and which at the same time afford recreational facilities ordinarily associated with more rural surroundings. Such country parks are indicated on the maps which follow, and are shown to be approached by parkways, which in turn often partake of the nature of country parks themselves-the Bronx River Parkway being an example. Notable among parks of this type are the Bear Mountain-Palisades Interstate Park, the strips of park along the west shore of the Hudson River under interstate jurisdiction, and to a certain extent the Bronx River Parkway and the more remote parks of the Borough of the Bronx. Park Areas in Hudson River Valley On the two maps in Fig. 8 are shown the larger recreational facilities of this type in the Hudson River Valley as they existed in 1921 and 1927, together with the main highways connecting them with the central district. While not all the areas shown in the latter map are in actual use as parks, their acquisition has been authorized and a greater part of the land is actually in public ownership. The 1927 map shows a sparsity of park development on the west side of the river and of parkway routes similar to those being provided in Westchester. Completion of the Bear Mountain Bridge across the Hudson supplied an important link in the parkway system. Tourists from New York and New England are now enabled to reach the Ramapo Hills, the Jersey coast, and the south without traversing the already congested streets of Manhattan and putting up with long delays at the ferry terminals. Completion of the new bridge across the Hudson at 178th Street will further relieve this situation and make the great Bear Mountain Park still more accessible. Other developments in the Hudson Valley include the improvement of the highway on the west shore of the river connecting sections of the Palisades Interstate Park with the Catskill Forest Reserve. The present status of this scenic route is merely that of a highway. By widening and introducing park features in connection with this road, where it does not pass through existing state land or villages, there could be built a parkway of great scenic beauty extending all the way from New York to Albany and beyond into the Adirondacks. Extension of the Bronx River Parkway from the Kensico Reservoir to the present Bear Mountain Bridge is to be made by Westchester County, with state aid, as a supplement to its present park system. Park Areas in Northern New Jersey The map (Fig. 9) shows the existing country parks and their connecting highways in the northern part of New Jersey. Though excellent DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION 59 T, 0 CYr) 14D Sol ~ ~ 0 > cc top, tzz L 2 61 60 PUBLIC RECREATION large parks have been established in Essex and Union Counties, other parts of the districts covered by this map are plainly lacking in such facilities. This is emphasized by comparison with the map of the Hudson Valley. Considerable extension of park areas has been The cross-sectioned area in the northwestern part of the map refers to lands owned by the city of Newark in connection with the city's water supplies in the Pequannock River Valley. Jersey City also owns large areas of land around Boonton and Splitrock Reservoirs. Here is a FIG. 9 made in Union County, where a Park Commission was appointed in 1921. Over 3,600 acres of park have since been acquired or authorized. The Essex County Park system has been in operation since 1895, and that of Hudson County since 1903. potential park site which future development might make available to motorists. Possible Uses of Morris Canal Property The site of the abandoned Morris Canal, which extends across this part of New Jersey, DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION 61 is now owned by the state, and the probleI the best use to make of its facilities is u: discussion by the municipal authorities. provides an exceptional opportunity to incr recreational facilities in the part of the Re through which it passes. Its complete devE ment as a parkway would add to the Re another fine scenic route and help to rel traffic congestion. The Canal has not 1 used for commercial purposes since being quired by the state, and is therefore produ no income whatever-on the contrary, its MI tenance is costing the state a large sum, year. This has been due chiefly to the exp of keeping up the bridges over the Canal caring for the locks and watergates at times of high water. The State Conservation Commission, under whose jurisdiction the Canal has been placed, wishes to dispose of the Canal as promptly as possible to stop further expense. It is therefore proposed to sell portions of it to the various municipalities and counties through which it passes. To this end a bill was passed during the 1924 session of the Legislature "to allow cities, towns, etc., to acquire the Morris Canal from the'State," and to direct "the Morris Canal and Banking Company to discontinue the use of Morris Canal as such." The act fui specifies that drawbridges be removed and Canal filled at road crossings; also that a mission of six be appointed to study the us( which the Canal may be put and to nego with municipalities for such use or to dispo: it by auction. This bill was passed by the sembly and the Senate, and approved by Governor on March 13, 1924. A wide variety of situations prevails in different localities along the course of the C and the local authorities accordingly c greatly in their opinions as to what dispos should be made of the various sections. Se" communities have already acquired rights t( property within their borders. In Newark 1 is the suggestion that its bed be taken for the construction of a subway or depressed extension to the Hudson tubes. In the city of Paterson the use of part of the canal area for railroad expansion is suggested. In some places it runs parallel to the state highway, and in others follows along river banks. In certain of the towns and cities the Canal cuts directly through in such a way that its conversion into a broad thoroughfare would seem to be a logical solution. Along a large part of its course the Canal winds most attractively through beautiful country, and would there seem to lend itself very well to development as a permanent parkway and water course, affording opportunities for canoe THE ABANDONED iMORRIS CANAL NEAR CLIFTON, N. J. -ther ing, tramping, and general recreation. The imSthe proved landscape treatment of this part of the com- Canal would not be difficult, and much of what es to needs to be done is merely to preserve the existtiate ing wealth of fine trees and shrubs. se of SAs- Long Island Park System the Prior to 1924 the only large public park on Long Island, exclusive of the New York City L the parks, was the Fire Island State Park of 200 anal, acres, inaccessible except by small boats. Alliffer though possessing the principal salt water faciliition ties of the Region, most of Long Island with its veral extensive shore line provided few public spaces o the or means of reaching the waterfront. An excelthere lent start has been made, however, by the Long 62 PUBLIC RECREATION DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION 63 Island State Park Commission, established in 1924, through the acquisition of areas both inland and on the water. These include about 1,755 acres of the Hither Hills section at Napeague Bay, near Montauk, 104 acres on Montauk Point, at the end of the island, and about 2,072 acres in six parcels of New York City Water Works property dedicated by the city for park purposes. The Fire Island Park has been enlarged by acquiring some 600 acres at the western end of Fire Island. The Deer Range Park on the inner side of the Island Inlet, a distance of about ten miles. These together with four other parcels make a total of 7,595 acres acquired or being acquired. All these new park sites are spots of natural beauty, including dense woodlands, secluded glades and sandy beaches. Their location is shown on the accompanying map (Fig. 10). The large area near Peconic Bay is the Upton National Forest of some 6,400 acres, formerly part of the Camp Upton military reservation. Part of this area will ultimately be available for recreation purposes through cooperation of soon be met by the Suffolk County Park Commission, established late in the year 1927.1 Existing Park and Play Spaces in New York City Under this heading are grouped the various types of open spaces which provide recreational facilities in the more densely populated districts of the Region. Parks in this category range all the way from the larger municipal open spaces (such as Central and Prospect Parks) to the comparatively modest neighborhood playgrounds and school play yards. While such play spaces Neighborhood parks Park playgrounds and school yards Roofs and interior courts There are in the entire Region 13,736 acres of land in use as city and village parks. Of this total, 10,482 acres are in the five boroughs of New York City. City parks and playgrounds must be part of a well-balanced park system. A shortage of park facilities of one type inevitably leads to overtaxing others. New York City is admittedly under-supplied with open space of this character. Because of ___________- ---- - -------------------------------------- -- -I FIG. 10. -RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ON LONG ISLAND, 1927 Great South Bay near Islip contains 1,469 acres. But most important of all is the fact that the Commission and the town of Hempstead have worked out a plan for the development of a large oceanfront park on Jones Beach. The plans include a causeway-connection with the mainland, and should lead to a valuable addition to the public facilities for sea bathing. Negotiations are also under way for the construction by the Commission of an ocean boulevard to connect Jones Beach State Park with the beach lands retained by several towns up to Cedar federal and state authorities, and it may eventually be desirable to connect it with other park facilities in that part of Long Island. Long Island, outside of Brooklyn and Queens, still falls short of other parts of the Region in regard to the provision made for public open spaces. Additional waterfront and inland parks, and a system of parkways, combined with excursion boat and railroad facilities, are needed in Long Island so that it may compete in attractiveness and economic advantage with other parts of the environs of New York. This need may exist to some extent in every large municipality of the Region, they are to be found chiefly in the crowded metropolitan area of New York City, where the problem of providing adequate space of this type, both for children and grown-ups, is necessarily acute. City parks and play spaces are considered under the following subdivisions: Large city parks, including educational parks Athletic fields 1 See also Part III, Chapter XV, PARKS ON LONG ISLAND -BOTH REGIONAL AND LOCAL. the enormous difficulties in acquiring additional space in the congested sections where it is most needed, various remedies have been suggested. Elsewhere in this report consideration is given to the proposal to acquire land for play buildings which would accommodate more children in a given space than the present neighborhood playground. The 10,482 acres of park space in New York City represent a provision of one acre of park for every 601 inhabitants. This is considerably less than one-half of the per capita park provi 64 PUBLIC RECREATION sion of such towns as Montclair and Plainfield. In this respect, New York ranks lowest among the ten largest cities of the United States. On the basis of area, it ranks fifth-having 5.5 per cent of its total area devoted to parks. The following table shows how the 10,482 acres of park in New York City are distributed among the five boroughs: Acres Pop. Pop. for Per cent Acr estimate each of total of park 197 acre of area in park parks Manhattan....... 1,745.0 2,172,500 1,245 12.4 Bronx............ 4,463.6 933,000 209 16.8 Brooklyn......... 2,576.3 2,282,000 885 5.9 Queens.......... 1,318.8 760,500 577 1.9 Richmond........ 378.3 151,500 400 1.0 New York City... 10,482.0 6,299,500 601 5.5 The Island of Manhattan presents one of the most serious problems in regard to the provision of adequate park areas. With 1,245 inhabitants for every acre of park, with high density of building, high land values and small areas of vacant land there is little opportunity for increasing the area of open space. Residents in Manhattan, however, have access to parks in the Bronx, which, with only 209 residents to every acre of park, and with transit facilities which render its parks fairly accessible, offers the most immediate means of relief to the adjacent borough. Parks of the larger type in New York City comprise a total area of 9,110 acres, and include among others, Central, Riverside, Bronx, Van Cortlandt, Prospect and Forest Parks. Central Park and Prospect Park are the most centralized parks in relation to the most thickly populated areas. Both are intensively used at all times for almost every form of outdoor recreation. Details of this varied use in respect to Central Park are given in Chapter IX. Riverside, Fort Washington and Inwood Hill Parks form a group of open areas between Riverside Drive and the Hudson River, to which more detailed reference is also made in Chapter V. The great area of the Pelham Bay Park lies FIG. 11 DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION 65 BOROUGH OF THE BRONX SHOWING MUNICIPAL PLAYGROUNDS AND ATHLETIC 1926 ~ \ S- 233RD 5T PEL HAM BA SPACE LEOEND * ParK Playgrounds and Recreation Piers 0 Park Athletic Space m School Playgrounds E School Athletic Space FIG. 12 66 PUBLIC RECREATION BOROUGH OE BROOKLYN SHOWING MUNICIPAL PLAYGROUNDS AND ATHLETIC SPACE 1926 LEGEND " * Park Playgrounds and, Recreation Piers O Park AThleTic Space m School Playgrounds V o School Athletic Space E c ~' / 4. A / ir-r / DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION E N, 0 MONTVILLEEr CN'CL PA/C9 0 1, WON-TON-L~-1 ~ / --"' ~ cgU~ -Ij ~ ~ U / CUI-*1C% CADWLL/W LD ~ ~ ~+ ~ rius i For SUOCLELEC * (ýONCLAR / a V!CC! WE3T NEWNYORKECAND EN OA01fPUBLICEARRY&r ED'-7 -~5 09AN G CT r IAAMBfWOY12 NORTHERN EWJEREYANDST 40' ~0'02 LEEN 73 Vi RON 5 5PACES CCUPIED BY -'RY CLUBS 'ATEN ISLAND. N.Y. ( OYER 25 ACRE5I ED 8OUNDUAIE5 STATE TWP, MONO oaVILLAUUC AREAS IN PUBLIC PARKS AREAS OWNED BY CLUBS AREAS, LEASED BY CLUBS CLUB DATA INCOMPLETE RES ERV 0IRS (Mu Cer 'CIC. FIG. 17 74 PUBLIC RECREATION the public park data complete to June 1924. The upper part of the diagram (Fig. 19) shows the percentage of the total area of each of these counties and parts of counties which is devoted to these several classes of recreation. The map of Westchester and adjoining counties shows only those parks in existence in 1922, since The increase in park lands to date has brought the ratio of public parks to total county area in Westchester County to 5.6 per cent; in Union County to 5.6 per cent; Nassau County to 1.6 per cent; and Suffolk County to 2 per cent. In the meantime the number and acreage of golf and country clubs have also increased. In FIG, 18 which date public park areas have been considerably increased, as is shown in Fig. 8 (page 59). In Union County some 3,609 acres have been acquired as county park lands since the date of the map in Fig. 17. The Long Island State Park Commission is in process of acquiring and developing 7,595 acres as public parks. the more densely populated counties where land values are high, the area of parks exceeds that of clubs, but in the other counties the situation is reversed. In 1923, the highest percentage of area devoted to golf clubs was in Nassau County, and amounted to 2.3 per cent, while the park lands in this county were only DIAGF2AM SHOWING COMPARISON OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROVISION FOR RECREATION IN- CERTAIN COUNTIES COMPRZISING NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS ý-PUBLIC PARKS - DATA COMPLETE TO JUNE 1924 EZZ-GOLF & COUNTR-Y C LUBS -DATA COMPLETE TO JULY 1923 PUBLIC PARK(S OF: LESS THAN (ACRE ARE NOT INCLUDED (4T -44 L3~ U) ~1U) Ira L~. U ) ~ Z o-4 -I: t4 V)z (fLQ~ -1-- ~ 11) U) ~ ~ ~ U) U) ~:3 ~ ~ REGIONAL PLAN OF NEW YORK AND ITS E NVI RONS ENGINEERING DIVISION J ULY 1924 FIG. 19 75 76 PUBLIC RECREATION 0.07 per cent of the total area (since increased to 1.6 per cent). In the counties comprising this part of the Region there were nearly as many acres devoted to golf clubs as to public parks, i. e., 0.8 per cent of the total area for the former and 0.9 per cent for the latter. The lower part of the diagram gives an indication of the number of people who may have had the use of each of these two classes of recreation facilities. This is shown by comparing, for each county, or part of a county, the number of acres of parks per 1,000 population with the number of acres of golf and country clubs per 1,000 members. It appears that while each 1,000 residents in the counties had access to onehalf to 14 acres of public park, each 1,000 golf club members had access to 200 to 1,200 acres of club property. This means that even in Westchester County, which had the greatest provision of parks per capita, there was 17 times as much land used for private recreation by each club member as there was available for public recreation for each resident of the county. In these figures the country club ratio is based only on the club members. To compare club membership with the population may appear to be somewhat unfair, since club membership is nominally limited to adults, although sometimes used by whole families and their guests, while the population figures include all residents. But even if the comparison were made between families and club members, the disparity between existing public and private open space would still be remarkable. It must be remembered that the diagrams refer to the years 1923 and 1924, and that since then great additions have been made to the area of public parks in Westchester, Union, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, but in the other counties, especially in Bergen, Passaic, Fairfield, and Middlesex, where rapid growth of population is proceeding, the proportion of public open space is not increasing in comparison with private open space. This emphasizes the need of additional public recreation facilities in these counties, because the great majority of the inhabitants cannot afford to be members of golf and country clubs. Additions are being made to the recreation facilities of the Region by welfare agencies, and some industries provide camping and outing accommodations for their people, and in some instances athletic fields and playgrounds. These, however, are incidental to the public park and recreation system, which needs to be planned and provided at public expense by and for all the people. Summary of Parks in the Region The following is a summary of the parks and playgrounds in different parts of the Region, comprising a total of 89,935 acres: 1. CITY OF NEW YORK a. Parks of 100 Acres or More Area Area in acres Name Borough in devoted to active acres recreation Central....... Manhattan 843.0 78.96 Riverside.... " 214.2 3.26 Inwood Hill... 162.8 0.00 Fort Washington......... 128.4 2.00 High Bridge... "I 125.6 0.25 Total... " 1,474.0 84.47 Pelham Bay... The Bronx 1,756.0 95.0 + 93.0 (golf course) Van Cortlandt. " 1,132.4 92.0 + 149.0 (golf course) Bronx....... ( 719.1 0.39 Bronx and Pelham Pkwy... " 188.0 0.00 Mosholu Pkwy. " 166.0 2.80 Crotona....... " 154.6 1.77 Bronx River Pkwy...... " 140.0 0.00 Total....... " 44,256.1 191.96+242.0 (golf course) Marine....... Brooklyn 1,099.3 Undeveloped Prospect..... " 526.0 129.12 Gerritsen Basin " 147.5 Undeveloped Dyker Beach.. " 139.8 0.0 + 35.0 (golf course) Shore Rd. and Ft. Hamilton " 110.9 0.0 Total....... " 2,023.5 129.12 + 35.0 (golf course) Forest...... Jacob Riis..... Kissena.... Total....... Queens It 510.0 262.6 291.2 991.8 200.0 165.0 365.0 9,110.4 Clove Lakes... Richmond Silver Lake... It Total....... TOTAL LARGE PARKS, NEW YORK CITY.... 13.0 + 118.0 (golf course) Undeveloped 2.0 15.0 + 118.0 (golf course) 0.0 0.0 0.0 420.55 +395.0 (golf course) DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION 77 b. Small Parks and Playgroundsa Manhattan..................... 271.0 acres The Bronx..................... 207.5 " Brooklyn...................... 552.8 Queens........................ 327.0 " Richmond....................... 13.3 TOTAL SMALL PARKS, NEW YORK CITY...................... 1,371.6 " 2. LONG ISLAND (Outside New York City) Saw Mill River Pkwy........Westchester County 1,616.0 acres 1,100.0 " Mohansic..... Sprain Brook Pkwy........ Saxon Woods... Hutchinson River Pkwy.. Silver Lake..... Tibbetts Brook. Croton Point... Cross County Pkwy........ Crugers........ Pelham Portchester Pkwy. Manursing Island........ WoodlandsLake Glen Island.... Maple Moor Golf Course.. i "I a. Parks of 100 Acres or More Hempstead Reservoir State Park... Nassau County Jones Beach State Park.......... Massataiyan State Park........... " Meadow Brook State Park............ " Wantagh State Park ".. Total, Nassau County......... Upton National For-,est..............Suffolk County Hither Hills State Park............ " " Deer Range State Park............ " Fire Island State Park............ " " Wildwood State Park " Sunken Meadow State Park..... " " Belmont Lake State Park........... " " Montauk Point State Park.......... " S. 900.0 S. " 820.0. " 601.0 Si 510.0 S. 425.0 " " 350.0 " 314.0.4.. 267.0 ' " 250.0." 214.0 " " 212.0 S. 107.0 4 " I 101.0 819.1 acres 600.0 559.1 442.8 200.4 " 2,601.4 6,400.0 acres 1,755.0 " 1,468.86 " 800.0 " 385.86 " 252.0 " 160.77 " 108.84 " Total Suffolk County.......... 11,331.3 TOTAL LARGE PARKS, LONG ISLAND (Outside New York City)...... 13,932.7 b. Small Parks and Playgrounds Nassau County............... 228.3 acres Suffolk County............... 217.3 TOTAL SMALL PARKS, LONG ISLAND 445.6 3. NEW YORK COUNTIES IN THE REGION (Except New York City and Long Island) a. Parks of 100 Acres or More Poundridge Reservation..... Westchester County 3,198.0b acres Blue Mt. Res. and Briarcliff Peekskill Pkwy. " " 2,346.0 Bronx River Pkwy. and Extension.... " " 1,988.0 SDoes not include 400 acres of school playgrounds and athletic fields. Total Westchester County 15,319.0 " Bear Mountain, Orange County 17,012.0 " Storm King.... " " 850.0 " Total Orange County...........17,862.0 Bear Mountain, Rockland County 18,300.0 Hook Mountain " "1 780.0 " Blauvelt....... " " 550.0 " Total Rockland County......... 19,630.0 TOTAL LARGE PARKS, NEW YORK COUNTIES IN THE REGION (Except New York City and Long Island).. 52,811.0 b. Small Parks and Playgrounds Westchester County................ 688.6 " Orange ".............. 124.3 " Rockland "............. 104.7 " Dutchess ".............. 6.0 " TOTAL SMALL PARKS, NEW YORK COUNTIES IN THE REGION...... 923.6 4. CONNECTICUT-Fairfield County a. Parks of 100 Acres or More Israel Putnam Memorial State Park. 203.0 acres Seaside-Bridgeport.............. 180.0 " Beardsley-Bridgeport............ 150.0 " Wooster Mt. State Park........... 100.0 " TOTAL LARGE PARKS, FAIRFIELD COUNTY..................... 633.0 ( b. Small Parks and Playgrounds TOTAL SMALL PARKS, FAIRFIELD COUNTY..................... 431.5 b Since increased to 3,900 acres. 78 PUBLIC RECREATION 5. NEW JERSEY COUNTIES IN THE REGION a. Parks of 100 Acres or More Palisades Interstate Park............ Bergen County 940.0 acres Garrett Mt.-Paterson, Passaic County 153.7 " West Side.......... Hudson County 247.2 " North Hudson...... " " 165.6 " Total Hudson County............ 412.8 " Watchung Reservation............. Union County 1,800.0 " Rahway River Pkwy. " " 900.0 " Galloping Hill.... "' 300.0 " Warinanco...... " 204.0 " Echo Lake......... " " 128.0 " Total Union County............... 3,332.0 " South Mt. Reservation............. Essex County 2,056.8 " Branch Brook..... " " 488.1 " Eagle Rock......... " " 408.5 " Weequahic......... " " 316.0 " Total Essex County............. 3,269.4 " Somerville Park..Somerset County. 100.0 " Total Somerset County........... 100.0 " TOTAL LARGE PARKS, NEW JERSEY COUNTIES IN THE REGION....... 8,207.9 " b. Small Parks and Playgrounds Bergen County................ Passaic................ H udson............... Union..... Essex..... Somerset.... M iddlesex............... M orris...... M onmouth "............... 186.0 acres 264.0 327.3 388.0 746.5 12.2 88.5 106.5 15.5 --. TOTAL SMALL PARKS, NEW JERSEY COUNTIES IN THE REGION........ 2,134.5 " TOTAL PARKS 100 ACRES OR MORE IN THE REGION...84,695.0 acres TOTAL SMALL PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS IN THE REGION................ 5,306.8 " GRAND TOTAL ALL PARKS IN THE REGION.........90,001.8 " Courtesy, Palisades Interslate Park Commission THE PLAYFIELD AT BEAR MOUNTAIN PARK PART II THE USE, SPACE REQUIREMENTS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR EXTENSION OF RECREATION FACILITIES IV. USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES Reservations and Country Parks The absence of an adequate and well-distributed system of city parks, the difficulty of increasing or extending such parks near to the crowded areas, and the effect which crowded traffic streets have in limiting their use, have increased the need for more public reservations and country parks at some distance from these areas. The improved means of transit by rail and automobile, while helping to increase concentration, has happily had considerable influence in assisting the concentrated population to travel farther afield for its recreation. De are able to reach the outlying parks by automobile depend on the extension of parkways and improvement of highways simultaneously with the acquisition of country parks. The increasing congestion of the means of approach to existing country park areas, to camp sites, and bathing beaches for week-end and holiday trips shows the extent of the demand and the need of improved access to distant recreation facilities. The promotion of such organizations as Boy Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, Girl Scouts, Woodcraft League, Boy Rangers, and Four-H Clubs introduces demands for new and different activities. While the time-honored habits of play may not have changed fundamentally, they have nevertheless taken new directions. The recreational possibilities of the interstate, state, county or municipal water supply reservations, comprising forests and mountainous areas, are necessarily limited. These areas, however, under proper control, provide enjoyment for pedestrians or picnic parties, and, besides preserving the natural beauties of the landscape, they make possible trails for hikers and opportunities to escape from the dust and noise of the motor highways. County and municipal public parks in open country districts can be used with greater freedom because they are farther removed from the water supply. These parks vary greatly in character. They include developed areas for athletics and other forms of active recreation, as well as stretches of wild land, thus lending themselves to a wide range of uses. Because more time and money is required to reach them and because they are less constantly used than city parks, they are especially desirable for week-end camping, picnics, and similar diversions. They should, therefore, be arranged to accommodate the large holiday crowds that pour out of the cities for a day or week-end trip. Their function SADDLE RIVER, BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY fective distribution of large parks is thus overcome to some extent by improved means of communication between populous districts and the more open districts where land can be acquired at reasonable cost for park purposes. In addition to the changes in the character of the demand thus created, the need for conserving large water supply reservations, due to growing population, has given much stimulus to the movement for making public reservations within a comparatively short distance of large cities. Where the land near the cities is better adapted for afforestation than farming, a further factor emerges in support of the movement. The quickness and comfort with which people 80 USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES 81 is largely to take the people from the crowded city to the country. In a country park it is necessary to install considerable equipment, as overnight shelters for hikers, an inn with overnight accommodations, cook shacks, lodges, and other paraphernalia for winter and summer use. However, the chief function of such parks is to provide access to large sections of unspoiled country and to permanently preserve that "touch with nature" which the city dweller needs. The danger of overdevelopment of artificial conveniences must be guarded against. As is shown in the summary at the end of the previous chapter, there are 79,519 acres of parks in the Region outside the City of New York. Of these, 3,254 acres belong to cities and villages, leaving 76,266 acres of county, state, and federal park lands. In this latter group are several large reservations and country parks. The best example of a large country park is Bear Mountain Park, comprising over 35,000 acres of forest land on the west shore of the Hudson River. Because it can be reached easily, pleasantly, and at little PLAYGI cost, and also because A 1 of the wide range of recreation opportunities which it offers, Bear Mountain Park is already being taxed to capacity to meet public demands. Applications for camping accommodations in summer exceed the park's present capacity. A similar difficulty arises even in winter. Large numbers seek the use of Bear Mountain Inn to enjoy the winter sports over the week-end, and of late it has become necessary to require registration in advance at the Park Commission's New York City office. Some of the camps in the park are being equipped for winter use. The popularity of Bear Mountain, in the comparatively few years of its existence, has directed attention to other Hudson Valley areas that are suitable for similar park development. On the east shore, opposite Newburgh, are thousands of acres of wooded mountain lands, well supplied with streams, lakes, and ponds. This is the Mount Beacon district which from time to time has received consideration as a desirable addition to the park facilities of the Region. In some instances what are virtually country parks serve uses similar to city parks. This occurs where such parks extend close to or into city limits. For example, Branch Brook Park in Newark, as a part of the park system of Essex County, is a park which serves this twofold purpose. Courtesy, Essex County Park Commission ROUND IN BRANCH BROOK PARK, NEWARK part of the Essex County park system The new Tri-State Park, located where New York, Connecticut and Massachusetts meet, will afford additional outing facilities for residents within the Region, although it lies outside. The Tri-State Park district is tapped by the Harlem Division of the New York Central Railroad and by several good highways. It therefore should be fairly useful to New York City dwellers, as well as to those in the other large population centers of that part of the Region. The need of preserving forests is one of the important economic reasons for establishing large forest reserves. The use of forests for recreation can be made to fit in with the other Macadam Roads Gravel Roads --- Trails Outline of Park Camps Trail Markers Trail Markers Trail Markers T-TJ- Tuxedo-Tom Jones A-SB1- Arden -Surebridge A-T = Appalachian Trail R-D - Ramapo- Dunderberg T-MI - Tuxedo - Mt. Ivy LM-T = Long Mountain -Torne T-T - Timp -Torne FB-SK -Fingerboard - Storm King S-BM = Suffern -Bear MounTain Note:Where Appalachian Trail uses parts of other trails initials are in parenthesis (A-T) -Tao1o To Ce ral -2 - To Monroe 1Val ey C) C) tT-j H 0 z FIG. 20 TRAILS, ROADS AND CAMP SITES IN BEAR MOUNTAIN PARK USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES 83 public needs and thus further justify the growing of timber on country areas not adaptable for cultivation. Hiking Trails and Shelters Paths and trails restricted to "hikers" have a definite and useful place in a well-rounded regional park system. Country highways are becoming more and more dangerous for walking and on some walking is now prohibited. These conveniences for pedestrians are coming to be installed at small expense. The initial cost and that of maintenance are quite insignificant compared to their value. Within recent years, hiking in the New York Region has gained a very considerable popularity. Raymond Torrey in the "New York Walk Book" states that there were but four walking clubs in New York City ten years ago, while now there are over forty, and the number is steadily increasing. The Palisades Interstate Park Commission is Courtesy, Palisades Interstate Park Commission SHELTER FOR OVERNIGHT CAMPERS IN 'BEAR MhOUNTAIN PARK provided not only in the parks themselves, but as connecting links between them, and as a means of access between the centers of population and the open country. Neither the public nor the authorities have yet fully realized how much the usefulness of scattered park spaces can be enhanced by agreeable means of access to them and connection between them in the form of pedestrian paths and trails. Such conveniences along the highway lessen the hazards to both pedestrians and motorists, and they can be encouraging these clubs by putting up overnight shelters for hikers along the trails that have been developed in the Bear Mountain Park. There is already one shelter on the RamapoDunderberg Trail, a trail built by the volunteer work of members of New York City walking clubs, and four additional shelters are now in process of construction. These are at strategic points so that hiking parties over the longer trails may have a place to stop overnight. The new shelters will be supplied with pure water 84 PUBLIC RECREATION from wells and springs. They have open fireplaces, cooking ovens, and pole bunks. Hikers sometimes go far afield for their recreation. It is interesting to note that New Yorkers use and assist in developing trails that lie well outside the Region. In the Adirondacks Forest Preserve, many miles of trail have been developed by walking clubs whose members live at considerable distances. They are steadily improving the shelters and other overnight accommodations along these trails. Probably the most notable trail in the East, and the one best equipped with overnight shelters, is the Long Trail built by the Green Mountain Club to span the summits and ridges of the Green Mountains of Vermont. More than fifteen years have been spent in developing this trail, which now extends 230 miles from the Massachusetts line to within a few miles of the Quebec border. A similar development is the trail of the Appalachian Mountain Club in the White Mountains, which has a length of 300 miles but is not so completely equipped and connected. These trails are kept up chiefly by private funds of the walking clubs. Much of the work has been done by club members, both in clearing the trails and constructing the shelters. They constitute a valuable addition to the facilities for outdoor recreation. Cooperation by national, state, county, and regional park and forestry bodies will be necessary if all the opportunities for this form of outdoor recreation are to be realized. The Forestry Department of Vermont furnishes aid to walkers by providing for the patrol and custody of shelters by its fire wardens. Syracuse University has recently established a Department of Forest Recreation for the purpose of studying and making known the recreational possibilities of forest reservations. The principal trails within easy reach of New York, outside of Bear Mountain Park, are in the territory that surrounds the latter, and that is bounded roughly by a line drawn southwest from Newburgh through Orange, Rockland, Bergen, Passaic and Morris Counties. On the east side of the Hudson River, the areas available for hiking take in the stretch from Dutchess County south through Putnam and Westchester Counties, extending back ten to thirty miles from the river. Although much of this wild and mountainous land is private property, there is little serious interference with hikers, in passing through it. There is no guarantee, however, that freedom will continue to be given indefinitely unless state and county authorities acquire some public rights of way across the private property.' One of the problems which affect hikers from New York City lies in getting access to the southern entrance to Bear Mountain Park. The park touches the Hudson River at the Bear Mountain Station and Bridge, but a large section of the hiking area lies much farther south and is more directly reached from the Stony Point Station. This, however, takes the hiker through private property for a distance of six to eight miles. As this section becomes further developed there may be serious difficulty in using this means of approach unless special provision is made. The Erie Railroad furnishes easy access to the western part of the area, and permits hikers to enter from the vicinity of Suffern and Tuxedo. Trails along the old towpath of Morris Canal were formerly favored by hikers and horseback riders, but, since portions of the canal have been drained, it has lost much of its attraction. If the canal property is ever developed as a park, as suggested in Chapter III, it would lend itself admirably to this form of recreation. In any plan worked out for salvaging this property, opportunity should be taken not only to develop its landscape features and to add to needed means of circulation by the creation of parkways, but also to provide attractive recreation facilities, such as camping, horseback-riding and hiking. Hiking trails on the aqueducts of city water systems are practical means of substantially increasing the facilities for this form of active recreation. Water companies and municipal water boards control surface rights of way extending 1 The Conservation Department of Massachusetts has the authority to acquire by gift or purchase strips of land or easements therein for the establishment of trails connecting public preserves. Park commissions in New York State have similar authority, and in addition may condemn private property for this purpose. USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES 85 for many miles through the open country. These are fenced off from adjoining property, in most cases, and have gates or stiles where the aqueduct is crossed by highways or farm roads. They are now used to some extent as hiking trails and also in a few places as bridle trails. The New York City aqueduct connecting with the Ashokan Reservoir west of Kingston has a fenced-in surface right of way for many miles in the Hudson River Valley. Splendid opportunities exist for hiking in the Tri-State Park and the Mount Beacon sections of the Region. Access to the Mount Beacon district can be had by way of the Hudson River, the New York Central Railroad, and the New York-Albany Post Road. Attractive trails can be developed in connection with the ocean parks being planned along the south shore of Long Island. The uplands along the north shore with their varied terrain would be more alluring to the hiker, but they are generally in occupation as private estates. The Sandy Hook and Atlantic Highlands section of New Jersey has many attractive features for the hiker, and scope for development of new trails. This section will be more accessible when new means of transportation, now projected, have been provided. The land on the West Shore of the Hudson River from Dyckman Street Ferry north to Bear Mountain Park is attractive for hiking. Much of this river shore land is already in the possession of the Palisades Interstate Park Commission and is coming into popular use for camping, picnic parties, and hiking. There are places, however, where private property extends down to the river and owners have fenced off their land to the water's edge, thus effectually interrupting a continuous trail along the river. A right of passage on foot should be acquired along the river in order to connect the several holdings of the Palisades Interstate Park Commission. Footpaths legally established as rights of way for pedestrians are much less common in this country than in the British Isles and other parts of Europe. The larger English estates are commonly crossed by footways along which there may be gates and stiles, but which can no more be closed or abolished at the will of a land-owner than can a public road. On the other hand they are ordinarily well marked, and it is understood that the right to use them does not carry with it a right to stray from the path at will and roam over adjoining grounds, or injure vegetation. In a country which is so densely populated, such Courtesy, Palisades Interstate Park Commission HIKERS ON THE TRAIL footpaths are cherished and are recognized as both convenient and delightful. In the New York Region there ought to be more footpaths. They are needed on their own account as pleasant connections between separate parks and reservations. City excursionists have done much to arouse the opposition to such rights of way which is now common among land-owners, by destroying flowers and bushes, by making and leaving odious litter and by unwarranted intrusion upon privacy. Education of the people of the city to respect property and vegetation, and to destroy papers and other litter, is needed. Boy Scout organizations and some hiking clubs 86 PUBLIC RECREATION are helping promote this education. When an improvement in the attitude of the excursionists is obtained, it should be practicable to overcome any unreasonable objections of land-owners to permitting public foot paths across their properties. The heavy motor car traffic on many of the highways and the absence of paths at the sides of the highways interfere seriously with the enjoyment of hiking, especially during the weekends and on holidays. It often happens that to reach a trail or to get from one trail to another, the hiker must go afoot along a highway much used for motor traffic. The increasing popularity of hiking is filling many of the highways with pedestrians who have no special trails provided for them in the direction they wish to go. A system of parks and walks parallel to the motor highways or connecting parks and parkways across the highway system would be a great public boon and a relief to both the pedestrian and the motorist. A recent report of the Monroe County (New York) Lane and Bridle Trail Association says: "There has been some discussion as to how a scheme of bridle paths and hiking trails would fit in the county park and parkway plan. Such facilities can easily be provided both along the parkways and in the parks. The time is coming when highway officials must design roads to provide a suitable trail or walk for pedestrians outside of the motor roadway, especially in the vicinity of centers of population. To date, the highway officials have been struggling with problems of securing permanent roadways and safety for auto traffic and now they must begin to devote some attention to attractive roadsides, safe ways for pedestrians, turnouts at fine view points, etc. The Monroe County Park Commission and the Rochester Park Commission in cooperation with the Country Lane and Bridle Trail Association have established and marked about 30 miles of bridle trail. Additions are in prospect for 1928 which will link the isolated trails into one continuous system." Nature Trails and Museums Eight years ago the first nature museum was established at the Boy Scouts camp in Bear Mountain Park, and at the present time many smaller museums have been opened in various parts of the park. The American Museum of Natural History opened a station for the study of insects on Lake Tiorati three years ago. Nature trails have been marked out with the flora interestingly labelled and signs indicating the presence of birds and small wild animals posted. Near Bear Mountain Inn is a new Trailside Museum from which radiate about a mile and a half of such nature trails. The low stone building was constructed by the American Association of Museums and about twenty acres of wild woodland, admirably fitted for the project, have been set aside. The men and women in charge of these nature study stations invite and encourage the formation of nature classes and organize and lead bird and flower hikes, giving certain certificates of accomplishment to the children at the end of the season. Approaches to Country Parks by Parkways and Highways Excursions by motor have become a common and popular form of recreation. Nowadays nearly everyone who can afford to own a car indulges in this form of outing. Women, accompanied by children, who used seldom to get away from home or its immediate surroundings, now go frequently on tours of half a day, or a day, or several days. Consequently the highways are filled with pleasure seekers as they never were before. The special fact that distinguishes from all other motorists these pleasure seekers who go out for a refreshing drive in the country is that their aim is merely to get to the open country rather than to any specific place. What they want is a road somewhere, along which the traffic is not too crowded to make travelling agreeable, where the adjoining scenery is pleasant, and where they can find a comfortable place for eating the picnic lunch. Roadways through parks immediately suggest themselves as highly suitable for this kind of recreation. Their rural environment, sense of spaciousness and the exclusion of trucks and motor buses combine to make them most agreeable driveways for those who seek recreation by motoring, or other forms of pleasure driving or riding. Portions of long "ribbon" parks, USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES 8 87 such as what is known as the Bronx Parkway, may also serve as local parks for the districts through which the ribbon of open land runs, and often contain play spaces and trails for hiking and horseback riding so separated from the driveways as to permit of safe use for these purposes. According to the laws of New York, a " parkway " is a park. The term should be used to characterize a roadway within a park or a roadway combined with a park, such as the Bronx Parkway. Sometimes, however, a highway that does not intersect a park is called a parkway, because, although dominantly given over to traffic, it has some park features within its boundaries. The Ocean and Eastern Parkways in Brooklyn are highways of this sort. Under the law, however, there are only two classifications, namely, parks and highways. The latter may be state highways, county highways, town roads, streets, or roads maintained by some combination of authority and division of expense. Popularly, the word "parkway" is applied to roads which are entirely different from each other in their legal quality, and also utterly different in their aspect and physical accompaniments. The word " boulevard " is also used with a variety of meanings. In this and other reports of the Regional Plan Committee the term "parkway "is used to denote a way through and within a park, and the term "boulevard " to denote a highway that is furnished with trees, grass, or other park features. Movement along a highwvay is subject to interruption by infiowing and cross traffic at all points, whereas a road through a park cannot be approached except at points where the park authorities determine that connections shall be established. The Bronx Parkway is a road through and combined with a narrow park. The road and park together embrace scenic features which the highway authorities would not have had the power to include in a highway. Cross traffic and incoming traffic are greatly restricted. Private driveways and garage doorways do not for cross highways to facilitate rapid movement. This park and parkway has a width of nearly 500 feet; Pennypack Creek Park and Parkway, leading out of Philadelphia, is 8 miles long and averages 1,500 to 1,600 feet in width; Boston's Fenway Park begins a series of parks that are generally more than 400 feet wide; Cooper River Park in Camden County, N. J., which is 6 or 7 miles long, averages 1,000 to 1,200 feet in width. In Westchester County the Saw Mill River Park and Parkway, for the first 73/2 miles above Dunwoodie Station, is projected with the following widths-over 200 feet average for under 4 miles, over 450 feet average for nearly 3 miles, and between 700 to 1,200 feet wide for over 1 mile. When park commissions and highway authorities cooperate, the former taking a ribbon of land and turning over a right-of-way through it to the latter, certain desirable results can thereby be achieved. Cost of acquisition is sometimes reduced and a roadway that is free from interruptions is secured. Where needed, more land can be acquired than could lawfully be taken for a highway, and the combined park and highway form a safe, attractive, and convenient means of approach to residential areas and the open country. Where parks with driveways through them are needed, as in the close proximity to the city and along main lines of pleasure travel, it should be observed that they not only minister to the requirements of the occasional excursionist, but add to the pleasure of life for people who go in and out of town daily. Unquestionably, one reason why Westchester County property has been rising rapidly in value and why the county has been developing as one of the best residential suburbs of the metropolis is that the Bronx River Parkway affords to the Westchester resident an agreeable and refreshing corridor in and out of the city. The extensive use made of existing parkways indicates the need of great extension of facilities of this type, not only leadingy in and out of 88 PUBLIC RECREATION radial lines of communication. In addition to artificially created parkways there is a broad network of country roads available to pleasure drivers. The character and extent of mileage of these roads is such, in some parts of the Region, that the construction of special driveways through public parks is not so often needed. This does not mean, however, that ordinary country roads are satisfactory in appearance and character in all cases. Parts of most of these roads suffer from the erection of ugly temporary structures and some public action is needed to prevent this disfigurement by means of zoning. From the point of view of the pleasure seeker unsightly billboards. A common form of highway nuisance is the mutilation of trees to make way for wires and temporary buildings, and the placing of rubbish heaps to the injury of the surroundings. Picnic Grounds During warm weather and especially at weekends, the roadways and by-ways within 75 miles of New York are dotted with motor parties who settle down to picnic anywhere they can. As already said, these thousands of families now find their recreation in roving about the countryside by motor, and great numbers of them deface the landscape with litter, injure fences, bushes, and trees, start fires, pollute the roadsides, and sometimes become such nuisances that landowners are in a mood to keep them off with shot guns. Community action in the direction of providing auto tourist camps has been taken quite generally throughout the different states. Books on auto-camping are on sale, and maps and lists of auto-camps are published for tourists. The New York Conservation Commission has established camps in the State Forest y Park Commission Parks and Reservations. But UNTY about New York it is the passing picnicker rather than the allnight camper who has chiefly to be considered. He is to be numbered by tens of thousands. Yet very little has been done to meet his requirements or restrain his excesses, and he is a difficult problem along all roadways. This is because he can do so much harm and cause so much annoyance, and because he seeks his own picnic ground and prefers it to one that is prepared for him, unless the selection and preparation of the site are very skilfully made. He needs direction and assistance, and the countryside needs protection. A good start toward a solution has been made by the Palisades Interstate Park Commission in providing attractive and convenient picnic Courlesy, Westchester Count PIcNIc IN WOODLANDS PARK, WESTCHESTER COL almost every rural highroad or by-road is potentially a pleasure drive; but it ought to be more generally recognized by land-owners and municipal authorities that its attractiveness is destroyed where the wayfarer's attention is deflected, often every few minutes of his drive, by the appeals and suggestions of business enterprise. Without acquiring more land, the recreational resources of a region would be very considerably enhanced if town plans, village plans, and zoning ordinances were generally so adopted as to protect the appearance of the ordinary country roadsides, by prohibiting or controlling the erection of cheap temporary " hot-dog" stands, ugly gasoline stations, and USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES 89 grounds along the Hendrik Hudson Memorial Drive, in the Palisades section and in Bear Mountain Park. Well designed tables and seats of concrete have been erected, fireplaces for cooking provided, and space for parking cars has been arranged. Sanitary conveniences have been included. Similar provision has been made on some of the water supply reservations and, to a limited extent, also along the Storm King Highway. Refreshment stands along the country roads are beginning to include these conveniences for picnic parties, and some cities and villages have established picnic places on their outskirts. In a more limited way county park commissions are responding to this need. The undeveloped beaches of the Region offer attractive possibilities of this kind without much equipment, but as they become more generally used it will be necessary to devise some means of controlling the litter and providing other sanitary conveniences. Fireplaces for cooking and for burning refuse are among the first requirements. Places along the country roads, small in area but attractively located and numerous, and supplied with a limited equipment, constitute a great present need in providing for this form of recreation. The township or the county authorities might undertake the task of in well be supplied by the Troopers. In this way the people would learn how to use properly the picnicking privileges that are available. Fire hazards would be reduced and the unsightly littering of the roadsides lessened. APPROVE D CAMP WEST VIRGINIA "' MDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH: MARKING FOR INSPECTED AND APPROVED CAMP SITES Camp Sites The romantic appeal of the camp fire, with its centuries of intimate and vital associations in the history of the human race, continues to lure increasing numbers of city dwellers from their homes to the mountains, lakes, rivers and sea shores. "Going camping" is a form of vacation recreation that suffers no loss of popularity in competition with the automobile. It has been pointed out that camp sites in the country are in such demand that the resources of Bear Mountain Park and other public reservations are taxed to full capacity. The west shore of the Hudson at the foot of the Palisades is a popular nearby camping place. Camp sites on private property throughout the Region are numerous. There are three main types of camping out that make their own peculiar demands for facilities,- camping by clubs or groups from institutions and industries, the family camping party of two or more families, and the single family auto campers. The first requires more formal locations and equipment. Cook shacks, bunk houses, recreation halls, tennis courts and facilities for swimming and boating are demanded. The Bear Mountain authorities have achieved outstanding results in meeting these demands. PICNIC GROVE AT BAISLEYS POND PARK, QUEENS stallation and upkeep and the State Troopers could furnish a certain amount of supervision. The picnickers could be giv\en general instruction by posters and through the newspapers, and personal directions and information might 90 PUBLIC RECREATION The family group requires only the site with a few sanitary conveniences, except where a number of such units are located near together. Then a central dining hall and sometimes a recreation hall are found to be desirable. This type of accommodation is also found in Bear Mountain Park and in some of the county park systems. The auto camper carries his own equipment and patronizes the auto camp and the less formal camp sites and picnic grounds along the highways. A new and interesting type of camp has been established by New York University at Bear Mountain Park in cooperation with the Park extent that it should have special consideration in planning for the use of public open areas throughout the Region. Waterfront Parks and Beaches Escape from the heat of the city to the cooling breezes of the shore is one of the chief services rendered by waterfront parks and beaches. Another is the facility they offer for sea bathing, as one of the healthiest forms of exercise. The extent of use of such parks is largely determined by their accessibility, since the great majority of those who use them come for the day or a part of the day. In vacation time, waterfront parks, Courlesy,.TVeslchesler County Park Commission TIBBETTS BROOK PARK--SWAMP BEFORE IMPROVEMENT Commission. Summer courses in physical education are conducted, training courses for recreation leaders are given, and outing opportunities for members of the University faculty are provided. The equipment is such as to serve also for winter use. This development indicates directions in which the country park may supplement certain city parks in supplying educational facilities. The summer bungalow at the seashore and in the country districts might be included in the summer camping list. Many of these are nearly as informal as the camp shack in the country park or reservation. This form of outing is increasing in popularity to such an Courtesy, Weslchester Ccunly Park Commission TIBBETTS BROOK PARK-LAKE AFTER IMPROVEMENT such as Coney Island, Rockaway, Pelham, and Palisades Park, take on some of the characteristics of the country park and provide for, or have near them, camp and bungalow colonies. In general, however, the primary function of the beach or waterfront park is to provide for the inhabitants of the crowded cities the benefits of sea bathing and sea breezes. A great variety of amusement and refreshment facilities usually develops in connection with the bathing beaches. These may either be concessions on park property or private holdings nearby. Grounds for active recreation, such as hand ball, volley ball, basketball, and tennis, USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES 91 are coming to be a recognized part of the layout of a waterfront park. Terminal facilities for transportation lines and parking space for automobiles must also have a place in the planning of such parks. The value of water frontage is to be considered not only in those parts of the area that have frontage on the ocean or large lakes, but also in connection with the areas that have natural streams and small lakes which can be fitted into water-logged land, which formerly existed in such areas. It is part of the program of all the park commissions that are operating in the Region to develop lakes and ponds at several places, to afford boating and skating facilities. It is held to be conclusively shown that a majority of the people seeking recreation facilities find their greatest pleasure on and about streams, lakes and ponds. This is not merely because these water areas provide opportunities for Courtesy, Westches-er County Park Commission SWIMMING POOL IN TIBBETTs BROOK PARK the park system. The parks and parkways of Westchester and Union Counties have been largely developed along valleys that are drained by small rivers, such as the Bronx River, the Hutchinson River, and the Saw Mill River in Westchester, and Elizabeth River in Union County. These river frontages not only make attractive natural features but they permit the creation in low-lying sections of the parks of lakes, lagoons, and skating ponds, in contrast with swamps and bathing, boating, and fishing in summer, and skating in winter, but also because camping and picnicking are more popular on the water's edge and vegetation is more vigorous. In recent years twenty artificial lakes have been built in northern New Jersey, by private as well as public enterprise, and still more are being added. The number of artificial lakes in connection with the Westchester Park system is ten. Some of these lakes are close to large populations and are fitted up in an exceptionally PUBLIC RECREATION 92 fine way for bathing and swimming. The great swimming pool that has been created at Tibbetts Brook Park is an example of the most modern type of pool and bath house. Other similar developments are planned in Westchester given over to industrial and commercial use that nothing can be done to lay out parks along its edges. Nevertheless, even if it flows through these areas, it should be capable of being used for boating and canoeing and its pollution should be stopped. Below Passaic a considerable stretch extends to Kearny with open land on both banks, which should be laid out as a part of the park system and protected from the encroachment of commercial buildings. There are unlimited areas suitable for commerce in this part of New Jersey, particularly on the Hackensack Meadows, but the immediately accessible areas available for residence and park purposes combined are less plentiful in proportion to those available for industry. The development of the large industrial areas will depend greatly for its success on maintaining a residential quality of the land along the Rutherford Ridge and through a wide ribbon, extending across the Passaic River through Belleville and Nutley toward the hilly country beyond. Probably no part of the area of the Region has more immediate need of planning and the protection of its attractive natural features than this part of New Jersey. The most important element to be considered in any such plan is the Passaic River. Public beaches and bathing facilities in the environs of New York are, relatively speaking, extremely limited. Notwithstanding a salt PASSAIc RIVER, NORTH ARLINGTON, NEW JERSEY County, while in Union County it is proposed to build a large bathing and swimming pool, with decorative treatment, in the Elizabeth River Park. The cleansing of small rivers, thus converting them into water highways for purposes of recreation, including canoeing and boating, is one of the most striking features of the progress in extending recreational facilities that has been made in the Region. Probably, however, the greatest opportunity that exists for the recreation waterway is that........RI..... O THE. PAS c R PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, USE OF THE PASSAIC RIVER WVATERFRONT IN PATERSON, PASSAIC COUNTY, NEW JERSEY of the Passaic River, which is still uncleansed and largely unused, especially in its lower reaches. Above Paterson it is a popular resort but is still capable of further development. In parts of Paterson and Passaic it is so largely water shore front of 1,800 miles, opportunities for public enjoyment of the benefits of this great natural recreational resource are far from numerous. Reference will be made later to the unsanitary condition of nearby waters, as a USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES 93 factor in preventing their proper use. In the case of many of the outlying beaches, the chief limitations are due to the inaccessibility of those beaches, and scarcity of publicly owned shorefront in places that can be conveniently reached. A joint committee of the New York State Legislature is making a study of the situation with a view to recommending corrective legislation on sewage disposal; the federal government has been checking up on the dumping of waste and the refuse of oil-burning steamers; and Congress has called upon the Secretary of War for a report on the polluting of navigable waters. The Secretary of Commerce-is taking cognizance of the pollution of public waters in general as a grave concern to the nation, and many citizen organizations are making local studies and developing public sentiment in support of proper corrective measures. The menace to fish and water fowl is attracting the attention of sportsmen and also of commercial interests. Health and conservation as well as recreation are therefore involved. In parts of the Region where population is less congested, efforts are being made to provide public beaches for local needs. The new Westchester County beaches at Kingsland Point and Rye illus chester County Park Commission and is being enlarged and developed for public use. The lake shores in Bear Mountain Park are being extensively developed for bathing and artificial lakes and ponds have been created. 'Wee' PUBLIC BATH HOUSE, TOWN OF OYSTER BAY A beach under another plan of administration has been established on the north shore of Long Island by the township of Oyster Bay. This is maintained by the township primarily for the use of local residents. Under the present plan, a resident of the township pays fifteen cents for "the use of the beach, while an outsider pays fifty cents. Difficulties and annoyances naturally arise under this arrangement, but it must be recognized as an attempt to distribute the costs equitably even if it is not an altogether happy one. Township residents are wont to complain when outsiders crowd the beach; visitors, on the other hand, become irritated when they are barred to make room for the township people who get the preference, and it is difficult to enforce the discrimination without mistakes and irritations. These regional beaches serve both city and country, but their chief functioning is limited to holidays, week-end outings and summer camping. The difficult problem is that of adequate means of access which will make it possible to reach them quickly and cheaply. The publicly owned waterfront areas must be greatly increased to meet present and future needs. Parts of Long Island and New Jersey that afford excellent possibilities for public enjoyment of the shore have yet to be made reasonably accessible to large numbers. A MILE LONG ARTIFICIAL LAKE IN BEAR MOUNTAIN PARK trate what can be done on a comparatively small scale to meet local needs. One of the most extensive improvements is at the salt water beach at Rye which has been taken over by the West 94 PUBLIC RECREATION On Long Island a considerable part of the south shore belongs to the public as county or town lands. These areas offer the most immediate and attractive opportunities. Plans for their development by cooperation between the Long Island Park Commission and the counties and towns that own them are now being made. This plan includes the transfer of the Short Hills and Jones Beaches to the state, and the construction by the State Commission of a causeway from the mainland to the ocean park. Before these beaches can be of much service, however, it will be necessary to construct improved approaches by highway. Railway transportation at moderate cost is also a necessity as an adjunct to the highways. Access by boat would no doubt appeal to many as a comfortable and attractive way of reaching beaches, but a considerable time element is involved. The shore front of eastern New Jersey, including the Sandy Hook and Atlantic Highland district, presents great opportunities for developing ocean-front parks with bathing facilities. Parts of this shore front are, as yet, practically untapped, largely because of inadequate means of access. Improved highways from the central portions of New Jersey, the proposed bridge from Bayonne to Port Richmond, and the new bridge at the southern point of Staten Island will give added and improved connections, but more are needed. Water transportation to the Jersey shore is even more practical than to the present undeveloped parts of the Long Island shore. Improved rail service will no doubt respond to the popular demand which more ample facilities would create. The eastern parts of Long Island offer exceptional possibilities for extending and increasing places for week-end and vacation outings for those in the central portions of the Region, and also for more constant use by the residents of nearby sections of the island. The state is making satisfactory progress in securing and developing appropriate areas for this purpose. Some private developments are also under way, notably at Montauk Point. Camp Upton, comprising 6,400 acres owned by the federal government in the east-central part of the island, is to be made available for recreation by the cooperation of the United States Department of Agriculture and New York State. As this is brought more fully into active use, increased means of access will be required. Although the major part of the north shore is private property of a kind that is difficult to acquire, nevertheless, some sections of it can be obtained for public use. The Long Island Park Commission has already acquired sections of these waterfront spaces. Some large estates on the shore front have a certain value to the public, as they preserve a degree of open development and a character of pleasant environment that could only be procured by the public at enormous cost. The maintenance of such areas by their owners contributes indirectly to general amenity and to the health and enjoyment of all citizens. General Recreation Uses of the Hudson River District To the north, the Hudson River invites recreation seekers in ever increasing numbers to avail themselves of its wonderful advantages for boating and bathing. Here again present methods of sewage disposal make portions of the river unsuitable for bathing. Engineering skill can solve this problem if the necessary funds could be obtained, as they would be if the importance of getting more bathing facilities near the city were fully realized. The Hudson River is a broad, attractive highway, not only to Bear Mountain Park and those of lesser size along the way, but also to most inviting mountain park possibilities in the Mount Beacon district. We repeat that here are thousands of acres of wooded mountain lands, on the east side of the river just above and across from West Point, well supplied with streams, lakes and ponds, which could easily be made to rival the wonderful Bear Mountain Park. The New York-Albany Post Road, now being widened and otherwise greatly improved, skirts this mountain district on its eastern side, and the New York Central Railroad is an added means of access on the river side. The West Shore Railroad and the Storm King Highway, supplemented by the ferries at West Point and Newburgh, would also serve this possible park USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES 95 area. In time there will doubtless be a new shore road on the Hudson's east bank north from Bear Mountain Bridge to the new bridge now under construction at Poughkeepsie. The new tri-state park project and the Mount Beacon tract come within the jurisdiction of the Taconic Park Commission, which is one of the regional state park commissions. The tri-state park district is tapped by the Harlem Division of the New York Central Railroad and by several good highways, and is thus fairly accessible to New York City dwellers. Courtesy Long Island Park Commission DRIVEwA\Y ALONG RESERVOIR IN HEMPSTEAD STATE PARK USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES 97 V. USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES Large City Parks We have seen that the most important function of the country park is to take the people of the city out to the country for holiday recreation, and that this type of park admirably fits in with modern needs and methods of communication. The need of taking city people to the country, however, has partly arisen from the fact that too little country has been brought to the city. One of the chief functions of the city park is to bring as much of the natural beauty of the country into the city as is compatible with a well-planned and well-balanced system of urban growth. It is important for large city parks to be so placed in relation to residential sections and transit facilities that the masses of the people may get to them quickly, inexpensively, and with comparative ease. They should provide a variety of recreational opportunities, as well as such rural attractions as may be combined appropriately with the buildings of the city. A well-arranged and well-equipped park, centrally located within a city, is the most usef ul type of park. It serves the greatest number of people on the most frequent occasions. Such a park is not only more accessible to more people likely to use it than any other kind of park, but it has a never-ceasing utility as a pleasant landscape feature and breathing space for the multitudes that pass through or by it daily. It also confers those advantages of spaciousness and view of natural scenery that add to the value of surrounding property. To fulfill its functions adequately as a city park, it must be interesting in its topography, varied, and bea'utiful in its natural features, supplied with spacious places for different kinds of active recreation, and designed as a harmonious unit. Central and Prospect Parks in New York City are of this kind. They have exceptional natural advantages, and probably are located near to more people than are any other parks in the world. The large public parks in New York City comprise an area of 9, 110 acres, out of a total area of 10,482 acres of park space. The uses of these central open spaces vary according to the position and character of each in relation to the surrounding building development and density of population. All the large city parks contain secluded sections with attractive natural features, where people can get rest and enjoy beautiful scenery; they contain every type of facility for riding, wvalking, and resting, in comparative safety, as well as parkways along which pleasure driving goes on continuously. They have vrarieties of lakes, lawns, and flower gardens together with athletic fields and playgrounds pleasantly situated and well laid out for active recreation. Central Park Central Park naturally comes first to mind in any reference to large city parks in New York. It presents the most comprehensive picture of all the elements that a city park should have, as NJTell as of the difficulties that have to be encountered in protecting the character of such a park as a place of rest and recreation. It illustrates the effect of a great park in establishing a certain quality of residence and a level of property values on the land surrounding it. Lying in the middle of the island and extending two and a half miles parallel with its avenues for a width. of half a mile, intersected with somewhat narrow and circuitous driveways and transverse roads, it presents an important problem in connection with traffic movement in that part of Manhattan. The solution of this problem is most difficult because the needs of traffic are so conflicting with the main functions of the park. In the report of Olmsted and Vaux, 1857, which accompanied their plan for Central Park, it was pointed out that the most difficult problem of design was how to obtain the required amount of room for vehicular locomotion without making the through roads disagreeably conspicuous and otherwise injurious to the park. The governing consideration thenN was, as it is still-as Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., has pointed out-that whatever provision was made for through traffic, or A MAY DAY FESTIVAL IN CENTRAL PARE 96 98 PUBLIC RECREATION even for active recreation, should be incidental and subordinate to the controlling motive of the park, which is to afford refreshment and rest in natural surroundings. Mr. Frederic A. Delano, Chairman of the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, says that the solution of this problem of traffic in Central Park depends on having the roads limited to the use of pleasure vehicles at moderate speed, but that in order to have this done it will be necessary to widen some of the boundary avenues and transverse roads. The situation of the park inevitably makes it somewhat of a block to traffic circulation in the city. The widening of Fifth and Eighth Avenues and 59th and 110th Streets might be desirable in the interests of the park itself, if this were the only way of making sure that the park driveways would be less used for rapidly moving vehicles. While each of the larger city parks has peculiar needs and its own problems, all of these may be said to be represented, in more or less concentrated form, in Central Park. Because of its location and the growing and changing demands made upon it, and because the questions arising as to its use are applicable in varying degrees to all other large parks in the city, its place in the recreation system is considered in some detail in Chapter IX. Although Central Park is used extensively by people from all parts of the city, it is chiefly used by those living within a radius of one or two miles. This is particularly true in the case of children. As shown in Chapter X, the playground facilities in Central Park attract the attendance of children from a much wider radius than similar facilities in a small park like Tompkins Square Park. The large park provides the opportunities for enjoyment needed by the parents, as well as by the children, and has a spaciousness and vitality that cannot be obtained in the smaller area. It appears, also, from Fig. 29, that the high-class residential development that has taken place adjoining Central Park has meant that there are comparatively few children living in its immediate vicinity as compared with the number living in streets having a cheaper type of development. This fact has not militated against its functional values. The natural features of Central Park have enormously high values for the adult residents in its vicinity, without impairing its usefulness to both children and adults in the more remote residential districts. This is so because of its great size and varied characteristics, which have a wider drawing power than the small park. There is a population of 868,884 living within three-quarters of a mile of Central Park. Of these, approximately 150,000 are children from five to fifteen years of age. To meet the needs of this large nearby population, as well as those farther away, and because of the shortage of play facilities elsewhere on Manhattan, and particularly in the immediate vicinity of the park, more of these have had to be included in Central Park than would otherwise have been the case. The park has gradually become more extensively used for active recreation as the surrounding districts have become more densely populated. On Sundays and holidays in summer Central Park is filled to capacity and often overcrowded, and its 843 acres are in demand for a wide variety of uses. The adequacy of the park cannot be judged in relation to any one of these uses. In the section of Manhattan immediately surrounding Central Park, practically no playgrounds have been provided. The 150,000 children living within walking distance of the park, and the thousands of others who come from more distant points, tax its facilities to the limit. Therefore, it is inevitable that the park must contain provision for children's play. Until recently, no space had been set aside and equipped within the park especially for this purpose. The Heckscher Playground recently installed in the southwest corner of the park is the first attempt to meet this need. Several additional areas of limited size, wisely located, suitably landscaped and properly equipped and supervised, should be set aside for the children. This has been recommended in the report of a recent study by a leading park authority, Hermann W. Merkel. The playfields of the park are intensively used, so much so that many are unable to find here the opportunities for active recreation that they desire. In addition to their scenic value, USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES 99 the lakes of the park provide boating in summer and skating in winter for many thousands. Prospect Park For the residents of Brooklyn and parts of Manhattan, Prospect Park, with its 526 acres, supplies the same varied recreational opportunities as Central Park. The deeper subsoil of the former makes it more fertile and has enabled the authorities to maintain its natural features in better condition than the latter. It is crowded on Sundays and holidays. Boating, playing games, strolling, reading, listening to band con wards to the Harlem River, where it enters the Hudson River, is one of the three or four most valuable open areas in the New York Region. The length of this waterfront section of the island is 74 miles. The greater part of it is taken up by three parks, Riverside, Fort Washington, and Inwood, with a combined area of 505.4 acres. Except for a few breaks there is a continuous open area fronting on the broad Hudson River. The width of the river at this point is about one mile. This expanse of land and water combined gives the city a "lung space " greater than Central Park. The open area Courtesy, Department of Parks, Brooklyn ONE OF THE LARGE PLAYFIELDS IN PROSPECT PARK *certs, afford relaxation and pleasant recreation for the thousands who do not have automobiles or who prefer to avoid the increasing discomfort of holiday travel on the overcrowded highways. Waterfront Park Lands on Upper West Side Manhattan, Including Riverside Park An example of the kind of waterfront park that needs to be developed more extensively throughout the Region is to be found in the group of parks along the upper west side of Manhattan. Starting from the western extremity of 72nd Street, Manhattan, and extending north extends from the front of the buildings on Riverside Drive to the Palisades on the New Jersey side of the river. From a regional as well as a city point of view these waterfront parks have unique advantages in addition to the extent of "lung space" that they provide for Manhattan. The value of parks of this type is indicated in the following summary: (a) The frontage of a tidal and navigable river which provides certain valuable although limited uses for recreation and gives the public using the park or parkways a prospect of moving water and marine life as well as a coolness of tem 100 PUBLIC RECREATION perature, which are features of incalculable value. (b) An attractive outlook for large masses of buildings in Manhattan over a beautiful natural foreground towards the Palisades of New Jersey. (c) High land values in large adjacent areas, potentialities for extension, the Hudson waterfront park areas are exceptional in that they present an opportunity for securing a greatly needed increase of recreation space, and a continuous park system extending from central Manhattan into the open country. Van Cortlandt, Pelham Bay and Forest Parks These three parks are more distant from the most populous areas than Central and Prospect Parks, but they are within easy and inexpensive travelling distance of Manhattan and are immediately accessible to large suburban populations. They are fully used by residents over wide areas of the city for all 'the purposes of the two more central parks, and in addition have the added advantage of possessing public golf courses and extensive areas for a wide variety of outdoor sports. The waterfront opportunities of Pelham Bay Park, and the still less developed Gerritsen Park in Brooklyn are alluded to later. The crowding of all these parks indicates that additional large parks are needed, as well as more suburban and country parks, to meet the growing demands for recreation space. The following areas are set apart for active recreation, including golf, in these three parks: Van Cortlandt Park............. 241 acres Pelham Bay Park.............. 188 acres Forest Park................... 131 acres WEST 129TH STREET DISTRICT SHOWING GRADE CROSSING ELIMINATION as a result of the spacious and attractive open areas. (d) The opportunities provided by riverside parks of this scope and situation for design of landscape and architectural features, display of buildings, and for improving the prospect of the city from the water and the Jersey shore. (e) The presence of attractive park drives along the waterfront which connect the other parks of Manhattan and the Bronx and the thickly populated areas in Manhattan with Westchester, providing opportunities for enjoyment of scenic beauty for the thousands who daily drive through, as well as for those who actually use the parks. These park and parkway areas are capable of very considerable extension by filling lands adjacent to the river, as well as by utilizing the air rights over the railroad tracks. Any plan of park extension should take into consideration, not only the desirability of connecting the three riverside parks, but also of linking these parks and the Bronx parks across the Harlem River. Indeed, the whole Westchester park system can and should be linked up, through Riverdale and the Bronx, with the west side park and parkway system in Manhattan. In regard to these HUDSON RIVER BELOW FORT WASHINGTON PARK Bronx Park Bronx Park, having within its 719 acres the Botanical Gardens, of 380 acres, provides a distinct and highly important type of park. This USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES 101 is an educational park, in which strictly recreational uses are subsidiary. But as an educational park, in which botany, floriculture and forestry may be studied, it is an invaluable part of the park system. As a place of quiet rendezvous and for enjoyment of natural scenery it is superior in some ways to the more public parks because of the greater protection which is necessarily given to its vegetation and because its main purpose is the display of trees, shrubs and flowers. Next to the Botanical Gardens is the Zoologi Neighborhood Recreation Areas Defined A playground is a plot of ground designed, equipped and administered for children's play. It differs from a playfield and an athletic field in that it is comparatively smaller-usually not more than two acres-and is more formal in its design and equipment. It is limited to use by children usually under fifteen years of age. A playground should be so located as to be easily and safely accessible to the homes of the children who are expected to use it. The chief radius of influence of a playground is about one-fourth of i.. Ii. Courtesy, Department of Parks, The Bronx PARKS CROWDED EVEN FOR WINTER SPORTS The lake at Van Cortlandt Park cal Park of 270 acres, which combines the spaciousness of an ordinary park with the human interest of a great menagerie. The popularity and educational value of this park and the Botanical Gardens are such that it is surprising that other areas have not been acquired for similar uses on Long Island and Staten Island. Any extension of the park system should include provision for additional areas to form a well distributed system of educational parks. All the other parks in the city possess recreational facilities of the same character, in varying extent and degree, as those which have been named. a mile. About 100 square feet is needed for each child at play. A playfield is larger and less formal in design than a playground, and is usually little more than a fairly level open area suitable for recreative games, such as baseball, hockey, cricket, football, volley ball and tennis. Its chief use is by older boys and girls and adults. Accessibility is highly desirable, but the playfield may be located at a greater distance from the homes of its potential users than the playground. It is supposed to serve a much larger area of population. About 1,000-square feet is required for each player. 102 PUBLIC RECREATION An athletic field has some of the characteristics of the playfield, but is usually more formal in design. It often contains a running track and a field house with lockers, dressing rooms and baths and sometimes a grandstand. It is used for track and field sports, and also for the more formal team games in baseball and football. The location requirements are similar to those of the This is exclusive of such area as may be set aside as a children's playground. Public playgrounds may be laid out in school yard and park lands, or on publicly owned lands that are under the jurisdiction of other city departments, and which. for some special local reason are set aside and developed for children's play. To be most effective and serviceable, Courtesy, Department of Parks, Brooklyn SOME OF THE 300 TENNIS COURTS IN PROSPECT PARK Nets are stored in the field house nearby play field. The space requirements are also about the same-1,000 square feet per player. A neighborhood park, as contrasted with the playground, playfield and athletic field, is a small park usually in a residential district. In addition to the space devoted to lawns, trees, shrubbery and walks it may also contain a limited area set aside and equipped for children's play. Thus the playground may become a definite part of a neighborhood park. The approximate area per person for comfortable use is 275 square feet. children's playgrounds should be supervised by specially trained and capable play leaders and organizers. These may be provided by the school board, or by the park department, or by a recreation commission. Sometimes, to meet special emergency situations, play leaders are provided by private organizations. A playground attains a marked degree of permanency if it is designated as park land. This is particularly true in New York State, where park lands are given a legal status which prevents USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES 103 their sale or transfer by the local authorities without specific authorization from the State Legislature. Athletic Fields and Playfields Athletic fields and playfields may be within the boundaries of parks or arranged in separate locations. In either case they are designed to accommodate sports that are more or less organized. They serve a wide range of interests and groups. Athletic fields, with their equipment of grandstands, dressing rooms, lockers, baths, and are playfields in Central, Van Cortlandt, Pelham, and Prospect Parks. These fields accommodate play festivals, as well as tennis, field hockey, baseball, cricket, football, bowling, and even golf and polo. It is estimated that there are in New York City 1,290,409 persons between the ages of 12 and 24 years-all potential users of athletic fields and playfields. The 632 acres allotted for this purpose in the city parks are variously distributed. Central Park has about 79 acres, Van Cortlandt and Pelham Parks have about 95 NEIGHBORHOOD BASEBALL GAME AT CORLEAR'S HOOK PARK the like, and their layout for track and field acres each (not including golf courses), and sports, differ somewhat from playfields where less formal outdoor games may be played. They are often established in conjunction with the schools where the older children and youths are the chief users, and where school building facilities supply dressing room, locker, bath and toilet accommodations. Playfields, on the other hand, are more extensive in area, and in a crowded city like New York may properly combine with the larger parks and be so placed and developed as to fit in harmoniously with the park design. There Prospect Park has 130 acres. McComb's Dam Park in the Bronx, of about 50 acres in extent, is almost entirely given over to athletics and games. The remaining acres are located chiefly in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Queens has recently equipped an up-to-date athletic field of 9 acres in Forest Park. In most cases space for athletics is located within a few large areas which are some distance from the more densely populated sections. Brooklyn, however, has done better in this respect, its athletic fields and play 104 PUBLIC RECREATION fields being unusually accessible to the inhabitants. The space for athletics administered by the Park Departments of the city is supplemented by about 92 acres administered by the Board of Education. These 92 acres include a variety of grounds ranging from well equipped public school fields in each borough, except Manhattan (a small one there of less than one-half acre can hardly be classed as an athletic field), to elementary school sites with enough space for athletics. They serve large numbers of boys and girls without a great expenditure of time or money in getting to and from them. The more recently acquired high school sites have rather generous space for this purpose. The most ized athletic meets and games. Long waiting lists of groups seeking permits to play on the city's limited athletic grounds and the hesitancy of those in charge of school athletics to stimulate more interest until additional facilities are available, indicate the great need for the expansion of this type of recreation resource. Neighborhood Parks and Playgrounds The function of neighborhood parks and playgrounds is to supply recreational facilities for children and to a limited extent for adults who live nearby. They are especially needed in crowded quarters, where the population is dense and where traffic makes the streets unsafe for play. Playgrounds are apt to be very active LI~Whiirrr~':~1_ -:M BOARD OF EDUCATION ATHLETIC FIELD IN CROTONA PARK notable is the Port Richmond High School with 9,y4 acres. The George Washington High School, in a location where land values are high, has 734 acres, and the new Newtown High School site contains 6 acres. Supplementing the athletic fields of the city there are 4 public golf courses of 18 holes and 1 of 9 holes, occupying a total of 395 acres. New York City has great need of additional facilities of this kind. The activities of the Public Schools Athletic League and of the various church, club and neighborhood house organizations have stimulated active interest in athletics on the part of thousands of young people. They should be given the necessary facilities to enable their interest to take practical form instead of becoming mere spectators at the highly organ places and differ accordingly from neighborhood parks, which are intended primarily as quiet spots for rest and relaxation for the adults of the neighborhood. Portions of such parks are frequently set aside and equipped as playgrounds. These grounds contain swings, seesaws, sand piles, wading pools, and other devices for children's play. Their functions are sometimes curtailed by improper location which places traffic barriers and too great distances between them and the children's homes. Neighborhood parks retain and sometimes expand their usefulness even after the character of a neighborhood has changed, as is the case with Battery Park at the southern extremity of Manhattan. Space provided for this type of park in New USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES 105 York City has never been very extensive, nor has any systematic attempt been made to keep pace with the rapid growth of the city's population. Thus, conditions have resulted which it is now difficult to remedy.. Advantage should be taken of the assistance provided by the New York Enabling Acts to establish space for neighborhood parks in new residential developments. During the past few years there have been large expenditures throughout the United States for playgrounds and for their administration under trained play leaders and recreation organizers. We have recently listed 141 educational institutions and recreation organizations that are now offering training courses for recreation workers. School playgrounds that formerly were closed after school and during vacation are now quite generally open under trained leadership for full time through the year. As shown in the description of facilities in Central Park, selected areas in parks are being set aside for children's play and specially landscaped and equipped, and in congested districts appropriate spaces are being cleared of buildings and dedicated to use as playgrounds. New school sites are laid out of sufficient size to provide space for neighborhood playgrounds, and old sites are being added to for this purpose. space, the use of the playground will be seriously curtailed. Some formerly popular play spaces have been rendered practically useless and should be abandoned because of the location THE VANISHING VACANT LOT of industrial blocks on one or more sides, and the development of heavy street traffic between the playground and the children's homes. Waterfront play space is ideal provided the areas on the land sides are devoted to residential use and no heavy traffic streets intervene. The character of the residential development is also a matter to be considered in determining the location of a playground and the amount of space needed. It is obvious that if the neighborhood is made up of single-family houses, each with its own backyard, there will not - be acute need for central playground space. Even in such districts, however, the neighborhood playground is highly desirable, as it serves to bring the children' together under trained Sleadership where they learn games for playing elsewhere and develop right standards of fair play and good sportsmanship. The vacant lots have served K PLAYGROUND and will continue to serve as playgrounds, but if they are without supervision or play leadership not all of the children will have a fair chance for play. It is often a case of the survival of the toughest when the crowd is left to its own devices. In planning TRAFFIC BARRAGE IN FRONT OF THOMAS JEFFERSON PARI Traffic barriers are a matter of prime importance in determining the location of playgrounds. If a "barrage" of street traffic is laid down between the homes of the children and their play 106 PUBLIC RECREATION for future needs, the vacant lot should be disregarded as a factor because it ultimately disappears. It is well to begin early to determine what space will be needed for play purposes and to have it definitely set aside and eventually developed for use. School Playgrounds The school is the logical place for locating the neighborhood playground. The school building is supposed to be situated where it is most Saturdays and holidays. The vacation playground is already a fixed institution in most cities. If the school board will provide 25 square feet of playground space for every seat in the school building, it will come near to meeting the playground needs for the neighborhood. These school play spaces should be supplemented by such other playgrounds as local conditions may determine. Limited areas set aside in neighborhood parks or in the larger city parks and properly equipped and landscaped will help h?, Th4 FIG. 21 COMBINED SCHOOL SITE AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARK Logan School and Holstein Park, Chicago, Illinois accessible to the children that are to be served by it. This is the right location for a playground There are many economies in making the neighborhood playground a part of the school plant, in that the accommodations of the school building can be so arranged as to serve the playground as well as the school and thus avoid duplication of such equipment. School boards are coming to accept as a part of their responsibility the provision of play leaders and the keeping open of the school playgrounds after school hours and on greatly in meeting the needs for play space and will not necessarily impair the other uses of these parks. Unless this is done the children will play indiscriminately over the entire park to the detriment of lawns, flowers and shrubs, and to the annoyance of the adults. Interior Courts as Playgrounds Because of the lack of other facilities for children's play, and because the streets are becoming increasingly dangerous, resort is being made to USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES 107 the backyards and roofs in some parts of the city. The development of these play spaces may be regarded as supplementary to school and park playgrounds in the more congested neighborhoods. It is worth noting that in many modern housing developments interior courts are more and more often being planned as recreation spaces. An organization known as " Home Playyards, Inc.," has been experimenting for several years in the use of interior courts of tenement house blocks as playgrounds and in providing play leaders through the cooperation of other agencies. This organization has succeeded in 22 different places in persuading property owners to remove t 7 backyard fences and pool their backyard space, or most of it, for play uses. This space has been laid out and equipped for active play under play leaders, both volunteers and those employed for the purpose. Difficulties naturally arise in such undertakings. Janitors offer various objections. Tenants who work at night and sleep by day often complain of the noise of the children at play. But in general the residents of the block seem disposed to welcome the change. The per capita cost of administration is high and the num- BACKYARD F bers benefited in each case are small, for the use of the courtyard is confined usually to the children who live within the block. Where children are left to play in these spaces without supervision the results are not as good as where supervision is supplied. In a few cases, parents have volunteered. There is no doubt, however, that the interior court is a safer and better place for children's unsupervised play than the crowded street. Adult use of these backyard playgrounds is an possibility which adds to their merit. The Home Playyards, Inc., has promoted this to some extent and has arranged for dances and special social occasions for the young people and the grown ups. In some cases two or three rooms in the tenement block are rented and used for social purposes in conjunction with the playground. Outstanding instances of open space for recreation surrounded by groups of houses are found in the Sunnyside development, the Hudson View Gardens, Jackson Heights, Forest Hills Gardens, and the Rockefeller housing developments. In most of these there is no play leadership except as the residents unite to engage a play leader at stated times. An interesting backyard playground plan is in operation at 423 DeKalb Avenue, Brooklyn. This is the private enterprise of a manufacturer PLAYGROUND OF THE JOHN JAY TENEMENT, MANHATTAN who owns a group of houses near his plant. He has for several years been providing a playground for the neighborhood in the interior section of one of these blocks. It is fenced in, equipped, and made attractive by the planting of trees, shrubs and flowers. It is available to the children of the neighborhood under a certain age. Income from rents is sufficiently increased, both in amount and regularity, to meet the expense of operating the playground. Roof Playgrounds There are over 150 instances in which roofs of buildings are used in New York for recrea 108 PUBLIC RECREATION tional purposes. Schools, libraries, settlements, tenements, apartment houses, office buildings, and industrial plants are found in this group. Roof playgrounds are most numerous on school buildings, there being 120 buildings thus equipped. These roofs are used as outdoor gymnasia for physical training classes during the day, and in some cases are made available for after-school use in the afternoon and in the evening. They provide play space with abundance of sunshine and fresh air and are away from the noise and danger of the streets. Evidently the practical usefulness of the roof playground outside of school hours is largely a dancing have been provided in the evening during the summer months on some of these roofs. The roofs of libraries and settlements are utilized in a number of instances as play places, and also for fresh-air classes for tubercular and crippled children. Roof play spaces on tenement and apartment houses are limited to the children living in the buildings and serve as places of free play without supervision other than that provided by parents. With proper physical safeguards, such roofs seem to serve a very useful purpose. The Phipps model tenements have a roof play space, as have also the Vanderbilt tenements on East 77th Street. There are various problems in the creation of roof play spaces on tenements which have to be considered. Usually the roofs are of such light construction that they would need to be reinforced to stand the strain of vigorous play and to deaden the noise in the rooms below. In modern, well-built tenements such as those mentioned above, the roofs have been designed for play purposes and are of such S construction that they are pracStically sound proof. To be fully efficient, the roof BROOKLYN should be completely enclosed by a wire cage, such as is found on the school roof play spaces, although this is quite expensive. The caging prevents balls and other objects from being thrown off into the street. Difficulties met in design and administration should not prevent further study and planning of roof play spaces on tenements and apartment houses. The use of the roofs by adults as places of rest and neighborly intercourse in the evenings and on Sundays is an important part of their value for recreation. The use of roofs for recreation in business buildings is perhaps more general than in tenement buildings. Nearly all the large department stores utilize at least portions of their great roofs for this purpose. Sometimes the em EMIL BOMMER PLAYGROUND AT 423 DEKALB AVENUE, matter of physical construction and administration. People are not inclined to climb to the roof of a school building in order to reach a recreation center. The patronage is accordingly small. Furthermore, school authorities are often reluctant to open the buildings in the evening because of the annoyance which arises from permitting the children to pass through the halls and up the interior stairways to reach the roof. But if means of access were improved so that it would not be necessary to go through the building in order to reach the roof, and possibly if elevators were provided, the popularity of roofs as evening recreation centers would doubtless increase. Band concerts and opportunities for USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES 109 ployes' cafeterias, rest rooms, clinics, and so on are on the roof or just below it, so that the employes can step out into the fresh air, and rest or play handball and other games in the noon hour. Some stores have pianos and radios on the roof for out-of-door music and dancing. Many of the modern department store buildings have had their roofs designed for recreation when they were built. Others have utilized old roofs by building platforms and reconstructing otherwise unused roof space. One large office building, in the Wall Street section, has basketball courts, handball courts, and a squash court on its roof, all completely caged in so that nothing can fall to the street. Industrial plants and factories also are beginning to set aside roof space on their buildings for the use of their employes. In Long Island City several manufacturing companies have organized on the roofs of their plants, through their employes' welfare departments, noontime games such as basketball, handball, and even football. It is interesting to note that in one of these industries where basketball began on the roof, the players became so enthusiastic that the company was induced to clear a space in the yard, where now, in addition to games on the design them so that the large roof areas may be made available for use. This is especially desirable in the densely built-up sections of the city. A WELL PLANNED ROOF ON A NEW YORK DEPART-MENT STORE Recreation Piers The status and uses of recreation piers are entirely different from those of park playgrounds. Although they are administered by the Park Department, the piers belong to the Dock Department. They are constructed by the Department of Plant and Structures, but all repairs and improvements are paid for from the Dock Department's budget. As they are not park property, it is legal and comparatively easy to transfer all or parts of them to other departments, as has been done in the case of the Department of Street Cleaning, which uses a recreation pier for storing snow-removal tools. The piers have been of great value in the recreation system. Although not as large as some playgrounds, they have the advantage of being completely covered, making them particularly useful on rainy days. Being over the water as they are, they give in a few thousand square feet of space a sense of separation from buildings and traffic, such as a large park affords. In New York City some of the most congested areas are by or near the waterfront. Recreation piers may thus serve a large and needy population. An important function of these piers is their use by adults. Here, in the summer evenings, FOLK DANCING ON A PUBLIC SCHOOL ROOF roof, basketball is played every noon and sometimes after hours. It would seem to be well worth while, when planning buildings of the types mentioned, to 110 PUBLIC RECREATION the older boys and girls and adults find a cool and pleasant place to sit or dance or listen to the band concerts. And in the afternoons many mothers and babies take advantage of their shade and the cooling breezes of the waterfront. One of the best ways to give relief for the bad effects of living in crowded tenements is to add to the open space in proximity to tenement areas in the form of recreation piers and marginal paths or roads along the waterfront. Eleven years ago there were 8 recreation piers in use in Manhattan and 1 in Brooklyn. Last summer, of these but three in Manhattan and the one in Brooklyn were used as playgrounds. Barrow St. Pier-Operated by the Manhattan Park Department as a playground. West 129th St. Pier-Operated by the Manhattan Park Department as a playground. Market St. Pier-Has not been used for three years but has recently been repaired and will be ieopened as a playground by the Manhattan Park Department. East 114th St. Pier- (At Thomas Jefferson Park). The pier was enclosed in glass for use by the Board of Education for open-air classes. Only open to public on evenings of band concerts. West 50th St. Pier-Has not been used for four years. The Park Department decided it RECREATION PIER AT WVEST 129TH STREET, MIANHATTAN Each year has seen a decrease in the number of these piers in use as recreation centers. At one time the piers were an important part of the park playground system and activities were conducted on all of them, but factories and warehouses have pushed the homes of the people farther and farther back from the waterfront and the traffic barriers have become serious hazards. Lack of repairs and allotment to other uses have reduced the available number. The following list gives the status of the 9 recreation piers in 1926: East 3rd St. Pier-Operated by the Manhattan Park Department as a playground. was not needed on account of nearness to DeWitt Clinton Park. East 24th St. Pier-This was turned over to the Naval Reserve during the World War, and later to the Street Cleaning Department, which now uses it for storage. Albany St. Pier-This pier was condemned for use as a playground seven or eight years ago and now has been reconstructed and is used by the New Jersey Central Railroad. It can be c9nsidered as, practically off the list. Metropolitan Ave. Pier (Brooklyn)--Operated by the Brooklyn Park Department as a playground. USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES 11 At present the piers that are used as recreation places are open to the public only in June, July, August and part of September. Play leaders are in charge during the day. Some of the piers have a matron in charge of the women's comfort station. A policeman is on duty part of the time, especially in the evenings when band concerts are held. To get the full value of the piers, a play director or recreation worker should be in charge on every.evening. With proper lighting, the piers would be well suited for evening recreation for older boys and girls and adults. The piers provide shelter from sudden summer showers, and their cool, breezy location is favorable for evening community singing, games, athletics, or dancing, during the late spring, summer and early fall. They would need to be enclosed and heated for winter use. Baltimore has a recreation pier in the heart of its congested section, which is a twelve-month recreation plant, functioning day and evening. If New York's piers were enclosed they could be used twelve months in the year instead of only three months as at present. Piers are particularly fitted for gymnastic work with their large unbroken floor space and high roof. In spite of the fact that the population around most of the piers has materially decreased in the last fifteen years, the value of the piers as part of the recreation system has not. The conclusion is that we have arrived at a point where new forms of usefulness are apparent and needful. Although some piers have lost part of their usefulness for small children's playgrounds on account of the building of blocks of warehouses between the tenements and the waterfront and because of the increased traffic on the very wide marginal streets, still these structures are well adapted for the recreation of older boys and girls and adults in daytime and evenings, and, if enclosed, they would make excellent athletic centers and community meeting places throughout the year. A new recreation pier is being built at the foot of State Street in Brooklyn, which will embody some new features and overcome some of the defects of the older pier construction. It will have an ornamental entrance gate on the street, flanked on either side by a stucco wall. From this entrance a long ramp 34 feet wide gives easy access to the upper deck of the pier. Trucks and other vehicles will enter the lower deck of the pier by a road below and back of the wall. A new feature of the pier is the enclosure of the first 50 feet of the sides with stucco walls fitted with windows as a shelter against storms. Two hundred and fifty feet of the pier are covered by the roof, leaving an uncovered portion of 75 RecreatioA I L\\W 1 aISSk, SI _j L Barrow St. Pier MortonZ st i0 aa LLero S. Clcxrkson st LEGEND: Industrial Blocks D Dwelling Blocks FIG. 22 INDUSTRIAL BLOCKS CUTTING OFF BARROW STREET RECREATION PIER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION feet at the outer end which will serve as an openair playground in fair weather. One good feature of the location of this pier is that the entrance is on a comparatively narrow thoroughfare. Almost all the old piers are situated on very wide marginal streets, dangerous to cross when filled with the waterside traffic. The entrance has been placed directly on the street, where, from its ornamental character and position, it will form an attractive and welllighted approach. 112 PUBLIC RECREATION The construction of this pier is such that it will be comparatively easy to enclose further portions of it with side walls, and perhaps with end walls which could be opened in the summer and closed in the winter to serve as an indoor gymnasium. The entire pier is 600 feet long and furnishes an excellent recreation center for a large water are located in public bath buildings and two on playgrounds. The one on East 54th Street, for example, is operated from 3 p.m. to 10 p.m., and on many days nearby schools use it in the mornings. In the afternoons and evenings neighborhood groups, under the gymnasium director, use it, and school teams and business house E. 117 th Street o > ~ E. 116th c Street > > Q < E.115th Sttreet E. 114*t Street, 1/ E. 113th St. * Park R E __l1 __h St. Recreation o E.112th St. o E. I11th Street S E. I10h Street [ E. 109h Street E. 108+h Street LEGEND: Industrial Blocks LEGEND: ustrial Blocks Fatal Street Accident to a Child, 1922 II Dwelring Blocks FIG. 23 INDUSTRIAL BLOCKS ADJOINING THOMAS JEFFERSON PARK AND RECREATION PIER front neighborhood which is not decreasing in population.' At present there are no gymnasia in Brooklyn under the Park Department, and the eight in Manhattan are used to capacity. Six of these 1 This new recreation pier, called Remembrance Pier, in honor of the American War Mothers, was officially opened on May 23, 1928. teams have hours reserved for them on permit. Some of the teams come from Brooklyn, where the scarcity of suitable indoor places for basketball, etc., compels a journey to Manhattan. This gymnasium has also a roof playground equipped for handball, basketball, tennis, and playground ball. Both the gymnasium floor USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES 113 and the roof are used to capacity. In the summer the roof is used for a smaller children's playground in charge of a woman assistant. The building contains two swimming pools, one for men and one for women, with instructors. It is a good example of a neighboi-hood athletic center equipped for all-year operation. City Waterfront Parks and Beaches All waterfront parks are distinguished by two characteristics that do not apply to inland city parks surrounded by populated areas. In the first place, whether they be large or small in area, they possess the spaciousness given by the expanse of water on which they front. If it be the sea, only the horizon ends the boundaries of the visual open space. In the second place, the combination of large water surfaces with the uplands adjoining them has a peculiar fascination that is difficult to obtain in the best of inland parks. Waterfront areas that are within easy reach of the populous centers naturally meet the needs of the inhabitants of the city far better than waterfront areas at a distance. Inland cities suffer from the lack of these facilities and try to create artificial substitutes for them, often at great expense. The city is fortunate that has accessible waterfront areas and that has had the wisdom and foresight to develop and preserve them. far-sighted planning. In the city there are densely populated districts within easy reach of the waterfront but deprived of its recreational THE "OLE SwIMMIN' HOLE " AT WEST 49TH STREET advantages because the land uses have not been well planned and controlled, and because the disposal of sewage and other refuse has not been scientifically handled. Industrial structures have had first claim on the waterfront, ranging all the way from docks and warehouses to heavy, smokebelching industries and offensive slaughter houses. It has been suggested that in Manhattan, in the vicinity of East 42nd Street, the only solution of this unfortunate situation is either to acquire several small waterfront areas and develop them as neighborhood parks for the nearby residential districts, or to build elevated areas over parts of the broad marginal streets on the river front. These waterfront streets are considerably lower than the land adjoining, thus facilitating the placing of these overhead structures. If elevated roadways are constructed along the border of Manhattan, some park spaces should be reserved as part of the plan. Even the residents in the most expensive buildings near to the boundaries of the island of Manhattan are in most cases now barred from any recreational benefits of the extensive waterfront. With the growth of the city, the pollution of nearby waters has steadily increased. Thus as the demand for more bathing facilities has grown, the opportunities to obtain them have diminished. Sewage and garbage from the city and ALONG THE EAST RIVER WATERFRONT Dilapidated shacks used as boat houses and boat clubs New York City has made good use of some of its waterfront possibilities, but in the main it has suffered in this respect from lack of capable, 114 PUBLIC RECREATION refuse from industries have created a condition in and about the New York harbor which renders these waters generally unsuitable for bathing and, in some places, even offensive to residents in adjacent areas. At present 475 sewer outlets from offensive conditions affecting large areas adjacent to these streams is to be had." Percentage of Oxygen Content Location The Narrows....... Upper Bay Robbins Reet........ Hudson River Pier A............. 42nd Street......... 155th Street..... Spuyten Duyvil...... Harlem River Morris Heights... Willis Avenue.... 106th Street.......... East River Throgs Neck......... Hell Gate............ 42nd Street.......... 23rd Street.......... Pier 10-Old Slip.... 1914 45 70 31 24 36 64 6 0 16 47 * 26 28 19 1925 1926 34 14 HANDBALL COURTS AT MANHATTAN BEACH, COMMERCIALLY OPERATED 32 20 19 18 19 0 0 7 23 8 4 4 5 12 8 5 4 6 0 0 0 40 11 1 0 1 empty 1,100,000,000 gallons of sewage daily into the Hudson, East, and Harlem Rivers. The few treatment plants in existence do little to lessen the impurities of this sewage. In addition to the New York City sewage the waters of New York harbor are further polluted by that which comes down the Hudson River from nearby cities and villages and from the Passaic Valley sewer, which empties into the bay at Robbins Reef about 1,000,000,000 gallons daily. Tests of harbor and river water within New York City made in August, 1926, by Mr. Kenneth Allen, Sanitary Engineer, and officially reported by Mr. Arthur S. Tuttle, the Chief Engineer, show an extremely low percentage of dissolved oxygen. Fish life depends upon the presence of dissolved oxygen in the water and, in addition, when the oxygen content reaches zero the sewage-filled water becomes offensive. The trend toward unsanitary and even offensive water conditions is shown by comparing the results of tests made in 1914 and 1925 with those made in 1926. "These low values," the report says, "with so many lower than before recorded, confirm the view that the harbor waters are becoming steadily more polluted and that the Harlem and lower East Rivers should be relieved of their burden of sewage within a few years if security * Fourteen per cent in 1919. New York, City has only four and one-half miles of public beach now developed and suitable for bathing. There are opportunities, particu ONE OF THE MANY TENNIS COURTS AT MANHATTAN BEACH larly on the Staten Island, Brooklyn, and Queens waterfronts, to greatly increase this mileage with attractive resorts. The throngs of people who flock to the beaches that are not yet condemned by the health officials exceed greatly the com USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES 115 fortable capacity of the beaches. Therefore) many who would like to resort to them either stay away or patronize, at considerable expense, the privately operated beaches and swimming pools. Manhattan Beach near Coney Island, operated under a substantial admission charge, attracts a very large patronage. In addition to its bathing beach it provides an attractive pavilion and a well-equipped and attractively planted playfield. These features are also coming use it as a neighborhood park, its chief function is to accommodate the thousands of office workers of the lower Manhattan district who throng it at the noon hour, and also to serve residents from more distant parts of the city and out of town visitors who wish to see the magnificent panorama of the New York harbor and its background of towering buildings and far flung bridges. Anything that has resulted in the past or may tend in the future to lessen its park quality is to be Courtesy, Coney Island Chamber of Commerce THE CROWD ON CONEY ISLAND BEACH ONE DAY iN AuGUST to be demanded in connection with public bathing beaches. Only a very small portion of the time at the beach is actually spent in the water, therefore the need for these other recreation facilities. South Beach on Staten Island is another privately owned and operated beach of considerable extent and large patronage. The uses of the waterfront parks of the city are of a widely varying character. Although Battery Park still has a few nearby residents who deplored. Riverside Park is the quiet, scenic neighborhood park, extensively used both by residents and visitors. It also renders a unique service to the great educational institutions on its border. Inwood Park, well wooded and picturesque, and situated at the junction of the Harlem and Hudson Rivers, makes its own charming contribution and provides a rare vantage point for the view of the towering Palisades across the river. Pelham Park at the 116 PUBLIC RECREATION junction of the East River and Long Island Sound makes its contribution to New York by offering attractive opportunities for a wide range of physical activities in a comfortable and pleasing setting. These range all the way from golf to beach bathing, with athletics and children's play in between. Coney Island, with its two and one-half miles of public shore front, its boardwalk and its easy accessibility, naturally attracts the largest single group of bathers in the Region. Here, in addition to those who bathe, are multitudes of visitors who find their pleasure on the boardwalk, the beach, and in the amusement resorts nearby. When the police figured that there were 800,000 people at Coney Island on a midsummer day in 1926, it was estimated that not more than onequarter, or 200,000, were in bathing suits. The waterfront itself has an attraction as a place for comfort and recreation, quite aside from its salt water bathing opportunities. Of course, 800,000 people at Coney Island in one day does not mean that all of them were there at one time. Some were present in the forenoon only, others in the afternoon, and still others only in the evening. Some probably did go early and stayed all day. Doubtless the peak of the attendance was reached late in the day. From first-hand observation at Coney Island and various other resorts, it can be stated that about two-thirds of a total day's attendance is in the late afternoon and early evening. On this basis, Coney Island must actually have accommodated at one time about 550,000 people. Of the 200,000 people who were in bathing suits at Coney Island on August 16, 1926, it is estimated that one-third were on the beach at the peak of its use-about 70,000 people. These were distributed over a front of about three miles-an average of more than 20,000 to the mile. Such a condition obviously means serious overcrowding. Beach conditions, at Coney Island and elsewhere, have been made the subject of careful study in order to arrive at accurate estimates of the numbers that can reasonably be accommodated at these places. The results of these investigations and the methods by which space requirements were determined will be found elsewhere in this report (see Chapter VI). The following table gives the results of counts made by trained observers at the beaches, and also the counts made from a study of aerial photographs of these beaches: COUNTS OF BEACHES Legh Wdhof Sq. f t. Length Width 0f Number Number of beach Sq. ft. Name of Beach o be d in.0t. on in Total (land for each Condition (feet) in water beach water and person water) Coney Island...........156 250 275 125 440 39,000 98 Very crowded Midland...............156 200 53 31 84 31,200 369 Could have held twice the number Rockaway............. 1156 325 220 90 310 50,700 160 Comfortable Counts from Photos Coney Island............156 250 587 104 691 39,000 56 Extremely crowded Rockaway..............156 325 813 214 1,027 50,700 48 Extremely crowded VI. SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION Opinions differ as to what is the proper amount of space that should be devoted to parks or playgrounds in a given area, or for a given population, but no city plan can be complete without an analysis of recreation needs and standards. It is difficult to make any reliable estimate of the minimum space requirements for the various kinds of recreational activities for large communities of different types. When such an estimate is made for practical application it should be based on a careful study of local conditions. Influencing all matters pertaining to the amount of open space required for different recreation uses, are questions relating to the nature of the locality, density of population, means of access, character of residential development, and size and distribution of existing areas. Whether a locality is crowded or sparsely built upon; whether it is occupied by residence, business, or industry; whether it is situated on a waterfront or not-are all questions which affect the relationship between the extent of open space and the number of persons likely to make use of it. The full use of all space in any form is not obtained when it is not suitable for the district it serves, when it has difficult approaches for those who are to make use of it, or when there is uneven and badly balanced distribution. Therefore, a uniform standard or proportion of space per capita cannot be determined which will be applicable to all cases. All that can be suggested are the minimum standards which should be adopted where conditions relating to locality, access, and balanced distribution are generally normal. The practical application of such standards must be made in conformity to a number of local conditions. Space Standards in Country Parks The more distant public reservations and country parks should be considered apart from the question of space standards for cities. As 117 already stated, these reservations are created for varied reasons, of which their use for recreation is but one. They require such extensive areas that the question of their space adequacy for recreation is involved with many other considerations. It is apparent that distant country parks are too inaccessible for regular daily use, and they are not therefore to be considered as substitutes for central parks. They are chiefly used on holidays and week-ends, and in this respect serve an excellent public purpose; but the area they occupy cannot properly be considered as part of that required to comply with reasonable space standards for recreation within urban districts. The 90,000 acres of public open grounds in the Region represent a provision of one acre to 115 persons, or 8.7 acres per 1,000 persons. This would be a very liberal proportion were the open lands well distributed and within easy reach of the majority of the inhabitants. But the greater part of these areas is in the form of distant country parks. Nevertheless, the figures show a condition that is a great improvement over what has been in the past. The most pressing problem at present is that of accessibility. On the whole, we may assume that the space required for the holiday needs of the population will be well taken care of if all the land in the Region that should be had for water-supply reservations and afforestation, and which is unsuitable for other purposes, is acquired by the state, county, and municipal authorities as public open spaces. While parts of the park system of Westchester County are so close to urban sections as to be within the range of use for everyday recreation, they will in process of time be no more than adequate for the population of the county. Space Standards in City Parks The figures given in the Appendix, Table VI, show that in the urban communities of over 118 PUBLIC RECREATION 25,000 population there is a wide range of park provision on a population basis. The best condition is found in White Plains, where there is one acre of park for every 47 inhabitants, while in Perth Amboy there is only one acre for 14,086 persons. About half of the communities have an average of about 500 persons per acre. Smaller communities are undoubtedly not so well off. If consolidation takes place among any of them and as they grow in population, this lack of park area will be felt more strongly. Without exception the city and village parks of the Region are now used to the limit of comfortable capacity. Many are seriously overcrowded. In all cities park areas are being increasingly used to accommodate the more active games and sports which have grown in popularity. Demands are being made for playfields within the parks, where tennis, hockey, volleyball, basketball, archery, and similar sports can be enjoyed. The problem of fitting the existing parks to these new needs is raising important problems of replanning the landscape features so that the areas for sports can be provided without destroying the natural beauty of the parks. The best way to avoid this destruction is to provide more playgrounds in the residential areas, in the interests of the parks themselves. In outlying districts of the Region, as in some parts of the city, there is still time to acquire vacant land. It should be secured while densities and building values are low, and while areas that are least adaptable for building purposes-and probably all the more adaptable for parks-can be had. The suburban communities are favored by the fact that large private grounds intersperse their areas, and that state and county parks are being established. This does not, however, relieve them from the necessity of providing parks and recreation grounds of their own, for the private grounds will sooner or later be built upon, or will become too costly to buy for park purposes, and the state and county parks will not provide the convenience for daily use that can be obtained from well-distributed local parks. In the City of New York the chief defect of the park and playground system is in its bad distribution. This means that where spaces are few, as in Manhattan, they are necessarily too far apart to permit them to be easily accessible to all the people. The residential areas in Manhattan are not sufficiently interspersed with neighborhood parks, and most of those that do exist are separated from the people's homes by barriers of heavy street traffic. Moreover, many of the small parks are in business districts where few people live, thus increasing the distance to be travelled from the residential areas. In suggesting space requirements for the park and playground system of a city, we do not pretend that it is possible to give definite space standards to suit even average urban conditions. Much less can we pretend to give a definite ratio of space to population or area to meet the immense variety of these conditions in the cities which lie within the Region. All we can do, and need do, as a guide in planning, is to arrive at an estimate of what is a desirable minimum of space necessary in any urban area to give adequate facilities for recreation. Before we can arrive at such an estimate for the whole park system we must calculate the space needs of different types of parks and recreation grounds within the system. First of all, we have to consider what areas are necessary for children's playgrounds, including those attached to schools. Space Requirements for Children's Playgrounds No rule or standard of playground space is suitable for general adoption, there being too many complicated factors involved. Each locality must be studied and dealt with on its merits. There are, however, certain general considerations and standards that should be made to govern all cases. The sizes and frequency of the playgrounds are related to, the questions of their management, equipment, and proximity to schools. New York City at present has only 17.4 square feet of play space for every child, and Manhattan has only 11.6 square feet. The studies described in Chapter XI indicate that existing playground space in Manhattan is only 46.6 per cent adequate, in Brooklyn 54.9 per cent adequate, and in the Bronx 70.4 per cent adequate on a minimum basis. It is interesting also to note that SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION 119 the playground space provided by the Public elementary schools is almost three times that provided in public parks. Also it is to be observed that space adequacy is more or less inversely proportional to the density of population. Whether or not a playground is incorporated in a large city park or takes up a portion of a small neighborhood park, or is a separate small area exclusively devoted to play, or is a school playground which may be used during out-ofschool hours, it can rightly be regarded as constituting an important element in the park sysSATURDAY MORNING NEAR A CLOSED SCHOOL PLAYGROUND SWINGS designed to serve. In general, the best place for a children's public playground is in conjunction with a school. Playgrounds in parks are the best type to supplement the school playgrounds in localities where the school grounds are inadequate. Wellplanned playgrounds properly have a place in city parks. Unless special areas are designed for use by the children, they are likely to play indiscriminately over the lawns and among the shrubbery, to the detriment of the park and the annoyance of other park users. Space requirements for children's playgrounds demand careful study, but this has been largely >*ja matter of guesswork. By counting the children at play, recording the types of activity, noting SCALEIN FEET the amount of "elbow room," and measuring FIG. 24 PLAN OF TOMPKINS SQUARE PLAYGROUND Area, 21,123 sq. ft. Comfortable capacity, 211 children tem. Therefore, in arriving at the space requirements necessary for children's play, we assume that these can be provided within any gross area suggested as a basic standard. Every school playground of suitable size should be kept open under supervision on every school afternoon, on Saturdays, and during vacations. These are the times when the children can use them and when they need them most. Every school, as far as it is possible, should have a playground large enough to ac- AMOENSOLPi GUDINS \hRCOL commodate the children whom the school is HOURS 120 PUBLIC RECREATION Courtesy, Board of Education FIG. 25 GROUND PLANS FOR Two MODERN NEw YORK CITY SCHOOLS, SHOWING SPACE FOR PLAY Upper plan, James Monroe High School, The Bronx. Lower plan, Public School 210, Brooklyn SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION 121 the spaces in actual use, the studies made for the Regional Plan have shown that each child playing on a properly laid out, equipped, and supervised playground required an average of 93 square feet of space. This is for children's playgrounds, not for athletic fields. Little children in the sand-box use less, the larger ones taking part in playground games require more. A fair standard and one easily remembered is 100 square feet for each child using the playground at a given time. This does not mean that for every child in the district 100 square feet of play space competitor, and all too often the quality of play leadership on the playground is not of the best. It must be a well administered playground to compete successfully with the city streets, teeming with life and adventure. The ability to make the playground activities so compellingly attractive as to draw the children from the streets and hold their interest from day to day is a rare faculty in play leadership, combining personality and technical skill of a high order. This and previous studies have shown that only about one-seventh of the children in dis Courtesy, Playground and Recreation Association of America COMFORTABLE PLAY SPACE should be provided, but instead, 100 square feet for every child on the playground at a given time. The question then arises-what is the maximum percentage of the child population that may be expected to be using the playground at any one time? Careful checking within a radius of one-quarter mile of playgrounds under a wide range of conditions in many cities shows that about one-seventh of the child population from five to fifteen years of age may be found on these grounds. The lure of the streets is a strong tricts having public playgrounds use them at any given time. But the inclusion of school playgrounds, near which practically all of the children are assembled five davs in each week for their school work, and the assumption that all playgrounds can and should be open all the time and be well administered, led to the adoption, in this study, of a standard which required play space sufficient to accommodate at one time at least one-fourth of the children from five to fifteen years of age living in the play district. Since each child at play needs 100 square feet, 122 PUBLIC RECREATION there should be, on this basis, 25 square feet of playground space per capita for the child population from five to fifteen years of age, or one acre for every 1,742 children of this age in the district. This appears to be a fair minimum standard for American cities in general. In residential districts zoned for single-family houses with private yards, obviously less public playground space would suffice. The city planner must take into consideration the local situation and the future possibilities of each section, and as far as possible adapt his planning to these conditions and to present and future needs. The private play space requirements for oneand two-family houses are quite different from the per capita space needs in public playgrounds, where approximately 100 square feet per child ously, this means that none of the 750 square feet should be devoted to walks or flower beds. If the private lot is 50 feet wide, this 25 by 30 feet play space would still leave approximately 25 feet of the lot width for a walk, some shrubbery and flowers, and a place for drying clothes. In considering play space requirements for the interior court of a residential block, we can reduce the standards for the public playground slightly, as we would not expect organized activities and a full complement of playground equipment. It would be safe to place the minimum requirements at 75 square feet per child using the playground at a given time. There would probably be at least 200 children in the block. Half of them might be on the playground at a given time. This would require 7,500 square feet of space, or IICr I )r CEM-ENT DRIVEWAY *.................. roR KIDDIE CAlkS Courtesy, A. S. Barnes & Ccmpany FIG. 26 LAYOUT OF A BACKYARD PLAYGROUND ON A PRIVATE LOT, 40' x 120' using the playground at a given time are called for. It is evident that a plot 10 feet square would not make a very satisfactory playground even for one child. Therefore the backyard playing space of a private house must be considered from a different angle than the public playground. A play space 25 by 30 feet-that is, 750 square feet-would make a very useful playground for from one to five children. Of course more space is desirable where practicable. Often the children come over from neighboring backyards to play, and five or six or more children will be found playing together in a private backyard. The 750 square feet would allow room for a limited amount of equipment, such as a swing, a seesaw, a horizontal bar and a sand-box, and still leave some space for various backyard games. Obvi an area 75 by 100 feet. That would make a playground of fair dimensions which could be provided in the interior court of a block. In this playground there should be the same playground apparatus as indicated for the private backyard, only more of it, and in addition some portable basketball goals. By placing the apparatus at the sides, the center of the play space would be open for various playground games. Roof play space and equipment should conform to about the same standards as those for the interior court playgrounds. Heavy wire netting for sides and cover is necessary if roofs are used as playgrounds. Space requirements for playgrounds may be summarized as follows: For the usual type of equipped playground, at least 100 square feet for each child on the grounds SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION 123 at a given time, or 25 square feet for each child between the ages of five and fifteen years in the neighborhood to be served by the play center. For interior court and roof playgrounds, 75 square feet for each child playing at a given time, or 35 to 40 square feet for each child in the block or the building. For home yard playgrounds for single and two-family houses, a minimum total of 750 square feet, but more if the size of the backyard makes a larger play area possible. Accessibility is a very important consideration in playgrounds as in parks. Every child should have a playground within Y4 to Y3 of a mile of home, and should not have to cross traffic-laden streets to get to it. Traffic barriers, business and industrial areas bordering the playground, and long distance from the children's homes are factors which seriously impair the usefulness of many playgrounds. Neighborhood Parks The character and uses of the small neighborhood park, covering a block or a few acres, have already been discussed. They are large enough to iftclude children's playgrounds but not athletic fields, although, as in Mount Morris Park, Manhattan, they PROPOSED F have sufficient space for a great variety of uses. The question of setting aside areas for such small parks invites attention to the problem that arises when neighborhoods change in character. The fact that neighborhoods undergo change, from residential to business uses, may mean that a recreation space may require modification in its character to suit new demands and uses. But the fact of a change can never be used as a proper excuse for not adopting a desirable standard of space for local parks while the land is in residential use. If this use is replaced by business, the space may prove desirable for a new purpose, but it is still needed. Although New York has no extensive retail business streets facing park sections, some of the most successful business streets in other large cities front on parks, such as Tremont Street in Boston, Princess Street in Edinburgh, Rue de Rivoli in Paris. The Battery Park at the southern end of Manhattan is even more essential today as a neighborhood park than it was when more of the lower section of the island was residential. In all old residential neighborhoods where the opening up of park spaces would add to the values of property, an effort should be made to secure these neighborhood parks, although it may not be possible to attain to the space standards desired. In new developments, advantage should be taken of the Enabling Acts of the State to establish space for neighborhood parks. The fact that private parks are provided in many PLAY BUILDING WITH TERRACES, GYMNASIUM AND BATHS Designed by Goodhue and Lay real estate developments of the better class indicates the value which this kind of open space has as a means of increasing or stabilizing property values. It has been proposed that a portion of every third block in Manhattan tenement districts should be condemned, the buildings removed, and the area developed for a park and playground. This ambitious proposal shows how serious the need for neighborhood recreation space is felt to be. There is little prospect of such a plan being carried out, however, because of the tremendous cost involved. The current agitation for improved housing in deteriorated districts has unexpectedly revealed a method of reducing the cost to the municipality 124 PUBLIC RECREATION of new park additions. Modern tenements capable of low rentals can only be constructed on a mass production basis, on sites covering a block or even several blocks. But to assemble then to sell or lease them at a price which may wholly, or in a large measure, cover the cost of all the land condemned. New apartment buildings facing upon a park would bring much higher rentals and enable developers to pay the increased price required by the municipality. Several schemes of this sort have already been proposed. In connection with the widening of Chrystie Street a housing project is in contemplation under which it is proposed to condemn several blocks-, one of which will be made into a park (or playground), while the remainder will be devoted to new tenements. In a study made for the Regional Plan on the "neighborhood unit," Mr. Clarence A. Perry suggests several four-block apartment plans, each of which exhibits an interior park or recreation space of several acres. Each of these schemes provides that the cost of the open space shall be borne by the abutting housing development, and for their practical realization they would require the use of condemnation procedure. The incompletely developed suburbs offer the most promising opportunities for obtaining a proper balance between population densities and neighborhood parks. Were we considering the needs of space for these parks as merely resting places or open squares in residential districts, AN ATTRACTIVE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK-AMERSFORT PARK, BROOKLYN tracts of that magnitude through ordinary negotiation and purchase is impracticable except at a prohibitive cost. They can be obtained only through the operation of condemnation, and that process has recently, through the Housing Law, become available to approved limited dividend companies proposing to erect tenements whose room rentals will not be in excess of $12.50 a month. The cost of land in even the run-down sections of the East Side is so high, however, that only in rare cases could a company afford to dedicate a portion of its site to park or recreation purposes. Another possible method of acquiring park areas which has developed in connection with the housing movement is that which is known as excess condemnation. This process becomes available whenever the municipality takes land for a public purpose, such as a bridge-approach, a street widening, or the acquisition of a park. Under the excess condemnation law it is permitted to take land additional to that required for the specific purpose, provided such land abuts upon the area taken for the public improvement. In a large park project, therefore, it is possible for the municipality to condemn and acquire title to quite extensive excess areas and PLAYGROUND ENTRANCE MADE ATTRACTIVE BY GOOD PLANTING St. Gabriel's Playground, Manhattan without regard to their playground uses, we should consider it desirable to have one acre of neighborhood park for every 3,000 to 5,000 people living within one-third to one-half mile. SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION 125 If the population density is high, the area to be served by a neighborhood park should be reduced instead of increasing the size of the park beyond a reasonable acreage. That is, a policy of many small parks instead of a few large ones for neighborhood use is desirable. If about one-twenty-fifth of the people were in the park at a given time, one park acre would be occupied by about 160 people. That would allow about 275 square feet of park area for each person, which our studies of neighborhood parks under various conditions have indicated to be the approximate space needed for comfortable use. This takes into account all the area included within the street boundaries of the neighborhood park, such as lawns, planting, walks, seats, fences, band-stand, comfort station, and other park structures. If the neighborhood park is also to contain a playground for children, it must have additional space to the amount of 100 square feet for each child on the playground at any one time, or about 25 square feet for each child between the ages of five and fifteen years in the area to be served by that playground. If there is a school playground in the vicinity, that should be taken into account in determining the amount of play space needed in the neighborhood park. Athletic Fields and Playfields Athletics and playfield games have the greatest range of appeal. They grip the child of ten and 9A.M. 10 II 12 MaylJ, I T10 _ _ _ 4 5 8RM.;H -- Lý, " Sun. Sun. Sun. Jun 14, -- 15;-- 16, 17, 18, --- --- --- 19, - 2C, ----------- - -- -- 20, 21, --- 23, 24, --- 25, 26, 27, 28. ------------- ---- --- 31, ------- el, ', 4, r, I I 1 1 r '1 D, 5, I r I I r I I r? 6,*----------------- -- - Sun. 7, ----- ------ 8, 9, --- --- 10, - Public Schools - Other Groups ----- FIG. 27 CHART SHOWING INTENSIVE USE OF PUBLIC SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD, BROOKLYN carry over into adult life; yet rarely is sufficient space provided for them either in city or coun -----.--....-----.-------------800'---- ---------- FIG. 28 A PUBLIC SCHOOL ATHLETIC FIELD IN BROOKLYN 126 PUBLIC RECREATION try. Heavy per capita space requirements and high prices for land increase the difficulty of securing enough space, especially in populous districts. Locating them in the outskirts of the city seriously curtails their use. The minimum of space for athletics and playfield games is about 1,000 square feet for each person on the field at a given time. If one-twentieth of the population between the ages of twelve and twenty-four years could be expected to be using these fields at any one time, 50 square feet of athletic and playfield space would be needed for each individual in this age group in the community. This presupposes that the fields are located with a fair degree of convenience to the potential users. Of New York City's 10,482 acres of park land, 540 acres are in athletic fields and playfields. To this may be added 92 acres under the Board of Education, making a total of 632 acres. These grounds are in such demand that park officials have long waiting lists of teams and other groups seeking an opportunity to use them. On the basis of a conservative estimate of probable use, New York City has only about two-fifths of the athletic and playfield space that it needs. Newark is much better supplied, largely as a result of Essex County's extensive park system. Some of the cities of Westchester County are also well supplied. Every high school should have a good athletic field. If every grammar school district had one as well, it would be an effective means of engaging in wholesome activity much youthful energy that now finds less desirable outlets. The large parks may well allot space to this purpose, as many of them are doing. Special sites for athletic fields should be provided whenever possible in or near residential districts now lacking these recreational assets. Bathing Beaches The needs of nearly 10,000,000 people are not satisfied by the existing public bathing beaches in the New York Region. In attempting to arrive at a reasonable estimate of the space requirements for bathing beaches certain factors must be considered, as follows: (1) Ex tent of Shallow Water. Character of the land-under-water portion of the beach. What is the distance from the shore line which can safely be used by bathers? Is it a broad, shallow waterfront, like most of the Atlantic City beach, or is it precipitous, like the Bayside Beach on the north shore of Long Island, or like some of the south shore beaches? (2) Width of Beach. What is the extent of the available beach from the water line back toward the upland? Is it broad like the Coney Island beach, extending back under the board walk, or is it narrow, like Bayside Beach? (3) Ratio of People in Water to Those on Beach. In estimating the number of people who can use a beach we would have to consider both those who are in the water and those who are on the shore. Of this total, it seems from observation and from pictures of beach crowds, that not more than one-quarter of all visitors are actually in the water at any one time. This shows that considerably more space per capita is really needed on the beach than in the water. There is a tendency to run about and play ball and other games requiring room. Some private beaches, to which an admission is charged, have well developed play areas in connection with the bathing beach. In these considerations it is also necessary to take into account the character of the facilities which are provided. The board walk at Coney Island accommodates vast numbers of people in a limited area, and gives them opportunity to enjoy the attractions and comforts of the waterfront under comparatively favorable conditions. Amusement resorts, like Luna Park, with their varied attractions and ample space, take care of large throngs. It is necessary also to get a dependable estimate of those who come by automobile and those who come by bus or rail; also those who come by boat, where this means of transportation is provided. Except for the area occupied by piers, the people coming by boat impose no special space requirements. Those coming by automobile, on the other hand, must have 150 to 200 square feet of ground on which to park a car while they are present. As a result of careful study, and bearing in mind the various factors mentioned, the conclusion is reached that for every person on a bathing beach at a given time there should be about 150 square feet of space at high tide. If the average bathing beach has a total width of 150 feet, this would mean a minimum of one SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION 127 linear foot of waterfront for each person using the beach in comfort. On this basis, one mile of waterfront would comfortably accommodate 5,280 bathers. Counts of areas on the Coney Island beach, figured from airplane pictures that were taken when the crowds were obviously too large, gave only 56 square feet per person. A similar count at Atlantic City showed 78 square feet per person. Here also the picture was made when the crowd was much too great for comfort. If we could, have a mile of bathing beach for every 5,000 or 6,000 people using it at a given time, this would seem to be making about the right provision. It would then be necessary to consider what other attractions were to be offered, and to attempt to provide adjoining upland space for amusement and refreshment places, automobile parking, bus and railroad stations, and streets and sidewalks. Studies indicate that the beach itself is only about ten per cent of the total area desirable for such a seaside resort as Coney Island. One mile of bathing beach, averaging 150 feet in width, with nine times as much upland space added, would accommodate comfortably about 50,000 people at a time. Standards of Space for a City Park System Having arrived at some idea of the community needs for different forms of active recreation, we have next to consider what areas should be added to this for the threefold purpose of (1) providing "lung space," (2) pleasure parks for walking and driving amid natural surroundings, and (3) a pleasing environment for as many of the buildings of the city as is practicable. It may be assumed that every city should have as much "lung space" or general pleasure-park area as it can afford. Few, if any, cities can be said to have too much, and no city in the Region can be quoted as being willing to abandon parks that have been established. In this case the best basis of computation is probably what has been practicable in the cities where the most ample provision has been made in the past, rather than what is theoretically desirable as a ratio between open space and population, or open space and total area. In dealing with space standards for the city park system as a whole, we omit consideration of those country parks that are too remote for everyday use. Adequate country parks should be provided within easy reach of the populous areas, in addition to the city park. Moreover, it is recognized that parks and playgrounds should be better distributed than at present and that any percentage should be calculated on small rather than large units of area-that is, in neighborhoods rather than in the city as a whole. At the same time it may be suggested that the combined country and city parks in an urban region should provide one acre for every 100 persons. The figures given later for space requirements of city parks should be considered in the light of this standard for the region of which the city is a part. There is evidence of the fact that it has been practicable to provide open space in a city exceeding the proportion of one acre to 200 persons. The Bronx had a higher proportion of park space to population than this for many years, and even now has one acre to 209 people. The Bronx, however, should be considered in combination with Manhattan, as its large parks are intended to serve both boroughs. If it were a separate city it would have a high standard of park area. Moreover the population of the Bronx is growing, and its opportunity for acquiring more open space is diminishing as the growth proceeds. At no distant time it may reduce its proportion to half of what it now is, or to one acre to 400 people. This again would still be a fair minimum if Manhattan had a similar proportion. At present in the two boroughs taken together there is one acre of park for every 483 of the existing population. As the population increases on the vacant areas still available in the Bronx, the number of people per acre of park will be much increased. The situation is made even more unfavorable by serious defects in distribution which make the parks difficult of access to the most densely populated sections of Manhattan, and even to some parts of the Bronx. Westchester County today has one acre of park to every 28 of its population, but this includes extensive areas of comparatively remote country parks, like Poundridge Reservation. Probably the parks and playgrounds available for 128 PUBLIC RECREATION COMPARISON OF PARK AREAS TO POPULATION AND CITY AREAS Cities of 200,000 Population and Over (Park areas within city limits only included) City Population Total area Park area Population per park arento (est. 1926) (acres) (acres) acre of park total area 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. New York................... Chicago..................... Philadelphia................. Detroit....................... Los Angeles................... Cleveland..................... St. Louis................... Baltimore..................... Boston...................... Pittsburgh................. San Francisco................ Buffalo....................... Washington.................. Milwaukee................... Newark..................... Minneapolis.................. New Orleans................. Cincinnati................... Kansas City.................. Indianapolis................... Rochester.................... Jersey City................. Seattle..................... Louisville..................... Toledo...................... Denver...................... Columbus..................... Portland, Ore.................. Providence.................... Oakland..................... St. Paul....................... Atlanta....................... Omaha..-.-.-................. Birmingham................... Akron........................ San Antonio................... Dallas........................ 6,299.500a 31048,000 21008,000 1,290,000 1,222,5006' 960,000 830,000 808,000 787,000 637,000 567,000 544,000 528,000 517,000 459,000 434,000 419,000 411,000 375,0000 367,000 321,000 318,000 315,31 2c 311,000 294,000 285,000 285,000 282,383b 275,000 261,000 248,000 227,710Ob 215,000 211,000 210,000b 205,000 203,000 190,161 125,430 83,017 88,960 282,035 43,160 39,040 50,560 27,634 30,035 26,880 26,880 39,680 23,411 15,084 37,440 113,920 46,280 37,395 29,879 22,995 8,320 43,840 23,024 22,752 37,085 22,384 42,604 11,410 31,596 33,389 21,120 23,686 32,166 15,990 23,020 15,360 10,482 5,865 7,801 3,418 4,889 2,221 2,880 2,833 3,594 1,591 2,535 1,548 3,424 1,058 1,924 1,821 1,727 2,718 3,237 2,566 1,771 353 2,144 1,653 1,592 1,557 634 2,181 934 915 1,572 1,100 1,348 687 479 1,363 749 601 520 257 377 250 432 288 285 219 400 224 351 154 489 238 238 243 151 116 143 184 901 147 188 185 183 450 129 294 285 158 207 160 307 438 150 271 5.5 4.7 9.4 3.8 1.7 5.2 7.4 5.6 13.0 5.3 9.4 5.8 8.6 4.5 12.8 4.9 1.5 5.9 8.6 8.6 7.7 4.2 4.9 7.2 7.0 4.2 2.8 5.1 8.2 2.9 4.7 5.2 5.7 2.1 3.0 5.9 4.9 I NOTE: Park areas except for New York City are from park study of Playground and Recreation Association of America. everyday use of its inhabitants are not more than sufficient to provide one acre to 300 people. As, however, a large proportion of the homes in Westchester have gardens and are near to large areas of vacant private land, it cannot be taken as an example of what can be done in populous areas. Moreover, as the county is growing rapidly, it a est. 1927. best. 1925. r est. 1920. will not be able to maintain an adequate ratio of well-distributed local parks unless more open space is reserved in the cities and villages of the county for recreation. At present, conditions in the county are not exceptionally good as regards the provision made for local playgrounds and neighborhood parks. Yet it must be recognized SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION12 129 that this county has found it profitable to make, with the aid of the state and New York City, more liberal provision for country parks and for parkways, than any other county in the Region. In addition to its exceptional extent of public open space, Westchester has enormous areas reserved by the City of New York for purposes of water storage. These areas have many of the uses of country parks, and in this respect serve the City of New York as well as Westchester County. As is shown in Chapter I I of Part I, the Bronx and Manhattan together had 483, Brooklyn 864, Queens 504, and Richmond 369 persons per acre of parks in 1925. For 1927, the figures are 500, 885, 577 and 400 respectively.' Brooklyn is most defective in relation to present conditions, although its deficiency of area is offset to some extent by fairly good distribution of spaces. On the other hand, Queens and Richmond are seriously defective in regard to both extent and distribution of parks, especially in view of future probabilities of growth; and the areas that exist are not well distributed. Before considering what would be a desirable combined minimum for all parks, playgrounds, and athletic fields, it is necessary to recall the data already set forth regarding the needs for active recreation. These are as follows: Children's Playgrounds-100 sq. ft. for each child playing in the playground at a given time, or 25 sq. ft. for each child five to fifteen years of age within a radius of approximately one-fourth mile. Athletic Fields and Playfields-1,000 sq. ft. for each player on the field at a given time, or 50 sq. ft. for every person of twelve to twentyfour years in borough or city. Neighborhood or Local Parks-275 sq. ft. for each person using a neighborhood park at a given time, or f rom 3, 000 to 5, 000 inhabitants per acre of park. Bathing Facilities-iSO sq. ft. at high tide per person using the beach at a given time, or about one linear foot of shore line per person. Thus one mile of beach would serve about 5,000 persons comfortably at one time. Leaving- out of account the water frontage areas attached to the beaches as waterfront neighborhood parks, it may be approximately estimated that one acre of open space is needed for active recreation to every 1,000 persons in the general population, or about 238 families. Much of this space of course will be found in the parks, where areas will be set aside and designed for children's playgrounds, athletic fields, playfields, tennis courts, etc. What, then, is the minimum area needed within an urban area for all the park and recreation requirements of the community? It is reasonable to assume that twice this area is needed for all purposes-i. e., one acre to each 500 persons as a minimum for combined city parks, neighborhood parks, athletic fields, waterfront parks, and playgrounds. A desirable minimum, however, would be one acre to each 300 persons likely to be resident in a district, and an absolute minimum one acre to each 500..' Any percentage between these two figures might be reasonable, having regard to local conditions, and to proximity of country parks which are not included in the calculation. In areas only partially developed the percentage should apply to the potential, and not to the present, population, and in all cases the figures now being used should relate to open spaces within walking- or short driving distance of residential neighborhoods. Where areas are adjacent to large bodies of open water, as in the case of Manhattan Island, the absolute minimum of open area for all parks may be reduced, perhaps to one acre to 600 persons, to make conditions as satisfactory as in other areas with one acre to 500 persons. In undeveloped or partially developed areas which are likely to be subdivided for building purposes, the calculation of the amount of public open space required should be made, in the first instance, on a different basis than that of persons per acre-namely, that of percentage of open space to gross area. In such areas not less than 10 per cent of the gross acreage, that is, all land including the part devoted to streets, should be reserved for open space in advance of building, development. But this 10 p~er cent will only be 130 PUBLIC RECREATION adequate where the expectant population is not likely to exceed a density that will reduce the open space below one acre to from 300 to 500 persons. Even then the local percentage should be supplemented by country parks or reservations within convenient reach for holiday use. For instance, if a gross area of 100 acres were laid out for building and 10 acres were allotted for open space and 25 acres for streets, the building land would amount to 65 acres. If on these 65 acres there were built 11 houses per acre, with an average of 4.2 persons in each house-46 per acre-the population of the tract would be about 3,000, or equivalent to 300 persons per acre of park. The density on the total acreage would be 7.1 houses, or 30 persons per acre. This is a density for a single-family residence district on medium-sized lots where every home is likely to have a small garden, but where it would be reasonable to provide the 10 per cent minimum of public open space. It is certain that in any urban area of average conditions any lower density than the above in one district will be paralleled by a higher density of a neighboring district, and that any slight excess of parks actually needed in the former would be an essential relief to the latter. Moreover, the time is almost certain to come when the lower density will be increased, and as it is increased the 10 per cent of park remains stationary, while the private garden and yard space is gradually covered with buildings. In the central populous parts of the City of New York the density will probably be maintained at the present figure, which is approximately 14 houses to the gross acre. The areas devoted to streets and other open uses in the city are comparatively high and may be estimated at a minimum of 40 per cent. On this basis the number of houses per net acre of built land would be 23.3. The foregoing is the present average density of 167 square miles of New York City and represents about 100 persons to each acre built upon, assuming that 40 per cent is unbuilt upon, or 60 per acre on the total area. With this density, a 10 per cent reservation of open area would give one acre to each 600 persons, which is clearly insufficient. But while a 10 per cent reservation may provide the minimum required with a comparatively low density, it is far from adequate in the parts of the area where the density reaches its maximum proportions. For instance, even though Manhattan has 12.4 per cent open area, this provides only one acre to 1,245 persons. Manhattan enjoys advantages already referred to that make its position exceptional, so that even if 12 per cent were adequate in its case a greater percentage would be needed in areas not having similar advantages, such as extensive water frontage, accessibility to nearby parks, etc. At the same time, Manhattan's density is also likely to remain exceptional and no districts are now being developed with as high an average population as the central borough. The averages in the city are: Manhattan, 155 persons; Brooklyn, 50 persons; the Bronx, 35 persons; Queens, 11 persons; and Richmond, 4 persons per acre. Taking the Brooklyn figure of 50 persons per acre as representing a reasonable average for new developments in suburban parts of the city, a 10 per cent reservation would provide one acre to 500 persons. From what has been said, it will be seen that the question of open-space standards is interwoven with the question of density, and-that 10 per cent, or even 12 per cent, may be a totally inadequate proportion of open area in a city. The conclusion which may be drawn from the facts stated is that it is impossible to obtain a reasonably adequate amount of open space in areas where the density has already risen above approximately 50 persons, or 12 houses, on the average acre. In the greater part of New York City, therefore, it is useless to talk about space standards in terms of any desirable minimum. All that can be done is to make the best of a bad situation, and to add to the neighborhood parks and playgrounds of the city wherever opportunity offers, knowing that no percentage of open space to gross area can ever be secured that will increase the acreage sufficiently to give one acre to 500 or even 600 persons in the most central districts. To reach even this minimum the acquisition of open space alone will not be sufficient. It must be accompanied by a wider dispersal of the population, by the transfer of some of those who overcrowd parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn to open areas in the suburbs of the city. The problem of the lack SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION 131 of open space in a crowded city must of necessity be attacked from two sides-namely, an increase of area simultaneously with reduction of density of population. Lack of opportunity in the districts already developed, either to get open space or to reduce densities, makes clear how important it is to deal with both problems together in areas likely to be developed in the future. This means that purchase of open areas and zoning should go on side by side. Given adequate zoning control over density so as to prevent overcrowded conditions on any as to secure from 10 per cent to 15 per cent for all local recreation purposes and neighborhood parks. The danger is, that action in reserving necessary open space to meet possible conditions of greater density is likely to be deferred until it is too late. But where public open space is acquired in a good residential district with gardens, it provides an added amenity which is usually welcomed and willingly paid for in higher values, so long as it is appropriately planned and developed to suit that type of area. The way to maintain a proper relation between open area Courtesy, City Housing Corporation A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAYFIELD IN A NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT-SUNNYSIDE, QUEENS, L. I. See reference under (d), page 135 parcel of building land, it should be unnecessary for any district to reserve more open space for all local park purposes than 10 per cent of its total area. Parts of a country park system running through a district might be included in this proportion if it is available for everyday local use, but every local community or subdivision should provide a minimum of 5 per cent for active recreation alone and an equal area for pleasure parks. The proper division of 100 acres would be 60 acres as building area, inclusive of appropriate private space in courts and yards, and 40 acres in streets and open spaces, providing in the latter for a variation in the division of the two uses so and population after the 10 per cent reservation is made is by means of zoning, rather than the acquisition of more open space. In referring to even the lowest proportion of one acre of park to from 500 to 600 persons, it is realized that this may be criticized as extreme in relation to Manhattan, where the percentage is now one to 1,245. But if Manhattan were to be built over again, it would be entirely to its advantage to have over twice its present open space in parks and playgrounds. Had this proportion been provided, much land that is now occupied by derelict and dilapidated structures probably would be covered by profitable high-class build 132 PUBLIC RECREATION ings. None of the deteriorated areas in Manhattan adjoins its larger open spaces. Today its most crowded areas with the least open space are probably its least profitable, and its highest values and most prosperous residential conditions are in the neighborhood of Central and other parks. Manhattan must continue to rely on the Bronx for much of its park facilities, and it is by increasing the Bronx areas, as well as by utilizing the East River islands, together with a further thinning of the population as a result of displacement by business or improved housing, changes the location of the built-up areas by squeezing or thrusting the buildings outwards to other areas which would otherwise remain vacant. It insures the establishment of more desirable, more permanent, and more profitable residential conditions in its populous centers by reason of the amnenities provided by open space. Moreover, a city does not escape the obligation to provide open area, nor does it save money by neglecting to provide it, in the right placewhich is near to the homes of the inhabitants. Whatever open space is required to meet social needs and demands must be provided somewhere, and if it is not provided near to the center it 7- will have to be provided in places at a distance. What follows in that event? We can see what is today the case in Manhattan. The residents, having been denied sufficient park area within the borough, have to travel at considerable cost of time and money to distant parks to a greater degree than should be necessary. On holidays and week-ends they crowd the railways and highways to get to these parks. There is no question of the need of these distant parks in any case, for their own purposes, but in so far as they are used instead of city parks they LONG ISLAND impose an indirect burden on the city in the way of making provision to reach them, and even then they do not meet the need for local parks for everyday use. More highways have to be provided because of the absence of city parks. The major portion of the cost of these highway facilities has to be met by the large city as the greatest contributor to state taxes. This method of separating the open space from the home involves expense that could have been saved by more liberal provision of parks nearer to the residential areas. This would not lessen in any way the need for securing also the necessary country reservations. There are several other factors that show wastefulness due to the failure to provide open NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AT RUSSELL GARDENS, GREAT NECK that better conditions will be obtained in respect to recreation facilities. On the other hand, the higher proportion of one to 300 may be criticized as inadequate for suburban areas. But it must be remembered that in so far as this proportion or better has been attained it has related to a present, and not to a potential, population. On the basis of the possible future population, a percentage of one acre of city and neighborhood parks to 300 persons would seem to be adequate. It should be noted that in trying to attain this desirable minimum a city does not reserve space that would otherwise be built upon. It merely SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION 133 areas. One, already indicated, may be repeated. The city that provides ample park areas does much to keep its wealthier residents within the city-otherwise it drives them away. A consequence is that it loses its best taxpayers and also many of its most useful citizens as residents. An ample park system is necessary not only to provide recreation and to get spaciousness for health and circulation, but also to maintain a high average level of residential occupation. Summary of Space Requirements For general purposes a comprehensive city park and playground system should comprise not less than 5 per cent of any district for purposes of active recreation, and 5 per cent for pleasure parks. The provision of such space should be related to the density of the probable future population on the basis of not less than one acre to from 300 to 500 persons. These percentages would vary according'to local conditions and the open areas somewhat decreased where large water surfaces adjoined a populated district. Such parks and recreation grounds should in all cases be provided independently of country parks that are too distant from the places in which people live to enable them to be used every day. Liberal provision of country parks will continue to be essential for holiday and week-end use, and should be made without any prescribed limit from the point of view of recreation. The reservation of areas required for protection of water supplies, and of other lands which are more suitable for the development of afforestation than for any other purpose, will mean that this class of open space will help materially in meeting country park needs of the communities within the Region. Those who study recreation problems hesitate to state minimum space requirements for the various types of open areas because of the wide variation in local conditions, and also because such minimum standards might be mistaken as implying entirely adequate provision. City planners, however, are asking for something concrete and dependable in determining the amount of open spaces of different kinds that a given population should have. Therefore, these and many other studies have been made with the answer to this question as their objective. It is hoped that these facts, observations, and conclusions may aid in bringing about an approximation, at least, of the requirements for park and recreation space; but where conditions permit, the more generous view should be taken. There can be no excessive provision for recreation, subject to the limits of economic considerations. WHERE PLAY SPACE IS AT A PREMIUM IN MANHATTAN VII. WAYS OF SECURING LAND FOR RECREATION In addition to determining what areas of various kinds are needed for recreation purposes, it is important to consider the practical means by which land may be acquired. The experience of various sections in the Region has been investigated, and supplemented by data secured from the nation-wide study of municipal and county park and playground systems which has been made by the Playground and Recreation Association of America in cooperation with the American Institute of Park Executives and the National Outdoor Recreation Conference. The following is a summary statement of the information thus secured regarding methods of acquisition. Purchase (a) By direct negotiation between the governmental agency desiring the property and the owner of the property. This is the most common method of acquiring recreation areas by governmental agencies and is universally practiced throughout the country. (b) Through condemnation. This is the usual method employed by public authorities when it is not possible to come to satisfactory terms with the owner of the desired property through the method of direct purchase. It is resorted to only in the last extremity, because the court proceedings involved are likely to be long, tedious, and expensive, and the value decided upon ultimately is usually higher than the governmental authority desires to pay. (c) Through excess condemnation and purchase. This is similar to the method described in paragraph "b," except that more area is taken than is desired for the park or other recreation area, the surplus being sold with a view to covering part or whole of the original purchase price. The laws of Ohio give municipal governments the right to exercise excess condemnation, but the opposing public sentiment is so strong that the right has not been exercised. (d) Through excess purchase. This is a method whereby more area is purchased than is needed for the desired recreation grounds, the surplus being sold with the intention of securing sufficient income from such sales to meet the cost of the tract which includes the area to be reserved for recreation. This method is not commonly practiced either by private individuals or public authorities in this country. In Lorain, Ohio, a group of citizens purchased a large area of ground, and after reserving one hundred acres for a public park sold the remainder for a sum sufficient to cover the entire cost of the original tract. The hundred-acre park was then deeded to the city. In Fort Worth, Texas, there is an instance of the Park Commission having purchased a tract for recreation purposes, including an excess area the sale of which covered the entire cost of the tract. (e) Through reserving designated areas on subdivision plat maps presented for filing, and subsequent direct purchase of such areas. This is the common practice in Philadelphia, where a state law gives the city authorities the right to designate on all subdivision plats such areas as are deemed necessary for parks and playgrounds. The city must exercise the right to purchase these areas within three years. If the city does not do so within this time the areas may be cut up and sold by the subdivider. (f) By a district assessment plan. This is largely used in Minneapolis in acquiring and developing neighborhood parks under the law known as the Elwell Law. The same plan is also used there in acquiring and developing parkways and boulevards. (g) Through revenues accruing from activities carried on in the use of the properties. In Minneapolis, both the acquisition and development of two additional 18-hole golf courses are being paid for by golfers. Fort Worth, Texas, furnishes two similar examples in an 18-hole municipal golf course and a large swimming center, the cost of both being met by the revenues from their use. 134 WAYS OF SECURING LAND FOR RECREATION 135 Gift (a) In fee simple. This is a method whereby a private individual or a corporation deeds in a fee simple a given area for recreation to some governmental authority. A far larger number of the existing recreation areas in this country than is usually supposed have been thus acquired. In such a deed there are no restrictions placed upon the use of the property. (b) In trust. The gift in trust of a recreation area usually involves some specific terms with respect to the use of the property. Thus the deed of trust might set up a specific form of governing authority, and provide that whenever the area ceases to be used for the purpose for which it is given it will revert to the original owner or the heirs. Such gifts should be very carefully considered before acceptance by any governmental authority. (c) Under easements. This is a gift, not to a public authority, but to a number of individuals living in a given locality by a private individual, or a corporation. For example, a subdivider desires to set aside a given area for the recreation of the prospective inhabitants of the subdivision. It may not be desirable to deed this area outright to the local municipal government. The subdivider includes in the terms of sale to each purchaser of a lot or lots a perpetual easement right in the area set aside for recreation. Gramercy Park in New York City is an example of such recreation area. In modern subdivisions, recreation areas held under easement by the inhabitants of the subdivisions are now quite common. In the Sunnyside development in the Borough of Queens, New York City, the interior courts of the residential blocks are set aside for recreation use, and easement for a 40-year period is included in the deed to the purchaser of property in the block. (d) By dedication. A subdivider in laying out a subdivision may select and dedicate certain areas for recreation purposes in perpetuity. Sometimes it may be years before such areas would pass under the control of the local municipal government, but as a general rule, if the given areas are desirable for recreation purposes, they pass quite readily under the control of the municipal authorities. In the Sunnyside development, mentioned above, a playfield has been set aside by the developers and dedicated to rec reation. It has recently been placed in charge of the New York Community Trust with large discretional powers, the plan being to organize a local citizens' committee which will manage the use of the field. It may eventually be transferred to the municipality. (e) Gift in part. This is a plan under which an individual or an organization contributes a part of the cost of a new recreation ground, the balance to be provided by the governmental authority, or a group of individuals, who will probably later transfer it to the city, county, state, or nation. An illustration of this is found in the case of the Harmon Foundation, which, during 1924, helped fifty-four municipalities in different parts of the United States to secure new recreation grounds, by donating $2,000 in each instance under certain conditions relating to size, cost per acre, use, location, size of community, rate of population increase, and so on. A gift from the Harriman estate of large tracts of land, supplemented later by gifts of funds from several sources, provided the beginnings of Bear Mountain Park, on the west side of the Hudson River about forty miles from New York City. It is now administered by the Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate Park of New York and New Jersey, appropriations for administration, maintenance, and extension being made by both states. Transfer This is a method of acquiring recreation areas through the transfer of property from one governmental agency to another. As a general rule, properties thus transferred were originally purchased by the public for some public function other than recreation and in the course of time became no longer necessary for the original purpose. Examples of such transfers of property follow: (a) By federal government (Department of Agriculture, Navy Department, War Department, Treasury Department) to state governments. Within recent years there have been many such transfers of federal government property no longer needed for their original purposes to state governments for recreation purposes. In most cases there was a purchase transaction involved, but often the purchase price is only nominal. 136 PUBLIC RECREATION (b) By federal government to county governments. In a few instances county park and recreation systems have been wonderfully enriched by transfer of federal properties to the counties. A striking instance of this was the transfer of about 5,000 acres from a federal forest preserve to Los Angeles County, California, for use as a county park. (c) By federal government to municipal governments. There are many examples of such transfers, such as old naval stations, forts, military preserves, and sections of forest preserves. A notable example of a transfer of a section of federal forest preserve to a municipality for a great outlying park is found in Phoenix, Arizona, whereby this city secured a tract of several thousands of acres to be used as a great forestmountain park. (d) By one department of the federal government to another. An instance of this within the Region is the recent action of the War Department in transferring the custody and use of the Camp Upton tract of 6,400 acres on Long Island to the Department of Agriculture for reforesting and for public recreation use. The War Department, however, retains title to the property. (e) By state governments to county governments. An outstanding example is the transfer made by the State of New York of the area known as Mohansic Park, 1,100 acres in extent, to the Westchester County Park Commission. This was originally purchased by the state as the site for a state institution, but it was later found undesirable so to use it. If it ceases to be used for park purposes it reverts to the state. (f) By state governments to municipal governments. Recently, by special legislation, New York State has been authorized to turn over to municipalities and to counties for recreation parcels of state land that have come into the ownership of the state, as a result, for instance, of non-payment of taxes. (g) By municipal governments to a state agency. On Long Island the City of New York owns large tracts of land used as watersheds and as sites for huge reservoirs. During 1926 several thousand acres of this property were loaned by the City of New York to the Long Island State Park Commission for use as state parks. (h) By municipal governments to county governments. In those counties having county park systems there are several examples of this. In the case of municipally owned park properties, the transfer of jurisdiction is often made in the belief that such properties can better be administered by the larger agency. (i) By county governments to municipal governments. The government of the county in which Savannah, Georgia, is situated transferred to the municipality a tract of 640 acres on the condition that the city would develop and operate the property as a large outlying park. (j) By one department of a municipal government to the control of another department of the same government. In Dallas, Texas, such a transfer of old water properties added over 2,500 acres to the park system and gave the people two fine outlying water reservation parks. In Fort Worth, Texas, the Water Department transferred to the Park Commission nearly three thousand acres of a nine-thousand-acre water supply property reservation, for use as an outlying water reservation park. Old municipally-owned cemetery sites and sewage disposal plant sites have been transferred for park purposes. In those few cities throughout the country fortunate enough to have extensive commons, transfers of portions of the common land from the commons commissioners to the park authorities have added greatly to the recreation areas. Delinquent tax properties are constantly falling into the control of municipalities and counties. These properties, such, for example, as the site of the Morris Canal, become a potential source of areas for playgrounds and parks. Designation for Temporary Use Areas acquired for another public purpose are frequently available for recreation use while still retained for the purpose for which they were originally acquired. Outstanding examples of such joint use follow: (a) Federal forest preserves. It is now an established policy of the Federal Bureau of Forestry, and has been for several years past, to throw open the forest preserve areas for the recreational use of the people of the nation. The ways in which these vast areas contribute to the recreation of the people are many, and include tourist WAYS OF SECURING LAND FOR RECREATION 137 camping, organized camping, family camping in permanent locations, hunting, fishing, hiking, and horseback riding. (b) State forest preserves. Practically the same policy has been adopted by state forest authorities respecting the recreational use of state forests as has been adopted by the federal authorities. (c) Town forests. Here the same policy prevails. Massachusetts has led in the development of town forests. These are made available for recreation use. (d) Water department properties. Many municipal water departments throughout the country have opened their properties for the enjoyment of the citizens and their families. In a few instances the water departments have actually constructed recreation facilities, such as picnic places, swimming pools, baseball diamonds, and tennis courts. (e) Sanitary district properties. The Sanitary District Commission of Chicago owns large tracts of land, some of which are being used for recreational purposes. In this particular instance there seems to be no reason why the major portion of the surplus land under the control of this commission could not be used for recreation. (f) Waterfront properties- Piers. The Dock Department of New York City has built a roofedover second story on several of its commercial piers for the purpose of using the second story as a playground for children and evening recreation center for adults. The use of these recreational piers has been placed in the hands of the Park Department. The Dock Department, however, retains ownership and provides for repairs and general upkeep. A large municipal pier in Chicago is similarly used for recreation purposes. (g) School site properties. School sites are now largely used throughout the United States for community recreation purposes. Because of the growing appreciation by educational authorities of the value of play as an educational process, resulting in a policy of securing larger and larger grounds for school sites, these sites are becoming a factor of first importance in providing children's playgrounds, neighborhood playfields, and athletic fields in city planning for recreation. Developers of new residential areas are quite generally showing a disposition to cooperate in providing neighborhood playgrounds and small parks in their areas. If the city can find practical ways of encouraging such cooperation in the consideration of special street plans, zoning modifications, the location of schools, the extension of transit facilities, etc., it is quite possible that an increasing amount of land may be dedicated for recreation purposes and so located as to fit properly into the city plan. This would apply equally well to the rebuilding of older districts in which no provision for parks and playgrounds has been made. Statutory Requirements for Setting Aside Playgrounds in Plats before Official Approval Efforts have been made to obtain legislation which would require real estate developers to dedicate a portion of all new tracts to public use as recreation grounds, but thus far such measures have been of doubtful constitutionality. Space for this purpose has not yet come to be considered as being of the same degree of public necessity as streets, and until the time comes when it is thus classified, there will be considerable reluctance on the part of city councils to require subdividers to make provision for it. Mr. Edward M. Bassett, in charge of the Legal Division of the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, in discussing this subject with reference to the amendments to the general city and village laws of New York State passed in 1926, said: "Small parks for playgrounds are nowadays about as necessary as streets. Fast-moving automobiles render all streets dangerous for play purposes. Yards about houses are usually too small. Yet in the rapidly growing areas throughout the Region a house is built on every lot without a thought of setting aside small parks for playgrounds before the land is built over. After acres of houses are built and occupied the cry for the first time arises for playgrounds. Then the playgrounds, if established at all, are likely to be put in the wrong places. Sometimes they are produced in emergencies by tearing down existing houses. Some far-seeing developers set aside small parks in their developments. They say that, if small parks for playgrounds are set aside, the remaining land will sell for enough to make this profitable. The new laws make possible an offset of small park land against street land so 138 PUBLIC RECREATION that a developer can save on street widths and throw the saving into small parks." The new laws which are permissive, as far as their adoption by any city or village is concerned, provide that: " Before the approval by the planning board of a plat showing a new street or highway such plat shall also in proper cases show a park or parks suitably located for playground or other recreation purposes. In approving such plats the planning board shall require that... the parks shall be of reasonable size for neighborhood playgrounds or other recreation uses. In making such determination regarding streets, highways, and parks, the planning board shall take into consideration the prospective character of the devel opment, whether dense residence, open residence, business, or industrial." Although no owner is compelled to dedicate the land for a park or playground, these laws provide a means by which such land may be compelled to be platted for this purpose. A period of time is prescribed within which the municipality may acquire this land in case the owner does not choose to dedicate it. The real estate developer can often be accommodated by certain changes in street widths or modification of zoning so that his layout when including playgrounds will be to his advantage. In 1927 the Town Law of New York was similarly amended. Courtesy, Department of Parks, Brooklyn CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND IN McKINLEY PARK, BROOKLYN VIII, NEED OF RECREATION SPACE, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ITS EXTENSION This report is part of a survey of the social conditions of the New York Region. It is no part of its purpose to put forward a specific plan for improvement of these conditions. Comprehensive and definite proposals for improvement will be made in the Regional Plan which is in course of preparation. In making the survey of conditions it has been found desirable, however, to include certain suggestions for supplementing the existing facilities. Many minor.suggestions are contained throughout the previous chapters of the report. In this chapter brief reference will be made to a few prominent needs and opportunities for extending and increasing open spaces in the Region. In the central parts of New York City, areas cannot now be secured to provide even the minimum of the needed space without incurring what would be a staggering cost. It is doubtful if the old densely populated sections can ever be provided with enough play space unless they are replanned and rebuilt. In view of this, it is surprising to find that new sections are being developed without anything like adequate provision for parks and playgrounds being made. A thorough and far-reaching park and playground plan for the entire city is greatly needed. A few outstanding needs in different parts of the city are as follows: M~anhattcin.-The making of openings to the waterfront, wherever it is practicable, in the form of marg-inal ways with occasional recreation piers or waterfront playgrounds; the reservation of as much as possible of the East River islands; the development of the Harlem River waterfront; and the securing of the Billings property in upper Manhattan, as the only opportunities for much needed additions to the park areas without demolition of buildings. The question of the future utilization of the, East River islands has been before the public authorities for some time and is of urgent importance because of the danger that more permanent buildings may be erected upon them for uses that are neither necessary nor desirable in such a situation. Because of this danger and the fact that they present the only opportunity for getting an effective increase of open space on Manhattan, some extended reference is made to this potential need in Chapter XIV. The Bronx.-The special needs are the extension of the Bronx Parkway from Bronx Park along the Bronx River to the East River, where it could join with the northern approach to the proposed tni-borough bridge; the purchase of several new areas for children's playgrounds in residential districts; the acquisition of land for a wide parkway in the Tibbetts Brook valley between Harlem River and Van Cortlandt Park, as part of an improvement which would not interfere with appropriate railroad uses. This parkway would connect the Manhattan parks and parkways with the whole Westchester County park system. Brooklyn.-The increase of the standards of open space to population so as to approximate more nearly to the standards now prevailing in the Bronx, especially by the reservation of large sections of Jamaica Bay frontage and island areas, and by acquiring the Owls Head tract in the Bay Ridge district. Brooklyn has one acre of park to 857 persons. The total park area should be increased at least three times to give a satisfactory proportion for immediate needs. The city of New York owns no less than 4,000 acres of marsh land in Jamaica Bay, and large parts of these public lands should be dedicated without delay for parks and marine playfields. If plans for dredging the channels in Jamaica Bay and filling in extensive areas in the center of the Bay are carried out, the development of large portions of this land as parks and play 139 140 PUBLIC RECREATION fields might well be considered. It would have the attractions of a water setting and of the cooling ocean breezes, within easy reach of populous parts of Brooklyn. There is no waterfront park along the entire western shore of Brooklyn from Newtown Creek on the north to the Bay Ridge section on the south, a distance of about nine miles. In fact, from Astoria in Queens to Bay Ridge, a stretch easily accessible by way of the Williamsburg Bridge to Manhattan's most populous district. The Navy Yard district has interesting possibilities as a combined airport and park. The protected bay would serve well as a landing place for sea planes and the adjacent land areas could be developed for other airplanes. Some space for park purposes would still be available between the landing field and the residential section. Sur Pholo by Fai/clild Aerial Surveys, Inc., N. Y. C. AERIAL VIEW SHOWING THE BROOKLYN NAVY YARD BETWEEN THE MANHATTAN AND THE WILLIAMSBURG BRIDGES of about twelve and one-half miles, there is only one small place-Rainey Park, of eight acreswhere the public has access to the river front. Frequent proposals have been made for the transfer of the Brooklyn Navy Yard to another location where it could have railroad connections. If this should be done, it would add about 175 acres to Brooklyn's open space possibilities in a blighted residential area of about 100,000 population within a radius of a half mile. This area is rounding property would be greatly benefited by such a development, and a spacious open area would be secured in a part of the city where it is greatly needed. Queens.-In view of the rapid growth of population in Queens and the present availability of open land, the acquisition of twice its present park area is urgently needed. This would provide no more than the present percentage of park area to population in the Bronx. NEED OF RECREATION SPACE AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ITS EXTENSION 141 Its present relation of parks to total area is only 1.9 per cent as compared to 16 per cent in the Bronx. The acquisition of parks on the wooded lands adjacent to Hillside Avenue and in the Alley Pond section has been advocated and should be dealt with as a matter of urgent importance to the future prosperity of the borough. An additional educational park in the form of a Botanical Garden should be provided in Queens. Richmond.-The largest available areas in the city are on Staten Island, where there are still about 25,000 acres unbuilt or sparsely built upon. One objection that is made to acquiring larger areas of land for parks in this borough is that Richmond does not possess convenient and rapid means of communication. This is used as a reason for delay, but it is really a good reason for action being taken before improved accessibility adds greatly to the price of land and the density of population. An attractive opportunity for a marine park, embracing the whole range of waterfront recreations, exists at Great Kills, Staten Island. Crooke's Point, the peninsula encircling the Great Kills Harbor, has been broken across by the sea, and the harbor is being steadily filled in as the peninsula is worn away by the tides and the storms. Thus the only harbor refuge on that part of the coast is being destroyed as the outer beach and peninsula are washed away. The city now has the opportunity of acquiring, at a very small cost, a considerable part of this area and the necessary land under water to make a fine marine park of about 450 acres. Cooperation from the federal government can be had in building the sea walls and in dredging the channel and harbor. The improved means of transportation between Staten Island and nearby population areas of New York and New Jersey, now under way or in process of planning, would make this ocean front park easily available to large numbers of people. It is one of the most attractive waterfront recreation possibilities in the Region. The Willow Brook tract of about 550 acres that is now under consideration as a city park is located in the high central section of the borough, and is one of the few large unspoiled forest areas within the city. It should unquestionably be acquired without delay, as should also the Wolfe's Pond tract of about 200 acres situated in the southern part of the island. Needs in the Environs Outside of the city, all of the small cities and villages should obtain open areas equivalent to 10 per cent of their total area for local parks and playgrounds. In the counties of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut which lie within the Region, an effort should be made to reach something approaching the standard of combined local and country parks already achieved in Westchester. There are, throughout the Region, mountainous sections, low rocky hills, ravines, stretches of palisade, river valleys, marshes, and waterfront HACKENSACK RIVER, ORADELL, BERGEN COUNTY, NEW JERSEY uplands that form a great aggregate area of land that is suitable for parks and for no other kind of development. Much of this land is accessible at present, and all of it can be made accessible under modern conditions of transit. Much of it is adaptable for additional conservation of water supply, or for preservation of forest growth. Large areas should be obtainable at low cost if acquired before further urban extension takes place. New York has, at its door, one of the finest opportunities that exists in any city for preserving an open space of exceptional beauty, in the form of those parts of the New Jersey Palisades overlooking the Hudson which have not yet been publicly acquired. Owing to the prescience of citizens of New York and New Jersey, a large 142 PUBLIC RECREATION extent of the Palisade cliffs has been alienated from private use, but for a considerable stretch of the river frontage only the steep rocky cliffs and shore front have been acquired. To this should be added a strip, not less than two hun of the Palisades. The expenditure of a large sum of money will be necessary, but this should be provided by joint state and community action. Taking a long view, probably no investment would be more profitable than this. THE PALISADES OPPOSITE DYCKMAN STREET, MANHATTAN dred feet wide, of level land on top of the Palisades, so as to give the public the full benefit of the reservations already made. It is particularly desirable that more open land be reserved on both sides of the New Jersey end of the new bridge over the Hudson near Fort Lee. This bridge will carry some 20,000,000 people during the year and will bring the Palisades within easy reach of the millions of New York people. It would be a tragedy if this magnificent prospect were closed by the erection of large buildings and the opportunity thus lost of reserving park lands of such wonderful possibilities. When the bridge is constructed, rapid growth of population on the New Jersey side will make it more necessary for open space to be provided. WVhy should not this area be reserved where the land affords the greatest opportunity for utility and beauty as a park, and is at the same time the most expensive land to build upon? Probably no city in the world possesses a feature of such natural grandeur as the Palisades and the Hudson River combined.' The fact that the land has greatly increased in value is no reason for delaying the acquisition of a narrow strip along the miles of its frontage that stretch between Fort Lee and Bear Mountain Park. Unfortunately this is a case where delay will be fatal to the proper use of the land along the top 1 See Those Private Palisades, The Survey, June 1, 1928, page 265. The Bronx River Parkway has demonstrated the practical value of corridors of park space radiating from the populous centers to the country areas. It is of the utmost importance that similar developments be carried out before the cost of acquiring the land becomes practically prohibitive. There should be two on Long Island, two or three in New Jersey, and one in Connecticut. These park corridors should not be conceived as mere boulevards, i. e., high roads with a few trees planted within their narrow and rigid borders, but should be strips of park land from which interfering cross-traffic can be excluded at most points, and where some sense of spacious surroundings can be conveyed to the passer-by. As has been indicated in earlier chapters of this report, the Bronx River Parkway conveys several lessons. The inception of that great public improvement grew out of the necessity of cleaning up unsanitary conditions along the Bronx River valley. The City of New York contributed about two-thirds of the cost of this measure of sanitation and parkway building. The people of Westchester thereafter discovered that the Bronx River Parkway and the open spaces connected with the Kensico water system were beginning to yield immense indirect profits and benefits to Westchester. They became converted to an enthusiastic belief in parks, and they went ahead until, by 1927, they had voted forty NEED OF RECREATION SPACE AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ITS EXTENSION 143 constructive park program in New Jersey lies in the counties of Passaic and Bergen. The appointment of the Passaic Park Commission has made possible the inauguration of a plan of utilizing parts of the banks of the Passaic River as parks and parkways. Probably no river in the Region has the natural advantages of the Passaic for recreation purposes. The valleys of the Hackensack, Ramapo, and Saddle Rivers afford splendid opportunities for parks and parkways. The natural beauties of SPARKILL CREEK, PIERMONT, ROCKLAND COUNTY, NEW YORK one millions of county money for their park system. The extension of this parkway, now under way, to join the approach to Bear Mountain Bridge will be a most useful addition to the highway system of the Region. The lower reaches of the Bronx River from the park to Long Island Sound should be similarly developed and a connection established with the proposed tri-borough bridge, thus forming a link between the parks of Queens and Brooklyn and those of Bronx and Westchester. The Long Island Park Commission has a great field for extension and increase of reservations and parks in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and considerable progress in acquiring areas has already been made. In 1925 a bulletin was published by the Regional Plan Committee, dealing especially with the park and parkway problems of Long Island. This statement is reprinted as Chapter XV of this report. The greatest urgency for the development of a Photo by D W. Boyer FIVE MILE RIVER NEAR DARIEN, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT these valleys are comparable to those of the Bronx River valley. Acquisition now would be cheaper than waiting until a later date. They are already being menaced by pollution. Incidentally, these valleys would furnish additional scenic routes to and from the great Bear Mountain range. Another area which should not be neglected is that of the abandoned Morris Canal, which extends from Newark to Lake Hopatcong MAHWH RVERNEARSUFERNRocK XN CONTY and offers to the state and the counties through NEW YORK Which it passes exceptional opportunities for the 144 PUBLIC RECREATION improvement of their recreation facilities. As a continuous strip of publicly owned land, it might readily be turned into a scenic route through a beautiful country. Incidentally, this would help in bringing relief to overcrowded highways in that section. That part of Connecticut which lies within the Region has needs and opportunities for park and recreation development quite in keeping with those elsewhere. Although the form of local government in Connecticut emphasizes the town A parkway, by-passing the larger centers of population and connecting with appropriate outlets to the east and north, would insure convenience and pleasure to great numbers, and at the same time afford much needed relief to the cities along the Long Island Sound shore. Local planning of such facilities throughout the Region is of the greatest importance to both the locality and the public at large. The cooperation of states, counties, cities, towns and villages is not only desirable but increasingly necessary. Waterfront Facilities Extension of public waterfront facilities on a large scale would appear to be one of the most obvious needs of the city and its environs. The great stretches of ocean front on the south shore of Long Island beyond the Rockaways-particularly along the publicly owned beaches between the Rockaways and Fire Island inlet, offer attractive possibilities in this connection. Time and expense in reaching these areas are factors to be considered. Cooperation by state, county, township and city authorities will be necessary to bring these additional spaces within easy reach of the multitude. Action should not be long delayed. Such bodies of protected water as the Great South Bay afford excellent opportunities for water sports, as motor-boating, sailing and rowing. Occasional public stations should be placed at convenient points on their shores and be so equipped that the public may have access to these sports at minimum expense. Playgrounds It seems desirable here to emphasize what has been repeatedly said throughout this report, that the greatest necessity in all urban areas is for more playgrounds, so distributed, wherever possible, as to be within a third or a quarter of a mile of all homes, and providing a minimum of 25 square feet of play space for every child between the ages of five and fifteen years. A policy should be adopted of establishing these playgrounds at city-wide or borough-wide expense, j ust as is the case with public schools. If this matter is left to local initiative and financed by local assessment, progress will be halting and haphazard, and many needy neigh Photo by D. W. Boyer JUNCTION OF ASPETUCK AND SAUGATUCK RIVERS, \VESTPORT, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, CONNECTICUT rather than the county, nevertheless Fairfield County as a unit and in cooperation with state and town authorities should deal with those park and recreation problems that have a regional aspect. There are unsurpassed waterfront possibilities that should be developed for all the people, and also attractive areas of woodland with streams and lakes that should be secured and developed for public use. The reservations for water supply purposes afford opportunities for certain types of recreation if such use is wisely planned and supervised. NEED OF RECREATION SPACE AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ITS EXTENSION 145 borhoods will be left without playgrounds. Proper landscaping and screening would tend to overcome local objections and make the playground a desirable asset to the residential neighborhoods. Areas used for this purpose should be laid out, equipped, and supervised in such a way as to make the playground and its surroundings attractive to the children, and in addition lessen or entirely remove the objections of those who live in the immediate neighborhood. percentage of open area, notwithstanding the fact that they are used for commercial and transportation purposes. Open Spaces and Traffic One further general need may be referred to as important in connection with the acquisition of new parks. It is that these should be provided in such a way as not to impede street traffic. Many large parks are situated in positions, and E AN UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE HARLEM RIVER WATERFRONT Airplane Landing Fields A new method by which open lands may be provided as additional lung space for the central areas is the acquisition of land for airplane landing fields. Such fields are needed and can be provided on vacant land in the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, as well as in metropolitan New Jersey, in addition to those already available on Long Island and Staten Island. These can be regarded as part of the are of such form, as to block traffic movement in cities. This is unnecessary if the open area is selected with proper care and planned in relation to the other features of the city. The criticisms that are made against particular parks as an interference with circulation are therefore not in condemnation of the parks but of the defects of judgment evidenced in their location and planning. Probably the root of the objection is that the park has been selected 146 146 PUBLIC RECREATION and designed without regard to any general plan. While parks need not interfere with circulation by imposing a large block of open area between populous areas, they may definitely and substantially improve circulation in four respects. These are: 1. By providing space for children to play with safety, thereby keeping them off the streets. 2. By affording walking space off the streets for those who otherwise would increase the number of pedestrians using street crossings. 3. By reducing the extent and aggregate bulk of building in a given area, thus reducing the volume of traffic. 4. By affording space for parkways in which automobiles can move rapidly, as a result of segregation of traffic and separation of grades. Need of Cooperation It is proper that a word of emphasis on the subject of public recreation should be given with regard to the need of cooperation by public authorities. State, county, city, town, and village authorities must work together in developing and financing a recreation program which will fit in with regional, city, and neighborhood requirements. The City of New York is dependent on the outlet it gets f or its multitudes in the park areas of the surrounding counties. Water supply reservations, forest areas, county parks, city parks, neighborhood parks, playfields, and playgrounds have to be related and studied together and dealt with cooperatively. State cooperation in New York has been substantial and much good bas already resulted from conferences between New York State and New York City authorities concerning the related features of state and metropolitan parks. Cooperation is particularly needed in regard to the improvement of the extensive waterfront, by the reservation of open areas and architectural treatment of the land abutting on the bays and rivers that is not required for needs of commerce and transportation. There are waterfront spaces now occupied by dilapidated structures that can be spared for the purpose of giving health and pleasure to the inhabitants of the crowded centers. There are other parts of the shore which are needed for commerce and industry, but where it is possible to serve these needs and at the same time construct raised promenades, as at Antwerp and Algiers. The greatest opportunity for improvement in New York is to make its waterfront more beautiful and dignified without hampering its commerce; and this can be achieved only by the cooperative action of the state and municipal authorities. PART III SPECIAL STUDIES OF FACILITIES AND AREAS IX. FACILITIES FOR ACTIVE RECREATION IN CENTRAL PARK Seventy-nine acres of Central Park, or about 9 per cent of the total area, are used as playfields. This space is designated primarily for athletic activities, special demonstrations and celebrations. There are 7 of these playfields, located and used as follows: Acres North Meadow, West 100th St.. 30.00 Tennis Courts................9.86 East Green, East 72nd St.......5.14 Gilhooley Lawn, 84th St. and West Drive................1.00 Sheep Meadow, West 66th St... 21.00 Playground Lawn, West 65th St. 10.65 Circle Lawn (new), 106th St. and West Drive.............1.20 Total.................... 78.96 Used for Baseball, football, soccer, etc. Tennis May parties and special permits May parties May parties and June walks Baseball, football, soccer, etc. Croquet and field hockey used intensively. The other meadows are for parties and special exhibitions, such as the annual Park FRte of the Girls' Branch of the Public Schools Athletic League. Near the North Meadow are 29 tennis courts, for which playing permits are issued for the season at a fee of $1.00 per person. These permits are also good for the Fort Washington courts. Last season 5,450 permits were issued. Players are assigned to the courts in order of application, two hours being allowed for play, except on crowded days, when the limit is one hour. School children are not allowed on the tennis courts after one o'clock on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays. Permits are issued without charge for baseball, football, and soccer on the North Meadow and the Playground Lawn. The grass is entirely worn away from these two fields and at times they are very dusty. Every afternoon in the playing season, schoolboy teams use these fields, and on Saturday afternoon and Sunday they are Of these fields only the Tennis Courts, the North Meadow and the Playground Lawn are A PORTION OF THE MUCH USED NORTH MEADOW IN CENTRAL PARK 148 FACILITIES FOR ACTIVE RECREATION IN CENTRAL PARK 149 in constant demand by older boys and young men. No regularly laid-out diamonds or backstops are provided, and the baseball outfields overlap. The two playfields have a total area of 37.9 acres. As many as 1,046 boys playing, or trying to play, football and soccer have been counted there at one time. Field Houses and Shelters Though there are extensive playfields, no field houses have been provided. Athletic equipment vision is made for rest pavilions giving protection from the sun. This is a special hardship for those who come from some distance. On the occasion of one May Day party, several thousand children were drenched in a heavy rain because there was no adequate place for shelter within the park. The storm came suddenly before there was opportunity to get outside to the street cars, subways and elevated trains. A recent report by Hermann W. Merkel recommends some additional shelters of this type. Courtesy, Department of Parks, Manhattan COASTING IN CENTRAL PARK-ONE OF THE MANY HILLS must be carried to and from the park by the users, as there is no place to store or check it. There are no dressing rooms or lockers or shower baths, except at the small comfort station at the Playground Lawn, where there are two showers for boys. The 29 tennis courts which are used to capacity during the season have no place for checking equipment. Two small shelters are all the park affords as protection from rain, and practically no pro Lakes Besides playfields, there are a number of other recreational facilities, among which are the park lakes and ponds where boating may be enjoyed in summer and skating in winter. Portable houses are set up beside some of the lakes in winter for the convenience of skaters. The row boats are much patronized, especially on the lake at the north end of the park, where there is also a small launch provided by the con 150 PUBLIC RECREATION cessionaires. The pond near the East 72nd Street entrance is used for sailing toy boats, and a small house has been provided for their storage. A list of the bodies of water in Central Park which are used for recreational purposes follows: Harlem Mere, East 110th Street-boating and skating. Lake, West 77th Street-boating and skating. Pond, East 60th Street-boating and skating. Pool, West 101st Street-skating. Pond, East 72nd Street-sailing toy boats. Loch, West 104th Street-skating. Two reservoirs in Central Park are a part of the city water system. They occupy a total area of 161 acres, or about 19 per cent of the entire park. They are attractive bodies of water but they occupy a large amount of valuable space. For years there has been discussion about discontinuing one of them and developing the land thus obtained for park use. Menagerie, Buildings, and Concessions The menagerie occupies about 11 acres and is always well patronized. It is a continual source of interest, especially to children. A park menagerie is usually considered a feature more appro menagerie in Central Park, despite its present undoubted educational and recreational values. The Metropolitan Museum of Art now occupies about 9 acres of the park area. The policy of locating in public parks buildings other than A SECTION OF CENTRAL PARK MUCH USED FOR PLAY those that serve park purposes is open to serious question. Even though they might require only a very small space in the beginning, it often happens, as a result of normal growth, that they eventually spread over a considerable area. A large copcrete band-stand has recently been constructed at the head of the Mall, and seats for about 10,000 people have been provided. Municipal concerts are held here. The attendance often far exceeds the seating capacity. A conservatory occupies about one acre near East 104th Street. Here plants and flowers are grown for use throughout the park. A number of concessions are granted in the park. These lend themselves to the entertainment of visitors, but in some cases they injure the appearance of the park and should be more thoroughly supervised. Apart from the Casino Restaurant, the buildings and stands used for refreshments are not of the quality they should be in such environment. The boats on the lakes are under the control of concessionaires, as are also the checking of clothing and renting of skates during the winter. There is a carousel on the Playground Lawn which seems to be much enjoyed by the children. A CENTRAL PARK LAWN APPROPRIATED BY THE CHLDREN priate, however, for a suburban than a city park, as it requires a spacious, natural environment, which should be obtainable without injury to the beauty of the park. For this reason there has been some question as to the wisdom of having a FACILITIES FOR ACTIVE RECREATION IN CENTRAL PARK 151 Traffic Regulations and Policing There is an extensive bridle path through Central Park, so laid out that there are no grade crossings where it intersects sidewalks and roadways. Less satisfactory arrangements are provided to enable pedestrians to cross the roads. The number of motor cars using the park's drives steadily increases. On the driveway north of the Sheep Meadow as many as 8,000 cars were counted as passing one point in six hours. Traffic as heavy as this sets up barriers at crossings which have the effect of limiting the use of the park by pedestrians, especially children. More otherwise might be devoted to the care of lawns, shrubbery, and trees. Although frequent arrests have been made, no very effective means have been found for checking this careless and costly habit of defacing the park. The question of policing the park has been the subject of much discussion. More than one Commissioner has found the allotment of policemen to park duty insufficient for this purpose. Special instruction for the men assigned to this park work, and also a separate force of park police, have been advocated as means of improving this service. Third Ave. Children per Acre [ 11-15 l 11,-20 ZI-40 41-60 i|61-80 81-100 Over 100 FIG. 29 COMPARISON BY SANITARY DISTRICTS OF THE CHILD POPULATION AROUND CENTRAL PARK protection for those who use the park should be given at intersections of walks and drives. Some of the driveways are from 40 to 60 feet wide and have no "isles of safety" for the pedestrians at the crossings. To the extent that these crossings are hazardous, there is a curtailing of Central Park's usefulness. The tendency of Central Park crowds to litter the walks and lawns with paper and other refuse has received much comment. To some extent this is due to the lack of control over itinerant venders who sell articles wrapped in paper. Extra large forces of workers are required in summer to clean up after the crowds have gone. Many hours of work are thus required which Need of Extending Playgrounds in the Park The result of the playground studies, showing inadequate provision through the city generally, and specially in the vicinity of Central Park, seems to indicate the need of extending such facilities in the park.1 It would appear to be within the range of proper park use to include definite spaces for children's play. But these should be laid out so as to conform to the general attractiveness and design of the park. A careful study of the entire park and the adjacent 1The report of a Central Park study made in 1927 by Hermann W. Merkel recommends, among many other things, the establishment of several small, welldesigned playgrounds for children, located within the park, "close to convenient entrances.," 152 PUBLIC RECREATION residential areas has led to the conclusion that there are places along the margin of the park which are well suited for this purpose. All of these are now much frequented by children. Proper landscaping and equipping for play would enhance their appearance and greatly increase their usefulness. The playground that was installed recently near the southern end of the park has fully demonstrated its popularity with the children. The diagram on page 155 gives evidence of this. Chapter X gives some details concerning attendance at this playground and indidates the wide area from which it draws. Although some of the play equipment is unnecessarily conspicuous and out of harmony with the surroundings, nevertheless this is a detail that can readily be corrected. The landscaping and planting are such that when the trees, shrubs and flowers are further developed, this play space for children, although rather large, will no doubt fit in harmoniously with the park design. WVADING POOL IN H-ECKSCRER PLAYGROUND, CENTRAL PARK X. PLAYGROUND ATTENDANCE A quarter of a mile is generally taken as the radius of attendance at children's playgrounds, but no tests have been made in New York City for a number of years. In July, 1927, an elevenhour census was made of Tompkins Square Playground in the heart of the East Side. Its area is half an acre. As each child entered the playground he was given a tag printed as follows: Address................................. Arrived...............Left.. 1st Visit..........2d......... 3d.......... B..............G.............Age. This was filled out with his address, the time of his arrival, his age, sex, and whether it was his first, second, or third visit that day. When he left, the tag was collected, and the time of his leaving marked on it. Nine hundred and eighty children sixteen years old and under visited the playground from 9 A. M. to 8 P. M. The tabulation of the addresses shows that 74 per cent of the children came from within a quarter of a mile. Only 60 children or 6.1 per cent came from beyond the one-half mile radius. On the same day a similar census was taken of the children on the Heckscher Playground, in the southern part of Central Park. This is a playground of about 4.5 acres, but the radius of its influence is entirely different from Tompkins Square, as will be seen from the maps. Only 9.8 per cent came from within a zone of a quarter of a mile from the edge of the park. Seventeen hundred and one children, out of a total of 2,209, came from within one mile of the park boundary, and 500 travelled over a mile. A hundred came from other boroughs and outside the city. This shows the unique position which a Central Park playground has in the city's recreation system. Although it will attract from the immediate neighborhood large numbers of children, it also is used by children who come with their mothers and older brothers and sisters to visit the park and stop in at the playground. The study shows that the playground is more than a neighborhood center: it is a much-used recreation facility for many young visitors who come from long distances to enjoy Central Park. The record of attendance shows that it was 5r r-e e A. o-r ChnI FIG. 30 RADIUS OF ATTENDANCE AT TOMPKINS SQUARE PLAYGROUND, JULY 14, 1927 Circles are jD mile apart. The dots indicate where the children lived. largest at the Central Park playground from two to four o'clock in the afternoon and dropped away toward evening. At the Tompkins Square Playground, on the other hand, the largest attendance was at ten and eleven o'clock in the morning, at four in the afternoon, and at seven and eight at night. This indicates the neighborhood use of the play space, as does the length of time the children stayed. The children at Tomp153 154 PUBLIC RECREATION kins Square Playground stayed an average of 41 minutes, while the average time at the Heckscher Playground was 2 hours and 22 minutes. At three o'clock in the afternoon there were 1,113 children on the Heckscher Playground and an observation made in the park nearby at the same hour showed very few children outside the playground. This bears out other observations that have been made since the playground has been established. The head horticulturist of Central Park is of the opinion that the damage to the shrubs and trees and lawns by children has been materially decreased since this playground was established. CENSUS OF TOMPKINS SQUARE PLAYGROUND Taken Thursday, July 14, 1927, from 9.00 A. M. to 8.30 P. M. First visit............................. 980 Second, 3d, and 4th visits................213 W rong address......................... 6 Total tags collected.................... 1,199 DISTANCES TRAVELLED BY CHILDREN TO PLAYGROUND AGE OF CHILDREN ATTENDING 982 Children Age Number of Children Per cent of Total 1 year and under..........43 4.4 2 years................. 76.8 3...................... 71 7.2 4 "I................. 68 6.9 5..............56 5.7 6 ".... 59 6.0 7 It.............96 9.9 8............99 10.1 9.................... 113 11.5 10...................... 110 11.2 11 It.... 68 6.9 12...1.................. 69 7.0 13.................. 40 4.1 14 It.............14 1.4 15.............6 0.6 16..................... 3 0.3 Total................ 982 100.0 CENSUS OF HECKSCHER PLAYGROUND, CENTRAL PARK Taken Thursday, July 14, 1927, from 9 A. M. to 8P. m. First visit.............................2,209 Second and 3d visits....................193 Wrong address..........................8 Total tags collected..................... 2,410 Number Distances of Children From within fr mile.... 414 id frito3/4mile...........311 S Y4 to... 146 It ýi to31249 I beyond mile..........60 Total....................... 980 Per cent of Total 42.3 31.7 14.9 5.0 6.1 100.0 ATTENDANCE BY HOURS A. M. P. M. Hour..... 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Attendance.... 108 149 94 79 85 79 101 51 54 101 115 LENGTH OF VISITS TO PLAYGROUND 1,166 Children DISTANCES TRAVELLED BY CHILDREN TO PLAYGROUND Distances or Section Number of Per Children Gra? From 0 to } mile.... 217 " 4 toY 2.... 678 S toX.... 568 Y Nto 1 ".... 238 1,701 1 to 2 miles... 252 4 2 to 3 L 123 S to 4 ".... 30 4 to 5.... 3 -- 408 2,109 cent of nd Total 9.9 30.8 25.7 10.8 11.4 5.5 1.4 5 to 30 minutes..................... 35 to 60 "...................... 1 to 2 hours....................... 2 to 3........................ 3 to 4........................ Over 4 hours........................ 661 292 162 38 11 2 1,166 From Brooklyn........ Bronx........... Queens.......... Outside New York City............ 23 11 58 8 4.5 100 Grand total.................. 2,209 Average length of visit: 41 minutes. 100.0 PLAYGROUND ATTENDANCE 155 W. 80 + St. E. 80th St. F] = I..-------------- _____ I I. Mri onaneI I LIZ LIII L II... Squ e Indicates Address 1 m I Z I n a mddes 0 D __ LI EI Em I IZ of one Child I II Z I] I] Em Em W I m w [ 11111 II LZ O. mi LL N 0T R A L \I0h iZ CENTRAL ZLWIILALIZ ~nt\=JC -~=-4~----- - C -. -G -EMEB- I 00C1 II~~IZILI\IL ZI PARK LILIEZ II7T cLZ \] Em- LI L I[ IZ LI LI EIEIi] IIL. I P A RKEZ m EL X L -ILj I I LIL Z LILIIZ FI \I I L ( D qjPLAYGROUND LI L L1. I ~~III~~~fL~~iIZ ~ EL II m II LI I]0II] 'ITR LLII~ LIIZ C~17/ [\CI, CC; Ep 0 C II] ~ ~ ~~PR..iiEmIL I II LI IZ LIZ LI III] L rIZ S. \ ZI] EA] Em I LI I LIjI [I Z L C Z 1 [~IZ] --~ -BEI]EB-E] LI LIII [1h LIZ [7 DeWitt. I [Z [I L I LI LIZ L LZ I [I ED O C 4 ]-------- 42"d El O C C DC E ryant Ic C EI]: IIII LI] 7 Em LIIZLIL LI[ LI [ ZZ ] Li EZI L E lI LI I LI [IZ i CA.LIZ LIZIIIIIII] 1h ] 11111] \J E II LI L LI LI III m ]W. 39 th St. E. 39 I I I I I FIG. 31 W 1 D IV -EHO PLAYED ON iTHEfH ECC RL OU INETL A Y Em. [11111 [LI Em &rr~ LI[7Cnt L LIZ IIILI[ EI IZ LL E mr ~rr~~ 42AYGOVN [ It LI IZ LI IZ LIZIIL LIIIIl Em Em= Em~ LA \ZZ lZ LI. LI~ LI LIZ LI EEF~-EIZIliIIII-LI\k"E, ~3-ImI 3EE~+FmIZ -I - ~ ~ WHR 71 CHILDE LIVED WHO PLAYED ONI~ ~~T~HE zt HEKHE PAGON IN CENRA PA JUL 14 1927. 156 PUBLIC RECREATION ATTENDANCE BY HOURS A. M. P. M. Hour.. 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Attendance 189 386 592 721 1,049 1,113 1,041 536 157 170 145 LENGTH OF VISITS TO PLAYGROUND 2,387 Children 5 to 30 minutes..................... 216 35 to 60 "...................... 370 1 to 2 hours....................... 657 2 to 3 "..........5............... 544 3 to 4 "...................... 306 4 to 5 "......................... 175 5 to 6 "......................... 80 6 to 7 ".......................... 25 7 to 8 "........................ 14 2,387 Average length of visit: 2 hours and 22 minutes. AGE OF CHILDREN ATTENDING 2,184 Children A ge Number of Children Per cen 1 year and under....... 76 2 years................ 74 3 ".......... 114 4 "................ 108 5 '................ 140 6 "................ 156 7................ 216 8................ 226 9 "................ 247 10................ 217 11 ".............. 187 12 "................ 215 13.......... 124 14......... 59 15 ".............. 14 16 "....... 10 17................ 1 \t of Total 3.5 3.3 5.2 4.9 6.4 7.2 9.9 10.3 11.3 9.9 8.6 9.9 _5.7 2.7 0.6 0.6 Total.............. 2,184 100.0 XI. PLAYGROUN Play Districts *For the purpose of these studies " play districts " were defined in Manhattan, parts of the Bronx, and parts of Brooklyn. There were from five to eight sanitary districts in each play district, the boundaries of which were drawn to conform as nearly as possible with neighborhood lines. In general, studies were confined to neighborhoods having a population density of at least 30 persons to the acre. In most cases the population was of far greater density. TD ADEQUACY The columns under "Acres of play space outside districts studied" show that in the Bronx and Brooklyn only about an acre of park playground is outside the areas having 30 persons or over per acre, although there are many acres of school playgrounds in these areas of lower population density. This illustrates how much earlier school playgrounds are placed in a growing territory than are park playgrounds, and suggests the desirability of securing space for play in connection with all new school sites. Acres of play space in Acres of play space outside Acres of play space in districts studied districts studied entire borough Park School Total Park School Total Park School Total Manhattan.................53.8 53.1 106.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.8 53.1 106.9 Bronx... 10.5 45.1 55.6 1.4 18.7 20.1 11.9 63.8 75.7 Brooklyn...................51.2 72.8 124.0 1.0 30.6 31.6 52.2 103.4 155.6 Queens.....................(Not in district study) 16.5 68.0 84.5 16.5 68.0 84.5 Richmond.............. It t It " 2.0 19.2 21.2 2.0 19.2 21.2 Total....................115.5 171.0 286.5 20.9 136.5 157.4 136.4 307.5 443.9 The play spaces considered in these districts were both park and public school playgrounds.' In the case of park playgrounds, the areas of recreation piers and school gardens were included in the calculations. In the case of the school playgrounds, the outdoor play spaces, the indoor play space on the first floor and the areas of school gardens were included. Gymnasium spaces and play spaces above the first floor were disregarded, since not much use is made of these for recreational purposes. There were in all 138 play districts established for adequacy studies. The preceding table shows the amount of actual play space covered by the studies in comparison with the play space of the entire city. I No athletic fields are included in this study. The difference in amount of park and school playground space is shown in the following tables: Number Average of park Areaa area per play- (acres) playground grounds (acres) Manhattan........... 43 42.88 0.999 Bronx............... 11 9.90 0.900 Brooklyn...........-..29 53.27 1.837 Queens................8 16.50 2.062 Richmond........... 2 2.00 1.000 Total.......... 93 124.55 1.339 a This table does not include school garden or recreation pier space. 157 158 PUBLIC RECREATION Number Average of school Area area per play- (acres) playground grounds (acres) Manhattan...........160 53-15 0.333 Bronx............... 92 63.79 0.694 Brooklyn.............216 103.27 0.488 Queens................ 116 68.03 0.586 Richmond........... 39 19.22 0.493 Total................623 307.46 0.497 Although the park playgrounds average much larger than the school playgrounds, the latter are more numerous and have a total acreage two and one-half times that of the park playgrounds. The park playgrounds range from 0.9 to 2.3 acres, or an average of 1.4 acres, while the school playgrounds range from 0.33 to 0.69 acres, with an average of half an acre. As would be expected, the average size of school playgrounds is greater in the Bronx and Queens, due to the policy of having large play spaces around the new schools. Percentage of Adequacy In computing the percentage of adequacy of the 138 play districts studied, the population figures of children from five to fifteen years of age, as given in the 1920 Census, were used. The ratio between the play space which a district should have, on a basis of 25 square feet per child, and the play space which it actually has, represents the percentage of play space adequacy of the district. Thus, when a district is rated as 100 per cent adequate, it does not mean that play space facilities are all that could be desired, but merely that the minimum requirement of at least 25 square feet per child has been complied with. Some business districts, as those bordering the Battery in Manhattan, contain very few children, and a small amount of play space gives a high rating of adequacy. The play districts around the lower part of Central Park include the homes of families with few children; thus the rating is high. Play districts along Broadway show a very low percentage of adequacy because these districts are largely given over to business, and practically no playgrounds have been provided for the comparatively few children who live there. The following table shows how few of the play districts are up to or over the standard of adequacy: 0% 21% 41% 61% 81% to to to to to Over 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 100% Manhattan (47 districts)..... 11 12 7 6 3 8 Bronx (24 districts)..... 3 5 3 1 5 7 Brooklyn (67 districts)..... 11 20 14 10 2 10 Total (138 districts).... 25 37 24 17 10 25 Only 8 districts, or 17 per cent of the 47 in Manhattan, have playground space above the minimum standard. There are only 10, or 15 per cent, of the districts in Brooklyn which are over 100 per cent. On the other hand, the Bronx has 7 out of 24, or 29 per cent, of its districts in the 100 per cent class. Manhattan and Brooklyn have about the same proportion of districts in the different groups of adequacy. Bronx has more in the higher adequacy groups. The percentage of playground adequacy of each of the three boroughs studied, taken as a whole, is as follows: Manhattan..........................46.4% Brooklyn...........................54.9% Bronx..............................70.4% This corresponds inversely to the population density. All, however, are much too far below the conservative minimum standard of 25 square feet per child. The following maps show the extent to which different parts of the city possess even the minimum amount of playground space required by the child population. The situation is made still more acute by the fact that many of the school playgrounds are not open for use after school hours and on Saturdays, because funds are not available for providing the necessary supervision. FIG. 32 DEGREE OF PLAYGROUND ADEQUACY BY "PLAY DisTRICTS," MANHATTAN. (See Table, page 164) FIG. 33 KEY M/lAP TO "PLAY DiSTRICTS," MANHATTAN 159 MT. VERNON YON K ERS PELHAM MANOR /7AXXNXXNNXNA ///ANNNXXNNX~A '///'X\XXXX\\A /7/7/f '/7 /7/, ~ 77/7,, / / / /7/ /11( Croto PctrA 70/ /// 4 LEGEND Over 100% 81 - 100% 61 -80% 41 -60% 21 -40% 0 -20% SCALE IN MILES 0 Yz FIG. 34 DEGREE OF PLAYGROUND ADEQUACY BY "PLAY DISTRICTS," THE BRONX. (See Table, page 165) 160 FIG. 35 KEY MAP TO "PLAY DISTRICTS," THE: BRONX 161 Q U E N S N` \. / Prospect Park LEGEND - Over 100% 81-100% 61 - 80%0 41-60%?-403% 0 - 20% RRAVEE BA Y SCALE N MILES. FIG. 36 DEGREE OF PLAYGROUND ADEQUACY BY PLAY DisTRicTs," BROOKLYN. (See Table, page 165) 162 FIG. 37 KEY' MAP TO " PLAY DISTRICTS," BROOKLYN 163 164 PUBLIC RECREATION PLAYGROUND SPACE, NUMBER OF CHILDREN, REQUIRED AREA, AND BY PLAY DISTRICTS PER CENT OF ADEQUACY MANHATTAN District Park playgrounds (sq. ft.) School playgrounds (sq. ft.) Total (sq. ft.) Number of children (5 to 15 years) Required area (sq. ft.) Per cent of adequacy I I -I - II 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35) 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 37,026 28,749 106,133 224,216 117,173" 54,450 70,617 40,800 87,991 57,499 48,351 110,688 65,340 101,930 65,340 19,602 65,340 10,890 45,215 43,560 318,670 53,665 10,890 29,296 53,797 5,881 204,741 175,1111 90,060 6,250 56,746 12,320 212,864 70,436 179,024 62,672 121,200 40,806 5,760 68,567 42,291 7,800 27,501 31,271 7,810 33,279 45,913 11,510 11,198 67,175 7,180 8,880 6,100 43,159 116,303 7,883 43,027 27,825 30,510 174,472 25,100 18,801 94,200 25,155 50,578 94,562 78,440 118,742 14,500 93,061 48,998 55,557 43,276 85,495 12,320 318,997 70,436 403,240 179,845 175,650 40,806 5,760 139,184 83,091 95,791 85,000 31,271 7,810 81,630 156,601 76,850 11,198 169,105 72,570 28,482 65,340 6,100 43,159 127,193 53,098 53,027 27,825 43,560 30,510 493,142 78,765 29,691 94,200 54,451 104,375 100,443 283,181 118,742 14,500 268,172 48,998 145,617 1,6230 7,664 750 30,341 15,699 35,8299 4,362 9,980 30,833 4,149 2,459 8,498 6,743 3,297 9,157 7,598 1,569 9,173 10,822 1,998 1,234 16,707 2,233 4,192 2,668 1,395 1,312 4,427 20,497 2,018 2,938 11,657 2,165 6,363 30,376 2,293 4,210 25,374 7,796 7,444 9,851 11,693 10,999 4,321 6,227 2,942 2,084 40,575 191,600 18,750 758,525 392,475 895,725 109,050 249,500 770,825 103,725 61,475 212,450 168,575 82,425 228,925 189,950 39,225 229,325 270,550 49,950 30,850 417,675 55,825 104,800 66,700 34,875 32,800 110,675 512,425 50,450 73,450 291,425 54,125 159,075 759,400 57,325 105,250 634,350 194,900 186,100 246,275 292,325 274,975 108,025 155,675 68,550 52,100 106.6 44.6 66.3 42.0 17.8 45.0 0.0 72.2 22.7 39.3 9.3 65.5 49.2 116.2 37.1 16.4 19.9 35.5 57.8 153.9 36.3 40.5 129.5 27.1 97.9 0.0 18.3 38.9 24.8 105.2 72.2 9.5 80.4 19.1 64.9 137.4 28.2 14.8 27.9 56.0 40.7 97.0 43.2 13.4 172.2 71.4 279.4 Total.........2,343,021 2,315,426 4,658,447 407,960 10,199,000 45.6 (53.8 acres) (53.1 acres) (106.9 acres) PLAYGROUND ADEQUACY 165 THE BRONX Park play- School play- Total Number of District grounds grounds (sq. ft.)children Required area Per cent of (sq. ft.) (sq. ftt.) 5 to 15 years) (sq. ft.) adequacy 1 34,440 69,697 104,137 13,504 337,600 30.8 2 47,627 100,427 148,054 7,133 178,325 83.5 3 18,624 80,893 99,517 9,899 247,475 40.2 4 39,796 39,796 730 18,250 218.1 5 47,6 27 238,967 286,594 13,382 334,550 85.6 6 102,540 102,540 8,260 206,500 49.6 7 18,624 42,095 60,719 4,196 104,900 57.8 8 115,185 115,185 11,351 283,775 40.5 9 83,795 205,927 289,722 15,603 390,075 74.2 10 41,868 262,830 304,698 12,539 313,475 97.2 11 25,000 48,624 73,624 1,702 42,550 173.0 12 26,096 71,240 97,336 1,930 48,250 201.7 13 69,137 69,137 2,000 50,000 138.2 14 3,750 155,664 159,414 10,921 273,025 58.0 15 44,506 115,003 159,509 6,420 160,500 99.6 16 6,597 43,896 50,493 5,908 147,700 34.1 17 61,852.. 61,852 1,665 41,625 148.6 18...846 21,150 0.0 19 113,746 113,746 1,406 35,150 323.5 20 8,495 8,495 2,508 62,700 13.5 21 1,610 40,250 0.0 22 21,537 21,537 2,443 61,075 35.2 23 28,797 28,797 1,314 32,850 87.6 24 29,500 29,500 481 12,025 245.3 Total....... 460,406 1,963,996 2,424,402 137,751 3,443,775 70.4 (10.5 acres) (45.1 acres) (55.6 acres) BROOKLYN 1 21,911 22,004 43,915 6,059 151,475 28.9 2 25,353 46,251 71,604 4,742 118,550 60.3 3 12,878 12,878 2,974 74,350 17.3 4 43,353 42,187 85,540 8,136 203,400 42.1 5 25,353 102,016 127,369 8,299 207,475 61.3 6 43,995 37,518 81,513 11,333 283,325 28.7 7 79,715 135,922 215,637 20,360 509,000 42.3 8 59,677 59,677 7,278 181,950 32.7 9 56,054 56,054 6,583 164,575 34.0 10 310,691 32,502 343,193 6,497 162,425 211.2 11 70,785 70,785 4,076 101,900 69.4 12 19-3,297 17,870 211,167 5,076 126,900 166.3 13.. 17,955 17,955 1,240 31,000 57.9 14.. 26,769 26,769 2,972 74,300 36.0 15 50,667 50,667 7,835 195,875 25.8 16 41,077 39,470 80,547 4,655 116,375 69.2 17.. 44,192 44,192 12,935 323,375 13.6 18.. 9,300 9,300 4,476 111,900 8.3 19.. 71,270 71,270 4,372 109,300 65.2 20.. 34,590 34,590 8,061 201,525 17.1 21.. 14,831 14,831 4,851 121,275 12.2 22 28,175 28,175 7,973 199,325 14.1 23 20,780 47,178 67,958 6,282 157,050 43.2 24 43,628 43,628 9,628 240,700 18.1 25 20,780 53,613 74,393 7,116 177,900 41.8 26.. 26,173 26,173 6,838 170,950 15.3 27.. 27,150 27,150 2,991 74,775 36.3 28.. 16,142 16,142 4,666 116,650 13.8 29.. 21,000 21,000 3,973 99,325 21i.1 30.. 45,128 45,128 8,013 200,325 22.5 (Continued on next page) 166 PUBLIC RECREATION BROOKLYN (Continued) Park play- School play- Total Number of Required area Percent of District grounds grounds (q t)children Requiredtarea deruacnyo (sq. ft. sq t.) (sq. ft.) (5 to 15 years) (q t) aeuc 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 637 64 65 66 67 121,968 114,345 214,097 103,455 103,455 99,752 21,780 21,780 315,810 152,460 73,156 63,675 43,045 82,125 72,725 70,541 48,557 46,888 140,969 101,408 48,688 72,340 20,300 129,528 28,441 66,162 29,672 50,902.16,947 64,712 97,429 26,510 83,970 73,169 51,560 30,100 15,800 29,342 56,438 25,852 32,255 65,602 93,926 16,900 50,643 15,920 14,700 73,156 63,675 43,045 82,125 72,725 70,541 170,525 46,888 -255,314 315,505 152,143 72,340 123,755 129,528 28,441 66,162 129,424 50,902 16,947 86,492 119,209 26,510 83,970 73,169 51,560 30,100 15,800 29,342 56,438 25,852 348,065 65,602 93,926 16,900 50,643 168,380 14,700 7,933 6,154 4,978 7,646 8,434, 9,889 5,706 6,551 20,950 7,337 6,175 3,556 4,060 11,620 8,906 4,371 -6,770 -3,280 2,002 5,899 3,243 6,278 7,024 4,169 3,172 2,604 1,983 3,146 2,823 4,667 3,533 2,548 2,053 2,659 3,008 1,920 1,483 198,325 153,850 124,450 191,150 210,850 247,225 142,650 163,775 523,750 183,425 154,375 88,900 101,500 290,500 222,650 109,275 169,250 82,000 50,050 147,475, 81,075 156,950 175,600 104,225 79,300 65,100 49,575 78,650 70,575 116,6755 88,325 63,700 51,325 66,475 75,200 48,000 37,075 36.8 41.3 34.9 42.9 34.4.28.5 119.5 28.6 48.7 172.0 98.5 81.3 121.9 44.5 12.7 60.5 76.4 62.0 33.8 58.6 146.9 16.9 47.8 70.2 65.0 46.2 31.8 37.3 79.9 22.1 394.0 102.9 183.0 25.5 67.3 350.8 39.6 Total.........2,225,667 3,173,330 5,398,997 398,820 9,970,500 54.9 (51.2 acres) (72.8 acres) (124.0 acres) XII. CHILDREN'S PLAY IN TWELVE CONGESTED DISTRICTS To determine actual conditions with respect to children's play, a study was made of twelve typical crowded districts in New York City. In each case, the sanitary district was taken as a unit. These districts are about the size of a playground district, covering an area of 10 to 14 city blocks and having 12,000 to 26,000 inhabitants. The play space in some of the districts was very limited, in others there was a fair amount of it. Thus it was possible to draw some comparisons. Six of the districts were in Manhattan, 4 in Brooklyn, and 2 in the Bronx. Following are the results of observations made in each district: MANHATTAN SANITARY DISTRICT No. 22 Boundaries: Clinton, East Third, Columbia, Rivington Streets. Population, 1920, 26,220. Children (5 to 15 years), 6,152. Families, 5,968. Population per acre, 570. In the center of this district is Hamilton Fish Playground. On the afternoon when this study was made, the playground was found to be crowded, over 600 children playing there. The district is typical of the lower East Side. The good influence of the playground was apparent in that many of the games being played on the streets were the same as those played on the playground. The fact that this is a Jewish neighborhood had something to do with playground attendance. Racial habits affect recreation, as seen in the tendency of Italian mothers to keep their children, especially the girls, near the doorstep. Two public schools and four private agencies provided other recreation facilities for children. Play space adequacy of this district-73.6 per cent. SANITARY DISTRICT No. 36 Boundaries: Rivington, East Third, Allen Streets, the Bowery. Population, 1920, 24,135. Children (5 to 15 years), 5,666. Families, 4,887. Population per acre, 514. There is no playground in this district, the nearest being three-quarters of a mile away. The only municipal recreation facilities at the time this study was made were two public school vacation playgrounds and an afternoon athletic center. The combined outdoor playground area of the three public schools is less than 10,000 square feet, only enough for 100 children out of the 5,666. The need for children's recreation facilities is so great in these 14 small blocks that 6 settlements and churches have undertaken to provide some form of recreation space for the children-backyard playgrounds, club rooms, gymnasia, roof playgrounds, and so on. In the district is the unused Marble Cemetery which twenty-five years ago Jacob Riis tried unsuccessfully to have condemned for a playground. There have been no interments in it for a generation. It would make an excellent playground. The street census taken on a Saturday afternoon showed 41 per cent of all children seven to fifteen years old on the street. Play space adequacy of this district-13.6 per cent. SANITARY DisTRIcT No. 111 Boundaries: Eighth and Tenth Avenues, 34th and 38th Streets. Population, 1920, 12,682. Children (5 to 15 years), 2,161. Families, 3,231. Population per acre, 295. The district is typical of those which are changing from a residential to a business neighborhood. The only municipal recreation center is 167 168 PUBLIC RECREATION P. S. No. 32, having a playground open during the school year, and an afternoon athletic center. The nearest playground is four blocks away, but even the older children would not go to it, as 50 per cent of them were not utilizing any public recreation facility. Play space adequacy of this district-17.8 per cent. QI L [C O o \IZ L EGE NDF(xC ~Se-ttlemen~t( (3Y. MI. C. A. Public School Catholic Church Protesl-anl- Church Synagogue @Ciity court ~Theater Motion Picture Theater Blllard or Pool Room Public Pay Baths SANITARY DISTRICT No.6 MANHATTAN FIG. 38 SOME ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES IN SANITARY DISTRIcT No. 36, MANHATTAN children from any distance are seldom welcomed by the children near the playground. Two private agencies provide a playground and a gymnasium. Inquiry as to the number of children who availed themselves of these facilities and those of the public school showed that over SANITARY DISTRICT No. 180 Boundaries: First and Third Avenues, 109th and 114th Streets. Population, 1920, 21,740. Children (5 to 15 years), 6,221. Families, 4,520. Population per acre, 506. CHILDREN'S PLAY IN TWELVE CONGESTED DISTRICTS 169 dents to children in these blocks during the year. A street census taken in June showed 2,207 children under fifteen years on the streets, and only 138 on the playground. Of the 6,000 children in the district, only 319 have been counted on the playground of an afternoon, and some counts showed less than that number. One count showed 80 more children on a street just off'the playground than there were inside. The attitude of the parents and the heavy street traffic between the playground and the homes combined to keep the attendance down. Play space adequacy of this district--141.9 per cent. HANDBALL ON A STREET CORNER The only playground for thousands of energetic boys This district adjoins the Thomas Jefferson Park and Playground and is a typical Italian neighborhood. It was studied particularly to see what effect the playground had on the lives of the children. The playground certainly does not tend to eliminate street accidents, as there were in 1922 8 fatal accidents to children under nineteen years of age in these 10 blocks. Three of these fatalities occurred on First Avenue opposite the park. At the usual ratio of fatalities to accidents, there may have been around 200 non-fatal acci PLAY ENVIRONMENT IN SANITARY DISTRICT No. 194 SANITARY DISTRICT No. 194 Boundaries: First and Third Avenues, 119th and 124th Streets. Population, 1920, 14,833. Children (5 to 15 years), 3,489. Families, 3,521. Population per acre, 345. The district is five blocks from the nearest playground. No municipal provision for recreation was found here. Two settlements and a church furnished some recreation for about 400 children-9 per cent of the entire number in the district. On the riverfront a block away were several vacant lots in which some of the older boys played baseball. Vacant lots in the city are not, as is generally assumed, popular gathering places for children. A study in this district showed that the im "PLAY BALL," THOMAS JEFFERSON PLAYGROUND 170 PUBLIC RECREATION portant thing to consider is the density of the child population rather than the total population. Compare, for instance, this district with the one which follows. They both have about the same total population, but the number of children in this district is almost twice as large. Play space adequacy of this district-22.9 per cent. SANITARY DISTRICT No. 212 Boundaries: Lenox and Fifth Avenues, 133rd and 140th Streets. Population, 1920, 15,153. Children (5 to 15 years), 1,681. Families, 3,853. Population per acre, 352. District No. 212 is in the heart of Harlem and is fairly typical. There are no playgrounds within a mile, and the nearest vacation school playground is a block outside of the district. A splendid public bath and gymnasium have been established, but Harlem is nevertheless particularly devoid of recreational facilities, either municipal or private. In these 7 blocks were found 8 pool rooms, 3 cabarets, and 2 motion o'clock one evening showed 95 per cent of the boys under fifteen on the street. Commercial amusements such as movies, billiard parlors, cabarets, and dance halls flourish. THE SCHOOL PLAYGROUND ACROSS THE STREET WAS CLOSED THIS SATURDAY Play space adequacy of this district-64.2 per cent. THE BRONX SANITARY DISTRICT No. 65 Boundaries: Park and Third Avenues, East 146th, 150th, 151st Streets, Morris Avenue. Population, 1920, 10,247. Children (5 to 15 years), 2,798. Families, 2,132. Population per acre, 183. The district is typical of the lower Bronx, the most densely populated part of the borough. There are no park playgrounds in it, the nearest being half a mile away, and there are no privately conducted recreational facilities. At one public school a vacation playground is provided. The population is largely Italian. A study of the children on the streets showed only a small proportion of them (12 per cent) playing any recognized games, and only 16 per cent playing anything at all. Even the vacant lots, of which there were 6, were practically deserted. Play space adequacy of this district-20.2 per cent. SANITARY DISTRICT No. 169 Boundaries: Claremont Boulevard, Fulton Avenue, St. Paul's Place, Webster Avenue. Population, 1920, 14,775. Children (5 to 15 years), 3,874. Families, 3,061. Population per acre, 352. BASKETBALL ON -A HARLEM STREET picture theatres. In strong contrast to this, there were only 4 publicly or privately conducted recreation centers, reaching about 800 children five to fifteen years old. A street census at seven CHILDREN'S PLAY IN TWELVE CONGESTED DISTRICTS 1'7 1 Claremont Park is on one side of this district and Crotona Park borders it on the other. Both of these parks have playgrounds in them. The street census showed only a small proportion of the children on the street-615, or about 19 per cent. This was about half the proportion of children found on the streets of the other district in the Bronx. Play space adequacy of this district-146.6 per cent. BROOKLYN SANITARY DISTRICT No. 51 Boundaries: Degraw, Henry, Carroll Streets, Hamilton Avenue. Population, 1920, 10,916. Children (5 to 15 years), 2,979. Families, 2,142. Population per acre, 317. This district is similar to many Italian neighborhoods in Brooklyn. Only 195 persons were reported in the 1920 census as native born of native parents, while 1,805 illiterates were reported, mostly over twenty years of age. The nearest playground is a mile away. Neither of the two public schools has an afterschool play session, winter or summer. By way of recreational environment for the 2,900 children, there are 16 pool rooms, 4 theatres, 5 special clubs, and 2 meeting halls. Play space adequacy of this district-33.1 per cent. SANITARY DISTRICT No. 257 Boundaries: Flushing, Throop, Floyd, Marcy Avenues. Population, 1920, 10,433. Children (5 to 15 years), 2,785. Families, 2,301. Population per acre, 310. Here is a sample of one of the many districts that are completely isolated so far as facilities for public recreation are concerned. In the summer-time only one vacation playground was provided. This was at P. S. No. 148. No privately conducted recreation was observed. At a low-priced movie theatre which was visited just after school hours one afternoon, more than 100 children under sixteen were counted. By the time the film was finished there were at least 200 children in the house. The theatre itself was in a dilapidated condition, the picture being far superior to the place in which it was shown. The manager had a quaint way of restoring order, when the children became too noisy, by hammering with a board on an empty box. Play space adequacy of this district-24.1 per cent. SANITARY DISTRICT No. 527 Boundaries: Second Street, Union Avenue, Broadway, Rodney Street. Population, 1920, 13,022. Children (5 to 15 years), 2,731. Families, 2,828. Population per acre, 317. This district comprises one of the most crowded neighborhoods in Brooklyn. It is in the Greenpoint section, not far from the Williamsburg Bridge. The population is largely Jewish. The nearest playground is a mile away. The only nearby play space is the vacation playground at P. S. No. 19. This school also has an afternoon athletic center in the winter. Street corner basketball teams flourish in this section, their goal equipment consisting of barrel hoops fastened to telegraph poles. To get games with teams outside of their neighborhood, the boys advertise in one of the Brooklyn papers which carries free notices for amateurs. They then meet more fortunate teams which have a hall or a gymnasium in which to play. Here too were found a number of baseball teams, which, like hardy vegetation, flourish in spite of unfavorable conditions. They play when they can with other teams on distant athletic fields. Play space adequacy of this district-34.4 per cent. SANITARY DISTRICT No. 914 Boundaries: Livonia, Thadford, Sutter Avenues, Hopkinson Street. Population, 1920, 8,448. Children (5 to 15 years), 2,377. Families, 1,760. Population per acre, 216. Part of the Betsey Head Playground is in this district. The locality is largely residential, with a few neighborhood stores. The commercial amusements include 2 motion picture theatres, 3 pool rooms, and a hall. There is no privately conducted recreation, with the exception of a 172 PUBLIC RECREATION Boy Scout troop which meets in one of the schools. The playground, being only three blocks away, is well attended, but it is not without Play space adequacy of this district-224 per cent. DETAILED STUDY OF S. D. No. 51, BROOKLYN In order to give a more complete picture of Public School @Synagogue )Motion Picture O Billiard or Pool ~Public Hall @Fire House SANITARY DISTRICT NO.914 B ROO K LY*N FIG. 39 SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCES AND THE RECREATION FACILITIES OF SANITARY DIsTRIcT No. 914, BROOKLYN competition. A street census taken one fine afternoon in April showed that of about 1,900 children from seven to fifteen years of age, 215 were on the playground, 780 were on the streets, and 550 were in the two motion picture houses. these populous districts where play space is at a premium, and to indicate the general method used in these studies, the following details concerning Sanitary District No. 51, Brooklyn, may be of value. CHILDREN'S PLAY IN TWELVE CONGESTED DISTRICTS 1 173 District No. 51 is on the waterfront in the Red Hook section of Brooklyn. It had a population in 1920 of 10,916, almost entirely Italian. The census report of the foreign-born whites shows that 88 per cent were born in Italy. There is a small sprinkling of other nationalities. As is usually found in the Italian sections, the number of illiterates is very high, 1,805 out of the entire population being unable to read or write. Near the waterfront are a number of warehouses; the rest of the district consists of tenements. There are two public schools and a parochial school. There is but one church, a Roman Catholic. The recreational facilities of this district are very limited. Neither of the two public schools 1ii has a vacation playground or recreation center. The nearest park is about a mile away. There is one small playground under the auspices of the Strong Place Community House, just outside the district. This serves a few children. In the district itself, one neighborhood house was the only center for recreation outside of the movies and pool rooms. This settlement, the head worker said, had almost ceased to function for lack of funds, although it has been established twenty years. It has a gymnasium and a large game room, but the staff WADI consists of only two full-time workers and one part-time worker. The settlement reaches about 250 girls of from six to thirteen years and about 150 boys of from twelve to twenty years. There are a number of baseball and basketball clubs in the district, eight of which are connected with this house. The boys have no place to practice baseball except on some vacant lots about one-half mile down Court Street. When they play regular games they go to Prospect Park, as the nearby lots are too small for games. A street census was taken on Saturday afternoon, April 12, 1925, a fine warm day. The count showed 1,106 children under sixteen years of age, or about 20 per cent of the total population for this age. Not more than one-fourth of these were playing games of any kind. Of these about half were playing recognized games, the others just "fooling around." As in the Italian district studied in Manhattan, the children seemed to lack incentive to play. Apparently they preferred to stand and watch what went on in the street. The same afternoon on which the street census was taken, the children under sixteen years of age in the three motion picture theatres of the district were counted. Admission for children at two of these shows was ten cents, and at another five cents. There were Courtesy, Departmenl of Parks, Brooklyn NG POOL, BETSEY HEAD PLAYGROUND, BROOKLYN altogether 430 children in the three houses. A few were accompanied by older people, but most of them came alone. These audiences represented about 19 per cent of the children from seven to fifteen years living in the neighborhood -a very high percentage, indicating that lack of play facilities tends to increase movie attendance. It is a matter of real concern when we find a fifth of the children of a district crowded into the movies for several hours on a pleasant day, instead of engaging in active outdoor recreation. The map of this district shows a large number of pool and billiard rooms, 16 in all, 11 of them on one block. There are also 5 social clubs 174 PUBLIC RECREATION more than in any other district visited. The large number of pool rooms is probably due to the presence of many longshoremen and sailors from the waterfront. The clubs are mostly in basement rooms, and are used by the older boys and men, as is usual in Italian quarters. Obviously, there is need in this district for a real recreation center, including a children's playground, an athletic field, and a club house for boys and girls. Playgrounds connected with the schools should be used full time, and the school buildings should be operated as neighborhood centers after school hours. The present playground adequacy for this district is rated at 33.1 per cent by counting the school play space, even though this space is not now available for use after school hours. Here is another illustration of the need for keeping all school playgrounds open at all times and under capable supervision. ESTIMATED NUMBER OF CHILDREN WHO USE MUNICIPAL AND PRIVATE RECREATION FACILITIES IN Six SANITARY DISTRICTS MANHATTAN Lower East Side Upper East Side West Side Harlem Sanitary Dist. Nos. Total 22 36 180 194 111 212 No. of Children Attending Recreational A clivdties: 7 to 15 years................... 3,899 1,647 2,360 424 769 179 9,178 16 to 20 years................... 946 1,244 67 20 345 314 2,936 Total, 7 to 20 years............. 4,845 2,891 2,427 444 1,114 493 12,114 Child Population, 1920: 7 to 15 years................... 4,922 4,391 4,819 2,757 1,728 1,303 19,920 16 to 20 years.................... 2,567 2,015 1,696 1,223 992 993 9,486 Total, 7 to 20 years............ 7,489 6,406 6,515 3,980 2,720 2,296 29,406 Per Cent of Children Attending: 7 to 15 years.................. 79 38 49 15 44 14 46 16 to 20 years................... 37 61 4 2 35 32 31 Total, 7 to 20 years............ 65 45 37 11 41 22 41 NOTE: Number of individual children cared for at Hamilton Fish Park, Thomas Jefferson Park and 112th Street Recreation Pier estimated as three times average hourly attendance. CHILDREN'S PLAY IN TWELVE CONGESTED DISTRICTS 175 STREET PLAY CENSUS OF TYPICAL CONGESTED DISTRICTS IN MANHATTAN NOTE: All counts were made on Saturdays Lower East Side Upper East Side West Side Harlem Sanitary Dist. Nos. --Total 22 36 180 194 111 212 Children Counted on Streets: Under 7 years.....................1739 385 1,085 646 193 344 4,392 7 to 15 years................... 2,151 1,793 1,122 786 537 368 6,757 16 to 20 years.................... 939 900 55 42 47 53 2,036 Total under 21 years.............4,829a 3,078 2,262b 1,474 777 765 13,185 Child Population, 1920: Under 7 years.................... 4,366 4,464 4,951 2,574 1,702 1,620 19,677 7 to 15 years.................... 4,922 4,391 4,819 2,757 1,778 1,303 19,920 16 to 20 years.................... 2,567 2,015 1,696 1,223 992 993 9,486 Total under 21 years............11,855 10,870 11,466 6,554 4,422 3,916 49,083 Per cent of Child Population on Streets: Under 7 years......................40 9 22 25 11 21 22 7 to 15 years...................... 44 41 23 28 30 28c 34 16 to 20 years................... 36 45 3 3 5 5 22 Total under 21 years............. 41 27 19 23 18 20 27 a 903 in Hamilton Fish Park not counted. b 165 in Thomas Jefferson Park not counted. cA count made in evening, 7.00-8.30 P. M., showed 67 per cent of children on streets. ACTIVITIES OF CHILDREN ON STREETS AS NOTED IN THE STREET CENSUS OF SIX SANITARY DISTRICTS IN MANHATTAN Lower East Side Upper East Side West Side Harlem Sanitary Dist. Nos. Total 22 36 180 194 111 212 Organized Play.....................1,247 792 442 477 261 105 3,324 Per cent of total.................. 26 26 20 32 34 14 25 Unorganized Play...................758 881 545 306 202 81 2,773 Per cent of total... 16 29 24 21 26 11 21 Walking or Standing Around.........2,824 1,405 1,275 691 314 579 7,088 Per cent of total.................. 58 45 56 47 40 75 54 Total, all activities..............4,829 3,078 2,262 1,474 777 765 13,185 176 PUBLIC RECREATION ANALYSIS OF SIXTY ACTIVITIES OF CHILDREN AS REPORTED IN STREET CENSUS I. Work (6) Gathering wood. Selling papers. Shining shoes. Selling from push carts. Minding fortune-telling parrot. Carrying bundles. II. Dangerous or Undesirable Play (7) Building fires. Hitching on autos. Throwing stones. Craps. Matching picture cards. Matching pennies. Playing cards. III. Activities Not Applicable to Playgrounds (3) Looking at motion-picture posters. Listening to street organ. Buying candy. IV. Activities Not Usually Found on Playgrounds (15) Playing with old tire. Sweeping street. Watching repair of motorcycle. Playing with old clock. Building huts of boxes. Making mud pies. Playing with toy balloons. Sailing boxes in gutter. Riding bicycles. Riding velocipedes. Wheeling doll carriages. Marking pavement with chalk. Playing with dog. Taking care of baby. Masked, playing robber. V. Activities Found on Playgrounds (29) Playing ball. Jumping rope. Marbles. Handball. Bounceball. Pavement checkers. Stoop ball. Hop scotch. Basketball. Fencing with sticks. Tag. Rolling hoops. Tip cat. Riding hobby horse. Checkers. Seesaw. Making letters with paper. Dancing in street. Spinning tops. Playing with paper boxes. Climbing fence. Roller skating. Reading. Playing with dolls. Playing with string. Running around. Playing house. Playing in sand pile. Passball. XIII. WATERFRONT USES IN NEW YORK CITY A map has been prepared showing the present uses of the waterfront areas in the boroughs of Greater New York. Of the approximately 200 miles of shore which New York City possesses, exclusive of the smaller islands belonging to the municipality, only a limited amount is available as public bathing beaches'. The three most important of these are Coney Island, Jacob Riis Park, and Far Rockaway Beach. The last two are as yet practically undeveloped. In addition to that taken for commercial purposes there is a considerable part of the waterfront occupied by government reservations and by private estates. There are, however, many miles of shore line practically unused, some of which would be suitable for bathing beaches provided the problem of water pollution could be solved. Much of the privately owned ground is now vacant or is devoted to summer bungalow colonies, in most of which the conditions are not satisfactory. Although Staten Island has approximately 36 miles of waterfront, none of it is at present available for public use except a limited space operated by private commercial enterprises. The studies of shorefront rights and land under water, which the Legal Department of the Regional Plan has made, will be helpful in the future in dealing with this resource for public recreation, now available to such a limited extent. These studies are published as Part IV of this volume. MANHATTAN The shore front of Manhattan, while very largely given over to business and docks, still contains, in addition to existing parks, considerable unused space. Most of this is along 1 This is the measurement on approximately bulk-head lines for the five boroughs. By measuring also the numerous islands within the Greater New York area and the many indentations 'along the shores, a total of approximately 585 miles of waterfront is indicated. The Health Commissioner used this latter figure in a recent article on sewage conditions. 177 the Harlem River and the East River. The North River has no vacant shore front except a stretch between Inwood and Fort Washington Park. Many of the vacant spaces are used as improvised bathing beaches by children. The following table shows the use of the Manhattan waterfront and the approximate space occupied by parks, factories, houses, etc.: Miles Parks (public).................9Y4 Parks (private amusement).. 0 Factories and docks... 1534 Houses with open spaces around them (gardens, yards, etc.).. 0 Summer bungalow colonies.... 0.0 Government reservations........0 Vacant or sparsely built-up areas 4 Total...................... 29 Per cent 32 0 54 0 0 0 14 100 THE BRONX Although in the following table there seems to be a good part of the waterfront devoted to parks, the map shows that almost all of it is in one section, Pelham Bay. Manhattan has a more uniform distribution of its waterfront parks. Although a fifth of the shores of a borough devoted to parks might seem to be sufficient for its needs, yet the manner in which it is distributed in the Bronx leaves almost all but one stretch of the waterfront of that borough unserved in this respect. The following table gives the approximate proportion of the Bronx waterfront occupied by parks, factories, docks, etc.: Parks (public)................ Parks (private amusement). Factories and docks.......... Houses with open spaces around them (gardens, yards, etc.)... Summer bungalow colonies..... Government reservations....... Vacant or sparsely built-up areas Total....................... Mfiles 8Y2 Y2 4Y4 3 2Y4 17 2 38 Per cent 21 1 12 8 8 4 46 100 178 PUBLIC RECREATION BROOKLYN AND QUEENS About one-third of the waterfront of Brooklyn and Queens is occupied by wharves and factories. These extend from above Hell Gate to Shore Along the upper part of the East River where it enters the Sound, the shore is either vacant or sparsely built on, except at College Point. The land is in many places vacant for a mile FIG. 40 THE USES OF THE NEW YORK CITY WATERFRONT Road in Brooklyn. There are only nine vacant lots in this section, and all are above the 34th Street ferry. These are used as playgrounds and swimming beaches by the boys. back from the water. It consists around Flushing Bay of swamps, lowlands, and some farms. There is bathing on the Whitestone Point by the people in the neighborhood, and at College WATERFRONT USES IN NEW YORK CITY 179 Point, Bayside, and Douglaston are small beaches. The first open spaces in Brooklyn begin at Shore Road, which runs for over two miles along the water. This is park property and except for the road, the waterfront has not been improved. Below Dyker Heights Park the houses are in an almost continuous line along the water's edge. Below Bensonhurst a bungalow colony occupies the shore for about a mile. The extreme west end of Coney Island is the residential section, known as Sea Gate. The north shore along Gravesend Bay is built up more or less with bungalows. The beach extends along the south shore to Sheepshead Bay, at which end of the island is a residential section. The north shore of Sheepshead Bay is lined with wharves, from which excursion steamers and fishing boats depart. There are several boat clubs. The waterfront on Jamaica Bay is vacant except in two or three places where it has been opened for bungalows and other buildings more or less permanent in character. In the main, the shore is low, and along the water's edge swampy and indented by creeks and narrow inlets. There are several dozen islands off the shore, some of which are submerged at high tide, and others are low sandy stretches covered with marsh grass. At the foot of Flatbush Avenue the Dock Department is filling in with sand pumped out of the bay. When this is completed Barren Island will be united with the mainland and provision will be made for docks and wharves for seagoing vessels. Above Flatbush Avenue is a half-mile of manufacturing buildings, including lead works, an oil refinery, and a number of dry docks. The "Bungalow Colonies" plotted on the map are those of a temporary character, more in the nature of summer camps than permanent dwelling places. There are many sections around New York where the bungalow type of house has been built for year-round living. These are not included in this definition. The following table gives the approximate pro portion of the Brooklyn and Queens waterfront occupied by parks, etc.: Miles Parks (public).................7Y2 Parks (private amusement).....-4Y2 Factories and docks............16 Houses with open spaces around them (gardens, yards, etc.).... 17Y4 Summer bungalow colonies... 6Y Government reservations........3 Vacant or sparsely built-up areas 33 Total......................88 Per cent 9 5 18 20 7 3 38 100 RiCHMOND There are no public parks on the Staten Island waterfront, but there are vast areas of land still undeveloped. About 19 miles, or over half the shore line, are of this character. The business portion is directly around the north end of the island. Richmond Terrace runs west from St. George along the waterfront, and all the factories and other industrial buildings are on the shore side of the avenue. On the land side are residences, closely built up in New Brighton, and becoming more scattered the farther one goes from the ferry. It is interesting to note that about one and a half miles, or 4 per cent, are occupied by government reservations-Fort Wadsworth and the Aviation Field. All government reservations in Greater New York are found on the waterfront. These have a combined total of about six and one-half miles of shore frontage. The island possesses a very fine beach extending all along the bay from Fort Wadsworth to Tottenville, with the exception of a few miles at Great Kills. At present about half of this is vacant or sparsely built-on land. Around Great Kills the land is very low and the shore marshy and unused, but at other places building operations are gradually extending from the towns along the railroad toward the water. Fortunately for the prospects of its future use for recreational purposes, there are no manufacturing or industrial plants, with the single exception of a needle factory at Princes Bay, along this part of the shore. 180 PUBLIC RECREATION The following table gives the approximate proportion of the Staten Island waterfront occu pied by parks, etc.: Miles Parks (public)................ 0 Parks (private amusement)..... 1 Factories and docks........... 8Y Houses with open spaces around them (gardens, yards, etc.).... 334 Summer bungalow colonies..... 24" Government reservations....... 1Y Vacant or sparsely built-up areas 19 Total....................... 36 Per cent 0 3 23 water, were operated along the waterfront. The unsanitary condition of the water led to their discontinuance. Recently some of these floating baths have been made water-tight and city water pumped into them. Anchored along shore during the summer months, they are rather extensively used. They seem to have a much greater attraction for the children than the public baths located inland. There is no doubt that the waterfront offers opportunities for recreation which are unique, and therefore means should be sought for restoring this important recreation resource for the public's enjoyment. 10 7 4 53 100 Some years ago floating baths, using the river XIV. THE EAST RIVER ISLANDS AS POTENTIAL RECREATION GROUNDS The three islands- Blackwell's, Ward's, Randall's-are city property and constitute a part of the Borough of Manhattan. It has long been the practice to parcel these three islands out among different public departments and institutions. Many of the inmates of the institutions now in use are so badly housed that extensive rebuilding will be necessary very soon. The reports of the Commissioner of Correction, of the Prison Association of New York, and of the Grand Jurors Association-which discuss the penal institutions-show that, in the interests of the inmates alone, new housing would probably be better located elsewhere. The State Hospital Commission has been considering new buildings for the mental hospital on Ward's Island, and experts in the care of the insane and feeble-minded report that those now on Ward's and Randall's Islands might, without disadvantage to the charges of the state, be housed and cared for on less centrally located land, with advantage to all concerned. There are considerations in favor of continuing the use of parts of all the islands for hospitals. These islands comprise about 500 acres, amounting thus to only about one-fourth of one per cent of the total area of the city, but they are the only part of the city which is entirely dissevered from or outside of the close network of the city's traffic-ways. This is their unique quality. Because of this peculiarity alone, the public needs which the islands might satisfy should be counted up and compared; but they deserve attention for other reasons too. First, their areas, though small in relation to the whole densely filled surface of the city, are large enough to serve important uses. Second, their position is more central than the position of Central Parkif questions of communication (to be referred to later) are for the moment ignored. Third, they are already owned by the city. And fourth, it is admitted that a large part of the inmates of the present island institutions ought to be rehoused or placed elsewhere as soon as possible. Finally, it is desirable that the city should now consider these islands as a whole and in relation to the total picture of the city's needs. During the last twenty years numerous recommendations looking to new uses for the islands have been put forward. The most frequent and urgent of these have suggested recreational opportunities or parks. These proposals have been advanced by private individuals, by public officials, and by organizations interested in one way or another in the welfare of the city. They have differed slightly one from another, but have all proceeded on the assumption that the islands, or most of their area, ought to be devoted to the welfare of normal and law-abiding citizens, instead of to sick people and prisoners. The chief reason why these proposals have never been carried out is the fact that the islands are already crowded with public institutions, and that these must be provided for elsewhere before the space they now fill can be made available for new purposes. Surrounding Population The population near the shores of the East River will probably consist almost entirely of people of small means for an indefinite number of years. It includes about 1,500,000 people within the neighborhood shown on map, Fig. 41. Few open spaces have been preserved for these people. Most of them must, of necessity, depend on public provisions for their recreation. The same map shows that, with the exception of Central Park, it is more difficult for these people to reach the larger parks that now exist than it would be for them to get to the islands if surface cars or elevated trains were stopped at 181 eC, 00 Cd U) CI z c;; U) U '00 C% z z 00 00 H 06 H O Cid ' bgoo z 0 r Cd 0 S 0 4-) 182 THE EAST RIVER ISLANDS AS POTENTIAL RECREATION GROUNDS 183 stations on the Queensboro and proposed Triborough Bridges, or if there were a boat service on the East River, such as functions on the Thames in London, on the Seine in Paris, and in many other river ports of the world. Advantages of Island Parks One of the main functions of a park is to give to those who use it a sense of repose and of escape from crowd and bustle. Parks of the playground type require isolation for safety. Yet in these important respects space which is surrounded and crisscrossed by modern street traffic is sure to prove unsatisfactory. All parks or large recreation areas on Manhattan Island or the adjoining mainlands have to be laid out with crossings for motor traffic and perhaps for other power-driven traffic. Thus, they are inevitably cut up into fragments and more or less spoiled. For instance, it is impossible for children to play back and forth across traffic lanes, and traffic in a park prevents even adult pedestrians from circulating in the restful way which a park should provide. The present situation in Central Park illustrates this painfully. It has been prophesied that within another generation the two great luxuries for all who live in and about New York will be quiet and space. Today the sense of space and quiet outdoors as well as indoors is already one of the good things of life which people who live in town and who cannot afford a motor car of some kind seldom or never enjoy. Within the limits of Greater New York these islands, comprising only 0:26 per cent of the total land area, are in this respect peerless. An island park would be quieter than any mainland park can ever be. No amount of money spent on a mainland city park could secure the immunity from annoyances which would be the inherent attraction of island parks. Traffic would not disturb them; their sides would be swept by the swift currents of the East River; they would command views of the distant buildings of Manhattan, the Bronx, and Long Island City in restful and handsome perspective; they would be quiet and orderly, and, except where used intensively for play, could be green. If used for play, they would be safe places which could be policed effectively. The comparative ease with which an island can be policed is too obvious to need elaboration. But the importance of this consideration is perhaps not generally realized. In these days, parks cannot be laid out with trees, bushes and secluded paths without at the same time becoming attractive refuges for hoodlums, vagrants and fugitives, if the concealing shrubbery can be reached from numerous public thoroughfares. Thus the Manhattan Park Commissioner complained not long ago that he could not get enough police allotted to Central Park to protect it from objectionable invaders, and that the situation was so bad that women and children were being frightened away. It would be wrong to conceive of an island park as a neighborhood park; for even if bridges were made to give easy access, it would still be impracticable for people to cross to any of the islands for brief moments of rest or refreshment. On the other hand, island parks might be made to fulfill very much the same function as a remote country park, and could fulfill it for people who cannot afford motors or other transportation to the far-outlying country. Possible Types of River Parks If the East River islands were thrown into a handsomely conceived mid-river park system, each could be specialized for a different type of recreation use. One island (say Ward's) might be developed with particular reference to the foregoing considerations. If it followed the example of the Margaret Island Park in the Danube at Budapest the number of people admitted at any one time would be limited, so that the quiet character of the park would not be destroyed by overcrowding. Another island (say Randall's) might then be turned into a municipal amusement park. Mrs. Henry Moskowitz urged this project in 1923: "A big municipal amusement park in the East River would serve more than one purpose. First, with nominal charges for admission to the various amusement features, the park should ssain th cosdt o0f mananingttet river paerk ful weapon ever given us by the city in our fight against the corruption of east side dance halls MANHATTAN SCALE IN FEET 0 500 1000 1500 2000 RcEGI YORK AND IT5 ENVIRONS FIG. 42.-WELFARE (BLACKWELL'S) ISLAND-A bove, As IT Is TODAY-Below, SHOWING POSSIBLE REARRANGEMENT AFTER REMOVAL OF CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND CITY HOME, WITH NEUROLOGICAL HOSPITAL UNITED TO METROPOLITAN HOSPITAL THE EAST RIVER ISLANDS AS POTENTIAL RECREATION GROUNDS 185 and other resorts inimical to the sound growth of the district, and we would be giving upward of 100,000 boys and girls who frequent these places every night a better and cleaner place to go." On Welfare Island space might be arranged for the athletic games for which the half-grown boys and girls of New York now find hardly any room. The penal institutions now on the island should be removed and the welfare institutions should be consolidated and remain with the hospitals at the north and south ends, thus clearing the middle of the island entirely. The Metropolitan Hospital and City Hospital should continue to occupy the space they now have. Seventy to seventy-five acres could be filled to the bulk-head line, provided with a peripheral driveway and walk and crossroads, with a moderate amount of planting along each, and cleared of existing buildings. It would then be possible to provide facilities that would accommodate for active recreation at any one time 3,000 boys and men and 2,500 girls and women, these numbers not including those awaiting turns, or walking about the waterfront and elsewhere. The value of all this equipment and activity to mere onlookers is not to be ignored. As far as capacity goes, the onlookers could be figured very high. If the space were lighted, a goodly proportion of the above facilities could be used at night, especially swimming pools, basketball grounds, handball courts, dancing pavilion and running track. The estimated evening capacity for active recreation is estimated to exceed 2,500. To a great extent the foregoing facilities could be made to serve for winter sports. This would augment New York City's total athletic equipment for use by adolescent boys and girls by a very important percentage, no matter how such facilities are computed. Communications The question of communications is manifestly important. Welfare Island is now approached by ferry, and also by elevators which connect it with the platforms on the Queensboro Bridge where motor cars and surface cars find their stopping place. Ward's Island and Randall's Island are reached by boat only. Better communications are more a question of expense than of engineering. All engineering difficulties could be overcome easily, provided it were worth while to incur the necessary expense. The feasibility of better boat service must not be judged by the present facilities. All three islands have been and are still administered as places of confinement from which the inmates are supposed to be trying to escape, and to which visitors go by permit only. Naturally, everything possible has been done to limit access and restrict communications to the bare minimum necessary for administration. If, however, the islands were thrown open and made attractive to thousands of daily visitors, an entirely new sort of boat service would be called into existence by the demand. The East River channels present no difficulties at all to boats of the type which would be appropriate to this service, i. e., boats intended to carry passengers rather than motor cars and freight, and designed to tie up parallel to the current at landings of the quay type. Such boats are numerous and popular in other river cities, like London, Paris, Vienna, and in cities on the Rhine. In fact, they will be found wherever popular attractions are distributed along river banks. Other communications with Randall's Island and Ward's Island can be arranged in three ways. The present Hell Gate Bridge was originally designed to carry a roadway and the structure could be supplemented by a sufficient roadway with elevators, stairs, or ramps to the two islands. If a tri-borough bridge is built, or tubes or tunnels are completed to render an equivalent service, island stations can be arranged for when the designs are made. The Bronx Kills and the channel on the Manhattan side of the two northern islands could easily be bridged at one, two or three points. These channels are used by nothing larger than what passes through the Harlem River. They are, in effect, part of the Harlem River waterway. Communications to \Velfare Island are more difficult, for at this point the East River channels cannot be spanned except at the height of the present Queensboro Bridge and the depth of 186 PUBLIC RECREATION the channel forces the under-water subways to adopt inclines which make it difficult to locate subway stations under the island. It is by no means impossible, however, so to plan the grades as to provide for a station at this point. In fact, the subway now under contract is to have an emergency exit on Welfare Island, which could be developed into a passenger station if desired. But there are no reasons except those of expense why elevator communications should not be increased and also supplemented by stairways and ramps between the surface of the island and the Queensboro Bridge, and no reason why the Second Avenue elevated trains should not stop on the bridge just as do the surface cars. The plans that are now under way for removing the prisons from Welfare Island to Riker's Island open the way for early consideration of the above proposals for the future use of this highly important area. XV. PARKS ON LONG ISLAND-BOTH REGIONAL AND LOCAL The Importance of Beaches On Long Island interest attaches to the ocean beaches in the same way that, in the Adirondacks and Catskills, it turns to the mountain tops and forests. The beaches hold a high place in the affection of Long Islanders. No Long Islander wants to see them all monopolized by the rich or completely vulgarized by cheap shack and bungalow developments any more than, in the Adirondacks, any one wants to see the sides of Whiteface and Mount Marcy covered with hotels or camps. The local people, most of whom cannot own shore front, want to be able to get to the ocean at beaches where there are good bathing and ample space for themselves as well as for all visitors, and where agreeable and orderly conditions are insured by sufficient policing- They know that crowds are sure to come from the city and elsewhere to visit these beaches and other spots on the island, and that the problem of providing for these crowds is urgent. The visiting thousands will bring prosperity to the local communities if they are appropriately provided for. If not, they will cause disturbance of local conditions, land speculations that will be costly to the community in the long run even though profitable to individuals at the moment, and, finally, a lessening of the attractiveness and good famfe of the island. In considering the opportunities for public recreation on Long Island it is therefore appropriate to begin with the shores and to look first at those places where there are the most inviting beaches. Barrier Beaches off the South Shore Wide barrier beaches extend for over 70 miles along the southern side of Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Beginning at the western tip of Long Beach near the New York City line they include Long Beach (8 miles) and Jones Beach (over 6 miles) in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, then Oak Island Beach (about 10 miles), Fire Island (over 36 miles) and Hampton Beach (about 12 miles), to the eastern end of Shinnecock Bay, near Southampton. Most of their length is still empty. The subdivided area at Long Beach occupies less than the middle half of the island which bears that name. The bungalow and bathing colonies at the spots known as High Hill Beach (on Jones Beach), Oak Island (at the eastern end of Oak Island Beach), Saltaire, Ocean Beach, Point of Woods and Cherry Grove on Fire Island, aggregate less than 10 miles of waterfront and are largely leaseholds on public land. Over long distances the beach, the sea, the sky, the sanddunes and the fascinating vegetation which fills their hollows and clothes the marshes constitute the whole lonely and beautiful scene. There are still more than 50 miles of ocean front for the creation of either public or private seaside resorts, without any substantial disturbance to existing taxable values or community habits such as necessarily results to a greater or less extent from every large park scheme on the mainland. Special Merits as Bathing Resorts These ribbons of sand afford surf bathing on wide beaches whose declivity is generally very gentle and where there is little undertow. They are as good as any beaches on the Atlantic coast north of Florida. Furthermore, they have a great advantage which Coney Island and Atlantic City lack in that the waters of the Great South Bay on the north side of the beaches are within a few hundred yards of the ocean and can be made available for bathing too. On the bay side the water is shallow, comparatively quiet and several degrees warmer than the ocean in summer. Bay bathing can be enjoyed when weather conditions and heavy surf make the 187 I -~ I 00 I t-0 Copyright, Fairchild Aerial Survey, Inc. LOOKING NORTH FROM 10,000 FEET ABOVE JONES INLET In the middle of the picture is the wooded creek-bottom of East Meadow Brook-one of the south-side streams discussed in the text. On the west side of its southern extremity is Freeport. The Long Island State Park Commission has suggested that a cross-island parkway should come down the East Meadow Brook valley and that a connecting causeway across the flats and meadows in the middle foreground should connect with both Long Beach and Short Beach (a connection thence to Jones Beach being then arranged). PARKS ON LONG ISLAND-BOTH REGIONAL AND LOCAL 189 ocean side unsafe, and is admirable for children at all times. Between the outer beaches and the bays there are sand-dunes at one point or bits of marsh at another. On either type of ground it would be easy to arrange, by proper planning and control, for agreeable pavilions, bath-houses and extensive tenting and camping facilities. The present inaccessibility of these beaches is what has prevented those that are nearest to New York City from becoming popular resorts long ago. The fact that one still has to cross the bays by boat to get to them has, however, by delaying their exploitation, preserved the possibility of planning for their best use. Indeed, when one thinks about outer Long Island as a whole and about the influences which New York City will exert upon its future, it seems almost too fortunate to be true that the great barrier beaches off the South Side have not yet all been transferred to private ownership and generally exploited by premature speculations. At the present time a speculative "boom" in waterfronts on the South Side of Long Island is being worked up. This will hamper immediate efforts to obtain waterfront parks east of Babylon, where the beaches are not in town ownership. At the same time it shows the importance of taking action to acquire open areas at those times when there is a slackening in real estate speculation. There is no reason, however, for despondency as to the availability of future opportunities, for there are ample areas both for the needs of prospective builders and for open space, except, of course, that open areas which are extensive enough for regional parks become fewer and more difficult to obtain. The time will come again when it will be possible to obtain the residue of land over what is actually needed for homes, for purposes of parks and beaches. The important thing is that the lands needed for public use should be acquired before improved means of access are provided. Particular Locations on the Outer Beaches Jones Beach (marked "A" on map opposite page 190) offers the most desirable site for a popular resort because it is the most accessible of the sands just referred to. The Long Island State Park Commission recognized its value, and at once took steps to make it available. Mr. C. D. Lay, reporting to the Nassau County Committee, has urged that this "is indeed the most important single undertaking to which the Long Island State Park Commission can turn its attention." It is expected that the Jones Beach causeway will be ready for use in the spring of 1929. It begins at Wantagh, on the Merrick Road, about 28 miles from New York City, and extends for five miles over the islands and waters of the western part of Great South Bay to the Jones Beach Park on the ocean front. The park consists of lands turned over to the state by the towns of Hempstead and Oyster Bay of Nassau County. There are about 1,700 acres and several miles of ocean beach. The outer beach and dry land connected therewith amount, in the 12 miles between Short Beach and Cedar Island Inlet, to 2,000 acres or over. Behind this in the bay there are more than 2,500 acres of marshy islands on which additional facilities could be arranged at the cost of relatively cheap dredging and filling. The Long Island State Park Commission and the towns of Hempstead and Oyster Bay have agreed to a plan for the joint development of the beaches in this area. The people of the town of Babylon have voted to convey to the Commission beach lands east of Jones Beach Park to near Fire Island Inlet. This will add about 460 acres of park land, and will make possible an extensive ocean-front boulevard. Distance factors constitute a strong argument for a big beach park at Jones Beach. Traffic counts and motor-run statistics permit one to say with confidence that the number of people who motor out more than 20 miles from home decreases very rapidly as the distance increases. Of course it may be true that if there is a more attractive objective at a distance of say 40 miles than any to be found nearer at hand, many people will be drawn to it in spite of the fact that they would rather not go so far. But the general tendency points to the longitude of Jones Beach as the line which the main crowd of the city excursionists who have to be considered by Nassau and Suffolk Counties could reach satisfactorily. Hence, it follows also that an adequate free public park at that location will relieve a large area to the north and east of the pressure of 190 190 PUBLIC RECREATION the excursionists who now keep on past Hempstead and Amityville for lack of a place at which to stop, and who, in the process, jam the highways, litter the roadsides, and overwhelm the small local bathing places. Fire Island State Park. -There is already on the western end of Fire Island a state park of 800 acres. This is reached by boat from Babylon and Bayshore. Its distance from New York City makes it improbable that more than one-half as many people would reach it for a day's outing as would get to Jones Beach, even if a causeway were thrown over from Babylon or Bayshore. Such a causeway would be more expensive than one at Jones Beach. Since a Jones Beach Park is assured, the Fire Island Park may be considered chiefly as an excellent provision for future years and a present resort for people who can spend the time and money to go to it by boat, but not as the park which can meet the present main need. Naturally, the local population of western Suffolk will count largely among its visitors. They will probably find sands that are less crowded than those of a Jones Beach park. Near Smith Point and Tangier (area " B" on map opposite page 190), Fire Island could easily be reached by a short bridge. This is a crucial point in the Suffolk County map, for: a. It affords the cheapest bridge communication to Fire Island. b. The dunes at this point are so beautiful that they should be recognized as one of the landscape features of Long Island, and should be protected from defacement by, cheap commercial exploitations. c. Public parks gain if they can be connected into a system. North of this point lies the Upton Reservation-the largest public holding on Long Island. d. This point on Fire Island is the ideal oceanfront location for the convenience of every one in the middle third of Suffolk County. e. The public interest outweighs every other dictates the acquisition of dunes and beach both east and west of the crossover and of mainland about the approach to it. Montauk is peculiarly interesting in many ways which may not be enumerated in so brief a survey as this. Its scenic interest is so great that on this ground alone a Montauk Park would be j ustified. The state has wisely secured two tracts at Montauk. Both include ocean front. Their development as public reservations with park features is to be expected and desired, but they are so far from New York that they satisfy the needs of only a relatively small portion of the recreation-seeking public. Parks on the Northern Edge of Great South Bay Concerning the northern side of the Great South Bay generally, it may be said that its usually muddy edge is much less suitable for bathing resorts than Jones Beach and the Fire Island beaches. But its inferior resources have the advantage of accessibility. Speaking in terms of immediate needs, it would appear that two or three public depots on the north shore of the bay should be arranged to combine the following: parking space for excursionists who wish to take boat to Fire Island; yachting facilities of a public character, including sheltered water in which anchorage for small boats can be leased by the week, month or season; some provision for bathing; plus such park features as may be needed to make the foregoing convenient and agreeable. Since Long Island was first settled, the Great South Bay has been a chief pleasure, resource for its people. Automobiling has diverted sport-seekers from the water in recent years. But fishing, sailing, and motor boating will recapture much of their old popularity someday. It should be made easy and pleasant for people who do not own land on the shore to get out onto the bay. The depot-parks which are, recommended need not be very large; but it seems undeniable that any complete Long Island, park system would provide two or three such Key Name Acres Ownership 1. Great Neck Park............... 1.7 Town 2. Manhasset Beach............... 0.5 Town 3. Kensington Park............... 6.0 Village 4. Sunset Park................... 1.0 Village 5. Sands Point Beach.............. 0.5 Village 6. Bar Bec..........5.5 Town 7. Oak Neck Beach............... 1.5 Town 8. Roosevelt Memorial Park........ 53.0 Trust Key Name Acres Ownership 9.ý Lloyd Neck Park..........27.0 State 10. Halesite Pr.........1.5 Village 11. Crab Meadow Beach Park......5.0 Town 12. Sunken Meadow Beach........... 8.0 Town 13. Short Beach................... 10.0 Town 14. Long Bec.........15.0 Town 15. Wildwood Pr.......400.0 State 16. South Harbor Park........2.0 Town Ke'y Name Acres Ownership 1 7t. Southold Creek Park........1.0 Town 18. Founders Landing Park......2.0 Town 19Q,. Sound Beach................. 2.0 Town 20. Maidstone Park................ 22.0 Town 21. Gardiners Point Park............. 4.0 State 2. Montauk Park................. 120.0 State 2ý. Hither Hills Pak......1,750.0 State Key Name Acres Ownership 25. Sayville Bathing Beach.......0.5 Town 26. Deer Range Park............ 1,500.0 State 27. East Islip Bathing Beach......... 0.8 Town 28. Islip Bathing Beach.......,..... 5.0 Town 29. Fire Island Park............... 800.0 State 30. Babylon Park.......... 0.5 Village 31. N. Y. C. Reservoir Properties.... 2,072.8 State FIG. 43 PARKS ON LONG ISLAND-BOTH REGIONAL AND LOCAL 191 resources of the Great South Bay-not to provide bathing resorts for considerable numbers. Other things being equal, the numbers of visitors to such depots will fall off very rapidly as distance from the city line increases; therefore space requirements will also diminish as eastward distance increases. The Long Island State Park Commission is establishing a park on the Taylor place in Islip on the north shore of the bay. Waterfront Parks on the North Side The Long Island State Park Commission has acquired a few acres at Lloyd Neck, and also about 400 more, including some beach, three miles east of Wading River, known as Wildwood se Park. No one pretends that these are enough in the way of North Side waterfront parks, however. By filling land under water which belongs to the public in Hempstead Harbor, bathing facilities of valuable extent could- * be arranged wherever a bit of i adjoining upland can be secured or where private rights of access.4 to the water can be adjusted. The eastern shore of the harbor might be expensive to acquire. The sand pits on the western side will eventually be abandoned and could at such ABEACH time be secured and reclaimed more cheaply. Center Island, Lloyd Neck and Eatons Neck (areas "C," "D," and "E" on map opposite page 190) are connected with the mainland by narrow strips of beach which should be carefully considered as North Side waterfront park sites because: a. They have merit as bathing places. b. It is possible to develop them for the public with minimum disturbance of surrounding taxable values and a minimum interference with neighborhood life. c. A shabby speculative exploitation of them (which is always possible under private ownership) would be the worst possible eventuality from the community standpoint. d. There is already some town ownership on these necks. Space at Fort Salonga (area "F" on map opposite page 190), between two state hospital. tracts, has already been acquired by the State Park Commission. It seems clear that the foregoing projects are of great importance. The public must have some points of access to the water on the North Side, even though there may be no opportunity for a large bathing resort comparable in physical merit and cheapness with what can be found at Jones Courtesy, Boys' Club of New' York ON THE STEEP SHORE OF THE NORTH SIDE (HIGH TIDE) Beach and elsewhere off the South Shore. This is so, not only because numbers of motorists who visit the North Shore incidentally seek a bathing place on their trips, but because proper provision for these excursionists is a measure of self-protection for the local communities. Inland Areas for Parks Inland parks are not nearly so urgent for Long Island as waterfront parks. But it would be wise to begin assembling lands which can be got cheaply during the next decade and can be turned into serviceable parks in the future, likewise lands which possess scenic or other special 192 PUBLIC RECREATION value and deserve to be protected from subdivision; also, areas which protect water supplies that will be needed by the villages later. It will probably be found that some spots meet more than one of these tests of usefulness. Tax-Title Lands The possibility of accumulating several considerable middle-island areas by taking advantage of tax-titles deserves thorough scrutiny in Suffolk. To get an adequate idea of the chance of accomplishing something in this way, it will be necessary to make up a map showing the extent and distribution of these lands for one or more selected areas. By picking up lands under automobile camps, public golf courses and other uses. While the present boom in Long Island lands continues it may be fruitless to attempt to acquire land in areas that are affected by speculation, but one of the ultimate results of this boom is likely to be an increase in the area of lands forfeited for taxes in future. Careful records should be kept so as to enable authorities to act when a suitable occasion arrives. In the Mannetto Hills, Half Hollow Hills and Dix Hills (area "G" on map opposite page 190) there is undeveloped land whose configuration is such that a park almost anywhere could be made charming. Such a park would not compete with ~cZ;~ -t: i.:i 'j-i~: ~i~:: G~A ~~:6;-~i!~,"*hWr m~-swW,-h_"=5~- -,^lE'^JBA"-c i'3i3. 5..-^ ' % ^;'^ i?''1**.. '~ *^"^ ~lN^~ i` i;.:^l~lf r~ ~ ~:5;~:; tc;-'-~:`r~~~;1;:'~:~(--.~(.~"'Lz:~;~:i- Yi ~ i:: -:II 2~x~,, ~ 3. ~:,-: ~~1;-'.;:~~ ~, 1. LOOKING EAST ON HEMLOCK BEACH, WHICH IS THE PART OF JONES BEACH THAT BELONGS TO THE TOWN OF BABYLON Tide going out. The foreground to the right-hand edge of the picture is wet sand, not water. $5.00 an acre Massachusetts has, in a few years, is in a sense accumulated about 70,000 acres of her 94,000 ownership of acres of state reservations. This is suggestive, ing. It woul although waste land is neither so plentiful nor so shore were si cheap on Long Island. Furthermore, a number of Massachusetts towns have turned tax-lands Camp Upton into town forests. The tax-forfeited lands have Nothing c( been a serious burden to Suffolk County for continue unc many years. At present they not only yield no government revenue, but are a source of public expense. If improves it tax-titles were converted to public use by the aid have the po' of a little legislation and a small expenditure it ments for rec would probably be possible to secure several mid- the news tha island spaces that could serve admirably for taken steps t the attractions which the Palisades Interstate Park and Bear Mountain Park hold out to pedestrians and campers, but would none the less be valuable by reason of its greater accessibility for the Long Island population. Picnicking and camping facilities, one or more public golf courses, and a well-planned system of walks and bridle paths, would seem to be appropriate to such a situation. Lake Ronkonkoma (area "H" on map opposite page 190) would be named in any list of star spots in Suffolk. Public ownership of part of its shore is plainly to be desired. The possibility of this Ssecured by the Motor Parkway's the western shore in a single holdd be a loss to the community if that ubdivided into small parcels. )uld be better than that this should ler federal control so long as the treats it as a forest reservation and as such. The federal authorities wer to make cooperative arrangereation. The public should welcome it the State Park Commission has;o perfect such arrangements. PARKS ON LONG ISLAND-BOTH REGIONAL AND LOCAL 193 The Upton Area lies midway between the city and the Montauk peninsula. In the valleys of Carmen's River and Wading River, whose headwaters are separated by the Upton Ridge (areas " I" and " J1" on map opposite page 190), there are admirable opportunities for a succession of small but charming camping grounds beside the two rivers and connected ponds. In this area the Tangier-Fire Island possibilities lie at the south, the Upton Reservation in the middle, and the rivers and their possibilities adjoin either side of the Upton highland. To the northward,Wildwood Park provides a bit of ocean front on the Sound at no great distance from the Upton area. Taken as a whole, this area is thus to be recognized as capable of furnishing larger opportunities for camping, hiking, canoeing and horseback riding than can be visualized anywhere else on Long Island. For such purposes a sprinkling of spots of a few acres each, administered as parks or reservations, and a connecting network of public paths giving access to ponds and rivers, are all that is required. A completely solidified public ownership is not necessary. In short, the Upton area offers admirable opportunities for the gradual forma- Although no wa tion of a chain or system of diversified small park- and playspaces. In a few years it will not be too remote for great numbers to resort to it. This short discussion has not pretended to canvass every possibility, but merely reviews briefly the outstanding instances which deserve attention in the search for large public parks. In this connection it might be better to speak of large public parks as "regional parks." Before passing to smaller parks, it will be well to note certain distinguishing peculiarities of regional parks, for the differences between them and local parks are often overlooked or misunderstood. What Regional Parks Should Be These will be resorted to by the people who want "somewhere to go," particularly those who come from a distance or from the metropolitan center. Their size must be measured in hundreds of acres instead of by single acres or by tens of acres as in the case of local parks. They are best placed away from villages rather than near them; close to a main artery of travel rather than not. Camping and picnic facilities are nowadays essential to their success. Walks, bridle paths, motor roads, streams and ponds for canoeing, extensive beaches, playing fields. and large areas of forest are appropriate in a re CARLL'S BROOK LoST IN UNDERGROWTH ter can be seen in this picture, the brook at this point is flowing out of a pond of over 15 acres in area gional park. Golf is no longer the game of the rich few. It is becoming ever more popular. Public golf courses may be placed in regional parks and can be made to return much or all of the expense of maintenance. Inland parks with public golf courses as features could be developed on cheap land and would be very popular. Discriminations between the would-be visitors to regional parks who come from near by and those who come from a distance will prove to be intolerable. It is fair that regional parks should be the state's charge. But it should be recognized that such a park, when appropriately developed and administered, 194 PUBLIC RECREATION affords a protection to the local community of which the local people stand in greater need every year. Such a park relieves the locality of the burden of maintaining roads, public utilities, and police within its boundaries. It relieves the local parks of the pressure of pleasure-seekers who come from elsewhere. If properly administered, it will assist the local community to protect its roadsides and its privately owned lands. Local Parks In the foregoing pages regional rather than localparks have been under consideration. By contrast with the peculiarities of a regional better not adjoin the main path of the elling public. is legally possible to establish them in such ay that people who are not residents of the I community can be excluded from them. heir cost and upkeep must be a local charge. Spots Which Should Be Preserved hus local park plans should be considered i reference to locations which possess, locally, value of key spots. Unfortunately it often pens that the local community does not see, me to save it, that a spot which has been of e or no value in the past may, in the future, be rendered highly serviceable to the whole neighborhood. Certain natural features of both the South Side and the North Side deserve to be emphasized in local planning and are now in more or less daniger of being sacrificed to commercial developments. The South Side will be considered first. The South Side--Trend of Developmzent At intervals from Amityville eastward to beyond Sayville, the Merrick Road, or Montauk Highway, was formerly lined with the large estates ich men who acquired and beautified them ty to sixty years ago. They were sumresidences or mansion houses set back from highway, but facing it and within sight of it, de luxe editions of the more modest old lences which used to stand in their bits of n facing on an old-fashioned village streeti a street as is still the great charm of:hampton. But the Merrick Road was as as thirty ordinary village streets, and the ssed values of these estates were more comLble to those of the best residences in the est towns or small cities than to village >erty. uring the last decade or so the abandont of these places has been proceeding. The rick Road has changed from a country high PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT OF A POND ON A SMALL STREAM park, just outlined, the following may be noted of rj as characteristics of a local park. thirn Local parks are small areas near villages or mer other assemblages of population, which exist for the I one or more of the following purposes: like resic a. To preserve small areas of natural beauty lawr and increase the attractiveness of the suc village or city. suct Easi b. To provide a restful and refreshing influence i for the people of the neighborhood. long asse: c. To furnish playgrounds for children and a nearby opportunity for tennis, bathing or pare other similar sports for the residents of largi the neighborhood. propf D Local parks should be secluded, quiet, safe for men children, immune from through traffic. They Mer PARKS ON LONG ISLAND-BOTH REGIONAL AND LOCAL 195 road to a crowded and noisy thoroughfare, "the Montauk Highway." Fashions have changed. Big holdings are no longer easy to keep up; the owners are cutting up the estates and are not infrequently moving their own homes. Many of them have been deserting to the northern side of the island-which need not continue to be the case if the South Side villages will take measures to protect and preserve their amenities. A typical transformation is a subdivision oriented on a roadway at right angles to the Merrick Road. Along this new street - which may have been an old private drive or estate avenue - small holdings are developed and enjoy the sense of seclusion which a side road and remoteness from the main thoroughfare give, now that the Merrick Road is crowded with motors and noisy with horns, klaxons, and the creaking of brakes. These private developments on axes vertical to the main South Shore highway illustrate the logical tendency for good residential situations. They frequently run northward from the highway and are not always directly connected with the waterfront. Good examples may be seen at Brightwaters and the Lawrence estate near Bayshore. This development at right angles to the main artery is similar to what has happened in Manhattan and what is happening in other communities where an old main street has become crowded with traffic and where residences of the better sort seek quiet by going up the side streets. The problem of the South Side is to insure pleasant side streets if it wants to encourage high-class residence. It should be recognized that the increasing volume of movement along the South Shore will crowd the east and west arteries, just as on Manhattan Island it has congested the north and south avenues. The difference between Long Island and Manhattan is that on Manhattan the struggle is not only between incompatible types of residence but between residence, business and industry; whereas on Long Island the question is generally simply between high-class residence and cheap subdivision. But this difference ought not to obscure the fundamental analogy. Along the South Shore good residences are being forced to one side, and away from the arteries. Furthermore, the best class of residents will leave the old communities entirely unless agreeable situations can be found on north and south tributaries to the Merrick Road. Neglected Opportunities along the South Shore It is in this connection that the succession of short water courses, which flow from north to south across the long ribbon of the South Shore at intervals of a few miles apart, are worthy of more consideration than they have received. These north and south water courses might be called the neglected opportunities of the South Side, for a great proportion of them have been neglected. It is quite natural that in the early evolution of Long Island these South Side streams and their shallow valleys should have been disregarded. Higher land, more easily cleared, more easily drained and more cheaply available for roads and frontages, was used first. Occasionally the brooks were dammed to make mill-ponds for one purpose or another, and then some care was bestowed upon them. The Hempstead reservoir, the East Meadow Brook above Freeport, the reservoir properties near Massapequa, Carll's Brook through the Belmont Estate above Babylon, Brightwaters, the confluents of the Great River, and others, show at one or more points in their courses that there are a number of different ways in which the charm and value of these creeks can be preserved and enhanced. Every now and then some man of ample means, having also taste and imagination, has absorbed one of these small streams into his estate and beautified it and parked it for his own pleasure. But many others have been allowed to become dumping places, sewers, choked and mosquitoinfested little drains struggling through jungles of alder, catbriar and poison ivy, and are now completely neglected. Some are on the way to becoming offensive and a menace to public health, just as was the Bronx River fifteen years ago. (It will be recalled that the Bronx River Parkway originated in a movement to clean up the offenses and nuisances along the stream.) Almost every one of these brooks would be an admirable axis for a charming village or neighborhood park. They are exactly what every park designer or landscape architect would seize upon Copyright, Fairchild Aerial Survey, Inc. LOOKING EASTWARD TO MONTAUK FROM 10,000 FEET ABOVE TANGIER The magnificent barrier beach also extends westward to the city line with only an occasional break. Note how superior the outer beach is to thoseon the north side of the bay. PARKS ON LONG ISLAND-BOTH REGIONAL AND LOCAL 197 as the main feature of his plan in a place like Central Park or Van Cortlandt Park, just what is made the basis of the beautiful Bronx River Parkway.' Within sight of the water and through the publicly owned land a north and south roadway would usually be a feature of each such park. It would give glimpses of the stream and ponds along its course and would combine the characteristics of a communication road for the service of adjoining property and a pleasure drive for those whose excursions require a north and south direction. The reservoir properties at Hempstead and Babylon have long been illustrations of an imperfect public utilization of such water courses near an existing village.' Brightwaters affords an example of one way in which a center for good residences can be created around the conveniences and features which such a water course affords. Above the Merrick Road the informality of the Brightwaters plan possesses charm and indicates what might be possible, or might be done even better, at a number of other points. Another reason for preserving these water courses is that they are the potential reservoirs and water supply systems for the population, which will sooner or later grow to a point of requiring their utilization. Although most of these water courses and their low, swampy margins are in private ownership, it is generally true that intensive development has thus far not made use of them. It is therefore still possible to acquire more or less of them at comparatively reasonable prices. Or, if local communities will gird up their loins and exercise their power to zone and to control street plans, the subdivision of the property along these courses can be influenced in the right direction, without the public acquiring them. ' That this is not an estimate but a fact is proved by the success with which owners of private estates have already treated parts of several of these streams. Sometimes an effect has been gained by damming the stream to make a pond. Sometimes no more has been done than to care for the banks and their trees. (See illustration on page 194.) 2The Long Island State Park Commission has announced that it has come to an agreement with New York City looking to the parking of the reservoir reservations along the larger streams in Nassau. This development is now under way. At Hempstead, the largest of these waters, there is an opportunity to extend a park treatment Irom the reservoir northward into the village itself and southward to the edge of the Bay. The North Side The topography of the North Side shore is entirely different from that of the South Side. There is no succession of shallow drainage basins running north and south across the main artery of travel. The surface of the land is hilly or tumbled instead of flat. There is a steep escarpment along the Sound with hills behind it. Here and there this has been cut through, and the sea has intruded itself southward in narrow or much enclosed bays. At the lower extremities or edges of these bays there are often marshy meadows which extend a little farther inland between the knees of the hills. Nearby, in the days of communication by water, the original villages huddled themselves about a tiny anchorage or harbor: Hempstead Harbor, Oyster Bay, Cold Spring Harbor, Huntington, Northport, and Port Jefferson. Every painter or lover of landscape would agree that these bays and marsh-meadows are very beautiful and that they are most precious elements in the composition of the north shore landscape. Many of the most beautiful and expensive estates in the whole New York Region are situated on the edges of bays and marshes or where they command a view of them. As the villages grow and more space for their business activities is needed they must either stretch to some distance from their original centers, or climb onto uneven land, or extend onto the marshes or tidelands. There will be a temptation to drain and build up the marshes. If these villages were looking forward to an industrial future, or expecting a commerce for which docks and warehouses were necessary, it would be right enough to drive pile foundations into the tide flats along the upland, and " reclai in" the marsh-meadows. But such is not their future. Their best hope, as their true r8le in the total regional economy, is to preserve by every feasible means all their charm and character as bay-side villages in a residential zone. If the marshmeadows and shallow flats adjoining the old bay-side villages were to be largely built up or otherwise "reclaimed," it would be a serious misfortune from the community point of view. These level, colorful openings are comparable in asthetic value to the old village greens and commons of some of the best inland villages of 198 PUBLIC RECREATION New England. They contribute to the historic little North Side villages open space and an effect of being mingled pleasantly with their natural surroundings, and they are also so picturesque and peculiar in themselves that they are indispensable to the landscape of the northern shore. Yet at a number of spots groups of bungalows, garages, refreshment pavilions with wide verandas, and other structures have lately been built out onto these flats, and give warning of a tendency that may develop. As soon as village plans can be formulated and the North Side communities are in a position to consider local park requirements and local zoning, measures to insure the preservation of these open spaces should be adopted. No consideration of "key spots" or areas necessary to be impressed with a public quality for the benefit of the neighborhood on the North Side would be complete without reference to town beaches, shore drives and foot-paths. Town Beaches A number already exist. The demand for them is now loud in each locality. Suffice it to remark here, first-that these need not be large if they are fairly numerous; second-that they need not be annoying to nearby residents if they are not large or overcrowded; and third-and above all-that the way to have pleasant, reasonable, cheap and sufficient local facilities is to bring about the creation of adequate regional parks, at places remote from villages, like Jones Beach, so that the city crowds will not press so heavily on what are meant to be neighborhood bathing places. As an alternative to natural beaches, there are several places on the north shore, accessible from the villages but sufficiently remote to occasion them no disturbance or disfigurement, where the towns own land under shallow water in the bays. Legally it would be feasible to create small island and lagoon parks in such places, and to connect them with the mainland by causeway for the cost of pumping and filling. Such creations need not infringe upon the rights of upland owners, and should not cut down unduly the areas of open water. Shore Drives and Foot-Paths Because of the delights of bathing and boating, an acre of park on the waterfront is often worth more to the public than are ten acres at a distance from the shore. Similarly a right of way to walk or drive within sight of the sea and its wide horizons gives peculiar delight. If the view over bay and sea can be enjoyed, not from afar, but where the sounds and smells of the water flood one's senses, the pleasure and refreshment are at their greatest. In this connection again the lands under water which still belong to the towns in many parts of the bays ought to be recognized as having great future value to the people. Where the upland in private ownership is so owned or developed that public roads or rights of way cannot reasonably be carried along the shore above tide, it may be possible, by using the town land under water, to arrange for whatever freedom of access and passage is essential to the public good. Courtesy, Long Island Stale Park Commission THE ROCKY WATERFRONT IN 1HITHER HILLS STATE PARK PART IV FORESHORE AND RIGHTS IN LAND UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS IN THE NEW YORK REGION By FRANK B. WILLIAMS INTRODUCTION TO PART IV ELECTRIC railways and motor transportation have made the waterfronts throughout the Region accessible. In summer nearly every one, especially mothers with children, want to go to the waterfronts. Water parks, shore paths, boardwalks and shore roads should be more numerous in the Region for the recreation and health of its future population. Rzhts to kfaterfront Private ownership of the upland did not originally include the ownership of the abutting land under navigable waters or the strip of land between high and low tides commonly called the foreshore. The King of England retained title and the people of the states of Connecticut, New York and New Jersey succeeded to this title. The states have properly granted to private developers more or less permanent rights along their navigable waters for the development of commerce and for the adjustment of bulkhead lines. No fault need be found with any state because by making permanent grants it has encouraged substantial and permanent development. In and about Greater New York land has been filled in under these grants, buildings have been erected, and the state in fairness to those who have done the developing should uphold their titles. But not all the waterfronts of the Region are needed for commerce and industry. Reservations must be made for public access to the water. In the past the three states have quite indiscriminately given free grants of the foreshore and land under water to the owners of the upland. Connecticut has allowed all owners of upland to use the foreshore and land under water for docks and other purposes without specific grants. New York has made free grants liberally, sometimes for commercial use and sometimes for beneficial enjoyment. It should be said, however, that New York has latterly been less liberal in making these grants. New Jersey has for some years adopted a policy of demanding from the upland owner a substantial payment for grants. But the public relations of the subject have until recently been much neglected and there has been little effort to preserve for future public needs strips of waterfront that are eligible for public ways and parks. Even beaches along the South Side of Long Island and the easterly fronts of Staten Island and New Jersey, which cannot well be used for commerce, have been generously granted to private owners. Two generations ago the public owned the Coney Island beach. Many grants of the foreshore and land under water were later made to the upland owners. Recently under a charter amendment authorizing the creation of seashore parks, the city has taken by eminent domain for a boardwalk and public beach park substantially the identical foreshore and land under water that were given away by free grants from the state before their value to the public was appreciated. Part of the planning of the Region is the designation of eligible waterfront strips facing the ocean in the three states, also suitable locations on Long Island Sound, Hudson River, Newark Bay and the kills which should be protected against any more private grants. This is not to say that the precise location of every future water park or marginal roadway must be presently decided upon. Certain areas in general can be designated as suitable for preservation. The actual setting aside of shore parks and parkways can come later. The work of the Legal Division of the Regional Plan, on foreshore and land under water,has beentwofold. After examination of the statutes and decided court cases in each of the three states it has analyzed 200 INTRODUCTION TO PART IV20 201 the quality of the public ownership in waterfronts, the extent of recognized private ownership under grants and the methods of control followed by the three states and their public agencies. The second field of work has been to ascertain to a considerable extent the location of the ungranted foreshore and land under water throughout the Region. The maps (not printed) accompanying this report exhibit the work in this latter field. The regional planner will use these maps as an aid to the location of waterfront parks and parkways because he will want to know what areas are already owned by the public. Recreational Possibilities of Public Jflaterfront Although the upland owner does not in the absence of a grant own the foreshore and land under water, he owns a right of access to the water. If the public makes any use of the foreshore and land under water which cuts him off from access to the water, he is entitled to his damages. Keeping this fact in mind we will outline some of the uses that the public can make of its present ownership. The public authorities can acquire by purchase or condemnation a moderate amount of the upland and thus create a waterfront park, filling in shallow places, if desired, and forming islands and channels. Perhaps only one-tenth of the entire area would be upland which would need to be bought, the other nine-tenths already belonging to the state or municipality. The public authorities can utilize the foreshore for shore roads, shore paths or boardwalks if these do not cut off the access of the upland owners to the water, and no compensation need be made to any private owner in cases where the foreshore is not privately owned. In most cases the upland owners would not object to having a public way improved along the water edge abutting their private property because this would render their land more available for cottages, pavilions, shops or booths. In some cases the cost of building the public way has been assessed on the abutting private property. The 'Public could purchase two small parcels of upland half a mile apart (for instance) and build a boardwalk or shore path on the upland bordering the foreshore between the two locations, thus obtaining the benefit of a large shore park at a nominal first cost. The private land between the two locations would be enhanced in value because of its accessibility and its use could be controlled by reasonable zoning. In many places marsh land could be filled in and recreation places could be provided without any expense whatever for the purchase of land. (See Fig. 47, page 219, for instance of such procedure.) These vast resources within the Region available for the recreation and health of future generations and already owned by the public constitute a treasure of inestimable value. They should not be squandered. The Regional Plan reports constitute the first comprehensive study of these resources that has ever been made. But this study is only a beginning. State and municipal authorities will perfect the selection of localities designated in this and other reports as desirable or available. Finally and most-important, state and municipal authorities must not give away shore rights now owned by the public, which may hereafter be needed for public recreation. EDWARD M. BASSETT XVI. LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER COLONIAL LAW Importance of Waterfront for Recreation Throughout all time the seas and their tributaries have been useful to man. Time with its inevitable changes has not made man less but rather more dependent upon them. With the lapse of time the sea, continuing to render man all its ancient services, has gradually added to them new services to satisfy the needs of modern life. Like the ancient Saxon the man of today sails and fishes the sea and, unlike him, resorts to it for recreation, so necessary and so hard in modern life for the average man to obtain. With the change in conditions from older times to the present the law of the sea with relation to the land has also changed, not by withdrawing its protection to the citizen of his right to navigate and fish in the sea but by giving him in addition the right to seek it for recreation. That right is the old right modified and amplified by modern needs and must be sought in the ancient law descending through English and American history to modern times. In congested urban areas large bodies of water are among the greatest of the bounties of nature, invaluable not only for the promotion of commerce but for the opportunities they offer the mass of the people for healthful recreation and exercise. Metropolitan New York, situated on the shores of an ocean, at the mouth of several large rivers, is fortunate in the possession of such waters in abundance. Undoubtedly it will be a major task of the planner of this region to multiply approaches to the water. Access to Water Dependent upon Right to Land Under It Access to navigable water is contingent upon rights in the l-and under it. Even the enjoyment of the view of the water and of the cooling breezes from it which the riparian upland affords is dependent upon the rights of that upland in the submerged land in front of it; for the absolute owner of that land could fill it in for his use for any purpose that commended itself to him, thus converting the ripa back of him into interior land entirely cut off from the water. In this field, where many interests meet and overlap, the city planner is in especial need of a formulated statement of the rights and duties of the various parties concerned. The Law in England Under the common law things are capable of ownership in so far as they can be actually possessed. Land under water, therefore, is property when situated under inland waters and under the waters of the ocean as far out as it is feasible to take possession of it; while the lands under the ocean deeps have no owner. In England, where almost all the large bodies of water are tidal, land under non-tidal waters belongs to the owners of the upland on either side of it; while land under tidal waters, in so far as it can be owned, is presumed to belong to the crown, and does belong to it unless a grant from the crown can be shown or should be presumed. In this country the law on this po.int is the same, except that in most states, with large bodies of fresh water, it is land under navigable water, whether fresh or salt, that presumptively belongs to the sovereign and land under nonnavigable waters that is privately owned. Land under water, in so. far as it is subject to ownership, consists of the foreshore, or land between mean high and low water mark, and the land beyond it as far out as possession of it is feasible. The outer limit of this land is seldom important because of the bulkhead and pierhead lines and similar restrictions imposed upon it by the state and nation for the protection of navigation before it reaches that limit. The rights in land under water are those of (1) the sovereign, (2) the owner of the riparian upland, (3) the general unorganized public. The law with regard to land under water has a long history, some knowledge of which is essential to an understanding of the subject. LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER 203 It is the theory of the English law that the king is both ruler and feudal overlord. Originally as ruler he regulated and protected navigation over the seas, and as overlord owned all the land of England except as he had granted it away. To the crown, therefore, belongs all ungranted and " waste " land, including " the great waste " of land under tidal waters. In early times there was no thought of drawing a line between the rights of the king as ruler and as overlord. Practically, therefore, the king's dominions were his to deal with much as he chose. Gradually, however, the king lost his power as ruler to Parliament and came to hold ungranted and other crown lands for the public benefit. From time immemorial the English people have fished the sea. In early times the king for his own benefit infringed upon the liberty of his subjects in this respect by granting individuals exclusive rights of fishery. Gradually the king lost the power to make such grants and the right of the people to pass over navigable water, fish in it and resort to the foreshore for these purposes was established. The importance of bathing and similar recreations on the shore and contiguous water was not recognized until a much later date, and the legal right of the people in the foreshore for these purposes has never been established in England.' The right of the owner of the riparian upland in the land under water in front of his holding is, like all rights in this land, a recognition of the qualities inherent in it on account of its unique situation. This right in England, as well as here, is that of access over it from the upland to the water, but does not, therefore, include the right to build any structures on the publicly-owned submerged land to deep water without a grant from the state. In this Country Law Varies in Different States In this country the United States, under its powers over navigation and interstate commerce, and the states, subject to the federal power, establish without compensation bulkhead and pier-head lines, beyond which encroachments upon navigable waters may not go, and in other ' For this and all other footnotes to the text of this chapter see pages 228-235. ways exercise jurisdiction restricting the use of land under water. The law with regard to the title to this land, however, differs in the different states. While the American colonies were being founded, grants of land bordering on navigable water, sometimes expressly including the land under it, more often leaving the question of the title to later interpretation of the grant, were extensively made by the English Crown to individuals, associations, and local and colonial governments. Until the American Revolution, ungranted interests in land under water, as in all such lands wherever situated, remained in the crown, after which they passed to the states, subject later to the jurisdiction of the United States over navigation and interstate commerce. Throughout all this period, in this thinly settled remote country, upland owners were building wharves and piers on the foreshore and the land under water beyond it to the navigable channels without thought of title to it except the growing feeling that they had a right to build in this way; and the people were resorting to the foreshore with a freedom unknown in the mother country. Under these circumstances uncertainty with regard to rights in land under water was inevitable. Each state, being sole judge of law and expediency in the matter, settled itin so far as it is settled-in its own way. In some states it was thought sufficient for the courts to decide controversies as they arose in the light of local custom; in others statutes were passed, often leaving it doubtful how far they were declaratory of existing law or were changes of that law for the purpose of establishing a different policy.' It is unnecessary here to summarize the law of all the states on the subject. It will suffice to give an outline of the law of the three states, parts of which make up our Region. CONNECTICUT LAW The Law Entirely in Court Decisions In Connecticut the law of land under navigable water is to be found entirely' in the decisions of the courts; with the exception of legislation with regard to bulkhead and pier-head 204 PUBLIC RECREATION lines, which is to be found everywhere, there are no statutes of importance on the subject.3 Title in States Under these decisions title to these lands is in the state. The land within the limits of the Connecticut colony was granted to the colony by Charles II. That grant included both upland and land under water. These lands were conveyed by the colony to the various towns into which it was divided; but these conveyances, as subsequently interpreted by the courts of the State of Connecticut, did not transfer the title to land under water but only jurisdiction over it.4 That title, therefore, remained in the colony and at the revolution from England passed to the state, where, with at most insignificant exceptions, it still remains. There seem to have been no express grants of lands or rights to land under water during colonial times. There are dicta to the effect that the state could transfer title to these lands to individuals;5 and early decisions that title to it may be obtained by prescription.6 There are many private statutes purporting to grant a fee,7 the grants being of comparatively small areas; and similar transfers of the right to wharf out, which do not purport to transfer title.8 There are also the very considerable areas which riparian owners have filled in and converted into dry land under local custom, which will be considered presently. But, as we shall see, the state holds lands under water as trustee; and although it has given its grantees valuable rights in these lands it has not in any of the cases enumerated above parted with the title. Riparian Owners' Rights Over this land under water the title to which is in the state the owner of the adjacent riparian land had the right of access to the water as universally in this country as in England; and, contrary to English law and custom, he also has by immemorial usage9 the privilege, within harbor lines, of building to deep water wharves and piers resting on itlo and of filling it in, thus converting it into dry land," provided that in so doing he does not in either case interfere with navigation.'2 This right, being in land pub licly owned, is a franchise.13 It is a freehold and goes to a man's heirs.14 It may be sold separately from the upland.15 Until the riparian owner occupies the land below high water mark the public has the right to navigate above it, fish, dig shell fish, take seaweed, pass and repass.16 Evidently, therefore, fee title absolute is not acquired in this way. There are numerous dicta as to the precise nature of the interest of the riparian proprietor after he has filled in the land. In 1842 the court says: "We think the title must be in him subject to the right of the public to abate it if it prove a nuisance."17 In 1870 the court says: "The reclaimed portions in general become integral parts of the owner's adjoining lands,"'8 the case being likened to accretion. In 1873 the court speaks of "accretion by natural or artificial means."'9 In 1889 the court says that reclaimed land "becomes upland for most if not all purposes."20 Regulation of Riparian Rights The riparian owner's right of access21 is a right that may be regulated, in the improvement of navigation, by the United States or by the state without compensation.22 These rights certainly cannot be taken by any other persons or for any other purpose without payment;23 and it has been intimated that even the state or the United States for the improvement of navigation cannot take them without compensation.24 The Connecticut courts call attention to the fact that the term "beach" may mean land between high and low water mark or land next to and above this strip; and that a beach left, by the state or those claiming under it, open to common use by the public, may become in law and in fact a public beach.25 A most important case is the town of Orange v. Resnick.26 It was a suit to restrain the defendant from erecting a bathing pavilion between high and low water mark in front of his upland. A statute (16 Special Laws, p. 1102) had transferred all the title of the state in this and other lands below high water mark to the plaintiff to develop as a public park; which, with due speed, it was proceeding to do. There was no allegation that the pavilion would interfere with navigation. The court held that, first, the LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER20 2 0 315 bathing pavilion was a proper riparian use of the foreshore; second, the plaintiff could not deprive defendant of his rights of various sorts to the shore without compensation. In the opinion the court says: "The statement may be found in many reported cases that riparian rights must be exercised in subordination to the paramount rights of the public; but this generality is qualified by the fact that not all the public rights so-called in the shore below high-water mark are superior to the rights of the riparian owner. The public rights of fishing, boating, hunting, bathing, taking shellfish, gathering seaweed, cutting sedge and of passing and repassing, are necessarily extinguished, pro tanto, by any exclusive occupation of the soil below high-water mark on the part of a riparian owner. The only substantial paramount public right is the right to the free and unobstructed use of navigable waters for navigation. " It was suggested in argument that the only substantive right of a riparian owner was the right of access to the sea; and that the interposition of a public park between the upland and the sea would not deprive the defendant of that right; but the court held that the owner of the upland had a peculiar right of access in addition to his rights as a member of the general public, and likened the sea to a highway upon which the riparian owner abuts; for which, if taken, he must be compensated.27 NEW JERSEY LAW The statutes and decisions in New Jersey give more fully and positively, perhaps, than in any other state in this country the law with regard to navigable waters and the lands beneath them; and for that reason illustrate more clearly than in any other jurisdiction the fact that in fundamentals and in some aspects of increasing importance under modern conditions that law is still unsettled. Practically all the law of New Jersey is the outcome of contests of individuals with the state and with each other over property interests. The cases, few in and general well-being, it is still the task of the student, the city planner and the lawyer in the public interest to establish in the light of long established principles, in conformity with modern facts and conditions. At Time of Revolution, State the Sole Owner In New Jersey, as in other states, early crown grants embracing both upland and land under tidal water were made to individuals, who were subsequently held to have received them for the benefit of the community. The land grants to the proprietors of East and West Jersey, including between them all the territory which subsequently became the State of New Jersey, were of this sort. In a suit between individuals after the Revolution it was decided that the proprietors by their grants obtained from the crown j urisdiction and title to uplands, but only jurisdiction to lands under water. It followed that transfers of land under water by the proprietors were invalid; and that these lands remained the property of the English Crown until the Revolution, and then passed to the State of New Jersey. There are, therefore, no valid colonial grants of land under navigable water in New Jersey, all title to it being in the state or its transferees. It was the well known case of Gough v. Bell28 which, more or less in conformity with earlier cases less explicit, conclusively settled the law in New Jersey to the effect that the title to all land below high water mark in the tidal waters of that state is in the state; prior to which decision the owner of upland bordering on these waters, relying, as in a number of other states, upon custom and implied license, had freely wharfed out over lands under water to the navigable channel. It does not follow that the riparian owner may not wharf out and reclaim, within limits that will not interfere with navigation, without express license or grant of title from the state; indeed, in a number of states where the title to these lands is in the state, his right to do so has been sustained by the courts. In New Jersey, however, on account of the uncer 206 PUBLIC RECREATION The Wharf Act The Wharf Act29 is in effect a permit to riparian owners on tidal waters to build wharves, fill in and reclaim the land in front of their upland between high and low water mark and wharf out over land below low water mark upon obtaining a license so to do from the board of chosen freeholders of the county in which the land lies; who grant the application if no interference with navigation is to be apprehended. The applicant is given five years from the date of obtaining his permit within which to make his improvement; and the land embraced in the permit, or so much of it as is improved within that time, "shall be vested in said shore owner, in the same manner, for the same estate, and with the same limitations over * * * as the lands along said tide waters in front of which the same were made may be." The owner cannot improve any lands the title to which, or any easement therein, by grant of the state or otherwise, is in another; "and nothing herein contained shall, before any improvement be actually made by virtue thereof, prevent the state from appropriating to public use the lands lying under water, in the same manner as could be done before the passage of this act; and the board of chosen freeholders of the county wherein the same may be, may require any wharf so built beyond low water mark, or any part thereof, to be kept as a public wharf, open to all persons whatever, under such regulations and at such reasonable rates of wharfage as they may direct." The Wharf Act originally applied to all the tidal waters of the state. The courts have held that the title to lands under non-tidal navigable waters is in the riparian proprietor; since in New Jersey, without large rivers or lakes, there is no reason to depart from the English common law rule.'0 Other Acts Authorizing Grants In 1869 an act was passed" establishing bulkhead and pierhead lines in the Hudson River, New York Bay and parts of Kill van Kull, repealing the Wharf Act as to those waters. It should be noted that the act of 1869, with its repeal, did not apply to Newark Bay. The repeal "shall not be construed to restore any supposed usage, right, custom or local common law, founded upon the tacit consent of the state or otherwise, to fill in any land under water below mean high tide; and without the grant or permission of" the riparian commissioners, appointed by the act "no person or corporation shall fill in, build upon, or make any erection on, or reclaim any of the land under the tide waters of this state in New York Bay, Hudson River, or Kill van Kull; and in case any person or corporation so offending, shall be guilty of a purpresture, which shall be abated," etc. Existing grants and legislative licenses are confirmed and previously issued licenses granted by the freeholders, in so far as executed, declared irrevocable, but for the future revoked. The riparian commissioners are given the power to confirm prior grants. On six months' notice to the riparian owner the commissioners may make grants to non-riparian applicants. In confirmatory grants the commissioner may covenant that no rights will be given affecting lands "in front "2 of the land granted; and the grant may be to the grantee, his heirs, successors and assigns "in perpetuity." The grants shall be within harbor lines. In 1871 a statute was passed33 which, without repealing the Wharf Act any further, authorized the riparian commissioners to make grants to tidal riparian owners anywhere in the state, which "shall vest all the rights of the state in said lands" in the grantee. In the same year another statute was passed" authorizing grants both of land at the time under water and of land not at the time below it; the purpose of the act being to enable the commissioners to quiet title to land filled in where their authority to do so was doubtful." In 189136 the repeal of the Wharf Act was extended to all the waters of the state. Nature of Grantees' Rights Under the Wharf Act and private statutes granting similar privileges the holder of such rights may, the courts have repeatedly said, acquire absolute title by reclaiming, but prior to so doing has merely a revocable license; whereas under the statute of 1869 and others the state may, and usually does, make a transfer "in presente."'7 A difference between the two LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER 207 titles is brought out by the cases with regard to the dedication of highways running to or along tide waters. If the owner of upland so dedicating, or his grantee, subsequently acquires title to land under water by reclaiming under license, he is bound by his dedication, and the municipality is entitled to continue the highway over the new land to tide water; but if such owner acquired title from the state and fills in, he is not bound by the dedication; the state, purport constitution40 and statutes41 as interpreted by the courts,42 irrevocably constituted a trust fund for the support of the schools of the state. As a result the state cannot transfer land to municipalities for a nominal consideration. The Riparian Commissioners of New Jersey in their report for 1870 say that New Jersey has adopted a liberal policy with regard to land under water, imposing no onerous restrictions or reservations; its policy in this respect being very FIG. 45 MAP OF PORTION OF WATERFRONT IN NEW JERSEY SHOWING TITLE TO LAND UNDER WATER ing to do so, having granted all its rights, including a release of the highway easement.38 The policy of the state in its grants of land under water has varied more or less from time to time. It has given leases for a term of years, perpetual leases with a ground rent, with or without a provision giving the lessee a right, on paying a fixed sum, to obtain the entire title, and absolute grants."9 It has made grants through the riparian commissioners and by special statutes. The proceeds of sales and leases and the lands and leases themselves are, by the different from that of the State of New York. Of late years, in New Jersey as in New York, the state has been diligent in the enforcement of its rights to land under tidal water. In 191543 the Board of Commerce and Navigation was created and the powers of the Riparian Commissioners, with that of various other commissions dealing with navigable waters and allied subjects, transferred to it. The present policy of the state seems to be to give all applicants for land under water to whom it is granted the most complete title it can convey 208 PUBLIC RECREATION and on application to convert leases into similar grants, in every case charging full value for the full rights given. Planning Power of State In states in which, as in New Jersey, the state owns the land under tidal waters, the state has the power to supervise the planning of the waterfront of the municipalities within it or itself to plan this waterfront, in so far as seems desirable. New Jersey has enacted statutes for this purpose. In 1895 an Act" was passed forbidding grants near the Palisades of the Hudson which would mar their beauty; and two leases, under this statute, have been declared void.45 In 1898 the statute was amended41 making it less effective. In 1922 4 it was again amended by adding a definition of the word "Palisades," prior leases being practically validated. The statutes authorize grants to municipalities for waterside parks and provide41 that "whenever any public park has been or shall hereafter be laid out or provided for by ordinance of any city or other municipality, under the authority of any act of the legislature of this state, along or fronting upon any of the tide waters of this state, and whenever any streets or highways shall extend to said tide waters" the commission may grant to such municipality the land under water within the limits of said park or in front of said highway, and "no conveyance shall hereafter be made by the said commissioners, except to the municipality aforesaid, of any land under water within the limits of such part or within the lines or at the end of any such public street or highway or oceanward thereof." This statute, if constitutional in New Jerseyy4 would seem to enable a municipality in that state, by placing a park on the city map or equivalent action, to cause the adjacent land under water to be reserved for its future purchase for park purposes. There could be no doubt of the validity of such a law in the State of New York. A number of statutes provide that the commissioners shall make surveys of the waterfront and furnish municipalities, on request, with plans for waterfront improvement. A statute passed in 191450 creates a method by which the state may supervise the planning of harbors and waterfronts throughout the state or itself plan them to a considerable extent if deemed desirable. This statute, after providing in Sections 1 and 2 for the appointment of a commission, its. secretary, etc., and in Section 3 for the inspection of navigable waters and the removal of unlawful encroachments by it, proceeds as follows: "4. All plans for the development of any waterfront upon any navigable water or stream of this State, or bounding thereon, which is contemplated by any person, corporation or municipality, in the nature of individual improvement or development, or as a part of a general plan which involves the construction, change, alteration or modification of a dock, wharf, pier, bulkhead, bridge, pipe line, cable, or any other similar or dissimilar waterfront development, to be undertaken subsequent to the passage of this act, shall first be submitted to the said commission, and no such development or improvement enumerated within the provisions of this section, or included within a proper interpretation thereof, shall be commenced or executed without the approval of this commission first had and received, or as hereinafter provided. Upon the presentation of plans for any such improvement, the commission shall forthwith consider the same, and shall, if necessary or desirable, hold public meetings for the consideration thereof, under such rules and regulations as the commission may establish. Before any plans are approved or disapproved, the commission shall have power, except as hereinafter prov ided, to direct such changes or alterations in the plans submitted as it may deem necessary or advisable, as a condition precedent to approval. Where such waterfront is under the control of any local board, commission or other governing body, createdabyean act of the Legislature, now or hereafter, having power to improve or develop the waterfront or exercising such authority that a permit or license must be granted by it before any improvement or development may be commenced, plans proposed by it or submitted to it shall be filed with the commission created under this act. The said commission created under this act may, within ten days after the receipt by it of plans as above provided, file notice of objections to the carrying out of such improvement or development, or to the granting of such permit or license by the local board, commission or other governing body, and the filing of such notice shall act as a stay in the LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER 209 carrying out of such plans or in the granting of such permit or license until a public hearing shall have been held by the local board, commission or other governing body, sitting jointly with the commission created under this act. At such public hearing the commission created under this act may state its objections to the plans and recommend such changes, modifications or alterations as it deems necessary. The local board, commission or other governing body, together with the commission created under this act, shall then either approve or disapprove the plans, or grant or refuse to grant the permit or license as in their judgment seems necessary or desirable. Any development or improvement enumerated within the provisions of this section, or included within a proper interpretation thereof, which shall have been commenced or executed without first obtaining approval as provided in this section, shall be deemed to be a purpresture and a public nuisance and shall be abated in the name of the State of New Jersey in such action as shall be appropriate for that purpose; provided, however, this section shall not apply to, or affect, any development for docks, shipping and transportation facilities heretofore inaugurated by a municipality, which is under construction in whole or in part, if such municipality has, prior to the passage of this act, filed with the Secretary of State a map showing the lands proposed to be taken for such municipal development. "5. Any county, town, township, borough, city or other political subdivision of this State, may request the said commission to prepare and propose for such municipality a proper plan for the development and improvement of its waterfront upon any navigable stream, river or waters of this State, or bounding thereon, and it shall be the duty of the said commission to prepare and submit such plan or plans for the improvement and development of the waterfront of such municipality, the navigation of the waters incident thereto, and the regulation and improvement of the traffic of commerce incident thereto. The said commission for the preparation and submission of such plans may make such charge against the municipality requesting the same as is equal to the actual cost of the preparation of such plans of improvement, and the municipality requesting the same is hereby authorized to pay the same from any funds in the treasury of the said municipality."5' The laws appointing a commission to study the Port of New York,52 requiring muncipalities within the Port area to report contemplated improvements to it53 and creating a Port of New York Authority,54 are all important in this connection. In addition to the questions settled by statute and decisions interpreting them there remain questions determined largely or wholly by court decisions. Riparian's Rights Entirely Statutory In New Jersey, as already stated, the fee simple to land below tidal waters is in the state. In many states where the law on this point is the same the riparian nevertheless has easements of access and similar rights in this land. In New Jersey the case of Stevens v. Paterson and Newark R. R. Co.55 is universally regarded as decisive to the effect that the upland owner, in the absence of statute, has no rights in these lands which the state is under any obligation to respect;56 and that case has been followed on this point by many others. This doctrine is in accord with the New Jersey law with regard to the rights of the abutting owner in the highway. In New Jersey, as elsewhere, the abutter on a street in which the public has taken merely an easement retains, as a rule, the reversionary interest. Merely as abutter, however, he does not have easements of light, air and access as he does in New York and a number of other states, or any rights at all in the street except as a member of the general public. Nevertheless the abutter's adjacency to the street, in fact adding to the value of his land, like adjacency to a park, may be the basis of an assessment for special benefit, and is recognized as a part of the value of the lot, subject to taxation.57 His claim to damages for street closing, like his claim for change of grade, is based upon statutes granting him compensation when his land is damaged but no interest in it is actually taken. The same law holds with regard to the riparian owner and land below high water mark under tidal waters. He cannot be taxed for these lands unless title has been granted him by the state. An unexecuted license to reclaim under special statute or the general wharf act does not change the situation in this respect. He can, however, be taxed for the added value which adjacency to 210 PUBLIC RECREATION these lands gives his upland.58 He is given a preferential privilege to reclaim these lands by purchasing title from the state, but that privilege is of grace and not of right. The state can grant the entire title to any applicant and is not obliged to make provision for compensation to the riparian proprietor; indeed, in a few cases, such grants have been made. The state, however, recognizes the moral claim of the riparian in this land and usually respects it; but if the State of New Jersey chose, under appropriate legislation, to build in New Jersey a walk for public use below high water mark, as was done at Coney Island, there could be no possibility of a legal claim for damages by the riparian in front of whose lands it was constructed.59 In New Jersey, as in most states, the state can cut off the access of the riparian owner to any extent by works in aid of navigation. In New York and some other states this is on the theory that an easement for navigation in these lands exists; in New Jersey it is because the riparian as such has no rights in the land.60 Rights of Public So far nothing has been said directly with regard to the rights of the people in the lands below high water mark in New Jersey; and very little can be found on the subject. It has been said repeatedly that the state, having absolute title, can pass absolute title to its grantee. Does it follow that while the licensee cannot exclude the public from the lands in front of his riparian holding until he has reclaimed, and then only to the extent that he has done so, (and this the decisions hold), the grantee of the entire title of the state could exclude the public at once upon receiving his grant? In Polhemus v. Bateman61 it was held that he could not do so; but in Burkhead v. Henry Co.62 it was said that the decision in the Polhemus case was based upon the language of the grant, which did not, rightly interpreted, profess to give him this right until he had reclaimed. In the Burkhead case it was held that the state had given the grantee, in appropriate language, the immediate exclusive right, which he could exercise. The case is, however, only another of the many illustrations of the wealth of dicta and the dearth of actual decision in this matter. The case was one of ejectment and it was decided that the plaintiff could before reclamation prevail in the action against the defendant who had erected and was maintaining a wharf on the land granted to plaintiff. It would be strange indeed if plaintiff could not protect his undoubted rights in this land which, clearly, defendant had invaded, regardless of his ability or inability to exclude the public desirous of bathing or boating for pleasure there. Equally inconclusive is the case of Perrine v. Warner.63 In 1788 a statute64 was passed entitled "An Act to enable owners of tide swamps and marshes to improve the same," etc. For that purpose the statute authorized the formation of a corporation composed of some, but not all, of the upland owners of land in front of which a given tract under tidal waters lay, and the corporation was given power to improve this tidal land and assess the cost of so doing upon its owner. The method of improvement was to erect a bank to exclude the tidal waters; but at certain seasons it was customary, after such an improvement, to allow the tide to enter for a time to enrich the land. Evidently the upland owners were merely licensees to improve the flooded land with no title to it, under New Jersey law, until it was reclaimed. In 1806 an amendment to the act65 was passed giving the manager of the corporation the right, if a given assessment was not paid, to sell for a term of ninety-nine years a lease of enough of the land upon which it was imposed to pay the assessment; the lessee being authorized to exclude the owner "and all others" during the term. The bank opposite the tract in question had been broken and the land had been under tidal waters for twenty-five years. This action was brought by an assignee of such a lessee. The plaintiffs claimed, first, that the land in question, having once been reclaimed, remained so and did not revert to the state on account of being flooded; and, second, that in any case the authority to grant a lease was sufficient to pass full title; while the defendants claimed that the land had reverted to the state. The court, without passing upon the first point, held that the lease was a transfer of title and not a mere license; and that LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER 211 the provision giving the lessee and his assigns power to exclude the owner "and all others" was valid and included the state itself. Evidently the right of the people to the use of the shore is not involved in this case. More closely in point is Simpson v. Moorhead.66 In this action an injunction was asked for to restrain defendant from entering banked land, at the time overflowed by the tide, for the purpose of hunting and fishing. The defendant had leased these lands to the plaintiff and claimed the right to enter, as a member of the general public, for the reason that the land had reverted to the state at the time the lease was made; and the lease was void. The injunction was granted both because the defendant could not attack his own lease and because the lands reclaimed had not reverted. The court on the latter point said: " It may, I think, be truthfully said that in no case has the overflow of such meadows by the tide, whether it happened by accident or design, ever been accompanied by a purpose to abandon the property. Almost invariably, during the period when overflow is permitted, some acts of ownership over the submerged lands are asserted by the owner." The case was before a Vice Chancellor, who delivered the opinion orally. NEW YORK LAW Importance of Grants The law of lands under navigable waters in the State of New York, as it is today, rests upon the same foundations as the law of today on this subject in Connecticut and New Jersey. The superstructure of the New York law, however, has been affected in its growth by an active interplay of factors such as is not to be found in the other two states. In all three of the states title to land under water rests upon grants from the English Crown. In Connecticut, as shown on page 204, under the decisions of their courts, these grants have become merely a matter of historical background; and in New Jersey, as shown on page 205, the courts have entirely eliminated them from the chain of title. In New York, however, colonial grants continue to be a matter to be considered with care by the courts in determining the present rights of the various parties interested in land under the navigable waters of the state. In Connecticut, as stated on page 203, there are no statutes of importance in the evolution of the law on this subject and practically no transfers from the state of land under water; in New Jersey, as stated on page 207, the statutes and the practice of the agency of the state for the sale of these lands have produced comparatively simple forms of grant. In New York these forms are numerous and complicated; for they were framed to carry out the changing policies of the state expressed not only in statutes fixing in varying ways from time to time the rights to be transferred but in the acts of the agents of the state authorized in varying degrees from time to time to exercise their discretion, and exercising it from time to time in accordance with their changing views of expediency and the public advantage. Titles and the various rights in land under water within the limits of the state, therefore, are based not only upon grants of the English Crown to individuals or local governments but upon the grants of the state by private statute and by the agents of the state in the numerous forms employed by them under its authority; and it is in construing these grants that, in no small measure, the courts of the state have created the law of land under water as it is in this state today. It is well worth our while, therefore, to consider these grants in the light of their history before taking up the cases to which they have given rise.67 Indian Titles New York State, in common with the rest of the country, was first in the possession of the Indians. They have been held, however, to have had merely possession and not title to the land, whether upland or land under water, and they and their law do not, practically, enter at all into our subject.68 Dutch Titles New York City and its environs were first settled by the Dutch, and grants of land, sometimes of land under water alone or of upland expressly including land under water, usually of land so described as to raise the question whether 212 212 PUBLIC RECREATION land under water was included within its bounds, were made by the Dutch. These grants raise questions of civil law not as interpreted byDutch authorities but as expounded by the common law courts of this country, whose views of what Dutch law of the time of the grant was might not always be those of the Dutch themselves. Confirmation of Dutch Grants After the English settlement of those parts of New York never in Dutch possession and their conquest of those portions of the state that the Dutch had formerly held, it was necessary that the Dutch grants, in order to be valid, should be confirmed by English patents; for the title to all these lands was then in the English Crown. These confirmatory patents are to be interpreted by our own common law. English Grants The English Crown and its representatives made many grants, expressly or by possible implication passing more or less full rights to land under water to portions of New York State never in Dutch possession. These grants were made to freeholders of towns in behalf of their communities, to towns and other municipalities expressly and to individuals. The grants were sometimes made for certain purposes, sometimes subject to implied or express conditions, sometimes, in terms, outright. The grantees made, or attempted to make, partial or complete transfers of their rights, in their turn subject or not to limitations and conditions. All these grants have been passed upon from that day to this by our own common law courts, with viewvs changing from decade to decade as the views of courts do change in a- developing country on a puzzling subject such as this. The various constitutions of the state have limited this right to some slight extent. Prior to the American Revolution while title to ungranted land under navigable water in this country remained in the English Crown, grants of land under water were usually to be found Since the Revolution grants of land under water have invariably been made separately. This change in the method of transferring such lands is practically of considerable importance. The limits of colonial grants and the rights within these limits have been found to be difficult of determination and even to this day are, for these reasons, frequently before the courts for adjudication. The specific grant is free from many of these difficulties. At the time of the revolution from England the English Crown in so far as it had not alienated them held title to lands under water within the limits of the present State of New York. This title was subject to the rights of the adjoining upland owner and of the general public, as well as to the regulatory power of Parliament. At that time these rights were not the same in lands situated in New York as in lands located in England; for local custom here had, as our courts have held, modified those rights. Upon the occurrence of the Revolution the State of New York succeeded to all the rights in these lands at that time remaining in the English Crown and Parliament.69 Rights of Federal Government Upon the formation of the Constitution of the United States the government of the United States obtained from the State of New York paramount control over these lands in so far as is necessary for the regulation of interstate commerce and navigation. To some slight extent, also, the power of the state government over these lands has been limited by the adoption of state constitutions. With these exceptions the right of the State of New York in lands under water is that of the English Crown and Parliament from whom it was obtained. State Grants Grants of land under water are made by the state either directly or through an agency empowered by it to make such transfers in its behalf. Within certain limits it may as owner LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER 213 FIG. 46 MIAP OF PORTION OF WVATERFRONT IN NEW YORK STATE SBOWING TITLE TO LAND UNDER WVATER 214 PUBLIC RECREATION the legislature cannot' pass a private or local bill granting to a private party any exclusive privilege or franchise,72 nor can it7l donate lands under water to private parties without a twothirds vote.74 Grants of land under water are made by the State of New York either directly or through an agency empowered by it to make them. Grants by Commissioners of Land Office For the most part the state transfers its title to land under water through its agent, the Commissioners of the Land Office, created by Chapter 60 of the Laws of 1784. Through these commissioners the state may grant these lands to parties selected by the state and expressly named in special acts or may empower the commissioners, on given terms or in their discretion as to terms, to do so. Such transfers may be and often are made to parties other than the owners of the adjacent upland. For the most part the commissioners, in their sale of lands under water, act by virtue of general law. In such action they have always been restricted as to (1) the parties to whom they could alienate, (2) the areas within which they could transfer, (3) the terms and conditions of such transfers. The commissioners have also been given a varying power to make rules and regulations, to fix the forms of applications and grants and to determine procedure. Usually they have been free to choose which of more than one form of grant they would issue in a given case. It has thus been possible as a rule for them to formulate and carry out a policy in such matters. The Commissioners of the Land Office were first empowered by general law to grant land under navigable water by the Laws of 1786. (Chap. 67.) Under this law "no such grant shall be made in pursuance of this act, to any person whatever, other than the proprietor or proprietors of the adjacent lands." In all subsequent acts giving the commissioners general authority to transfer these lands, their power to do so has been similarly limited. When the Land Commissioners were first authorized to transfer land under water in 1786, they were given power to make such grants only under navigable waters. In 1807 this power was extended to lands under the Hudson River, adjacent to New Jersey. This was done, in spite of the fact that the Hudson was well known to be navigable at that point, by reason of the dispute between the States of New York and New Jersey. At that time the two states by virtue of the original colonial grant claimed both jurisdiction and title to land under water from the thread to the Jersey bank of the Hudson. The dispute was settled in 1834 by the well-known treaty between the states, under which New York was given jurisdiction to the Jersey shore, but New Jersey was given title to the land under water in that area. Grants to these lands are therefore derived exclusively from the State of New Jersey. In 1809 the powers of the commissioners were extended to include the grant of lands under water between high and low water mark around Great Barn or Wards Island. In 1815 it was enlarged to include land under navigable lakes, and such lands adjacent to Staten Island to extend not more than five hundred feet into the water from low water mark; except where legally established pier and bulkhead lines extend more than five hundred feet, in which case grants might be made to such lines. In 1835 (Chap. 232) the commissioners were given the further power to issue patents for land under water between high and low water mark around Long Island, and in the East River or Long Island Sound adjacent to the County of Westchester. In 1843 a special grant was made in the then City of Brooklyn and the additional power given the commissioners to grant lands under water in.front of lands in Brooklyn. The present law with regard to the territory within which the commissioners have general authority to grant land under water is the law of 1894 (Chap. 317, Art. 8) as amended in 1895, (Chap. 208) and, to a slight extent, subsequently; and is now Section 70 of the Public Lands Law.75 It is the law substantially as above stated except that in grants around Long Island the commissioners are not limited to areas between high and low water mark. Forms of Grants In our examination of the factors affecting the superstructure of the law of the State of New LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER21 215 York preliminary to a study of the development of the law in the court decisions on the subject, it remains to consider the different kinds or forms of grant of these lands made from time to time by the Commissioners of the Land Office under authority of general laws from time to time passed. There are a large number of these forms, each differing from the other in the rights they have created or preserved in these lands for the state, the grantee and the general public. It would be confusing to review. the differing grants in detail; instead, we will attempt to summarize them, at the same time showing the evolution through which they have come from their inception to the present time. The terms and conditions of the various grants and the rights and obligations of the yarious parties under them are fixed by virtue of: (1) The provisions of the law authorizing or directing the granting of certain rights, subject to certain conditions, obligations, etc., or granting the commissioners a greater or less discretion in the fixing of these rights, conditions and obligations; (2) The action of the commissioners under the discretion given them. The principal resulting forms of grants are the following: 1. The grant, in form a fee simple absolute. 2. The grant, in form a fee simple, for the promotion of commerce, there being, however, no formal reservations or conditions to enforce the purpose of the grant or preserve the rights of other parties interested. 3. The grant in fee simple with formal reservations or conditions, or both. The usual reservation is of the right- of the public to use the area granted as before until it is actually improved by the erection of docks, the filling in of land for a bulkhead, etc. The usual condition is that if the area in question is not so improved, it shall revert to the state. In some earlier grants of this sort the time within which the improvements specified shall be made, failing which the land shall revert to the state, is not stated. With the object of providing for such cases, Chapter 110 grants usually name the time for the performance of conditions in the grant itself. The law also provides in some cases, in the discretion of the commissioners, for an extension of time for the performance of conditions. 4. The grants for beneficial enjoyment. Under these grants the land granted need not, according to its terms, be used for the promotion of commerce. The forms of these grants are as follows: (a) The grant for the promotion of commerce or beneficial enjoyment. Such grants are in form often in fee., subject or not to formal reservations or conditions, or both. (b) The grant for beneficial enjoyment in form often in fee, subject or not to formal conditions or reservations, or both. Under the rules of the commissioners passed in 1894 grants for beneficial enjoyment without reservations or conditions were known as grants for full beneficial enjoyment, and grants with reservations and conditions were known as grants for restricted beneficial enjoyment. The rules of the commissioners adopted in 1920 abolished the so-called grant for full beneficial enjoyment. (c) The grant, whether for the promotion of commerce or for beneficial enjoyment, with the right of recapture upon repayment to the grantee of the amount paid by him and the value of his improvements. This form of grant is used by the state; and by the City of New York in cases where land within its limits, which it has the right to part with, is transferred by it. The state also at one time granted the right to erect docks, etc., without giving any interest in the land itself. This grant sometimes ran to the grantee's heirs and assigns and sometimes did not. The evolution of the water grant in the State of New York has been in the direction of retaining and safeguarding the rights of the state and the general public in the land granted. The first law passed in 1786 giving the commissioners the power to make such grants provided that they "shall vest the lands in fee simple." There is, as we shall see, (see p~age 221 et seq.) doubt 216 PUBLIC RECREATION they shall deem necessary to promote the commerce of this state." From the date of this statute until 1831 the grants were in form, with very frequent exceptions, a fee simple absolute, without exceptions, conditions or reservations of any kind whatsoever. Such grants have been made since that date; but by the Revised Statutes of 1827 and all subsequent legislation the provision that the grant shall vest a fee has been omitted. There is in the present law a provision first to be found in the Law of 1850 (Chap 283) that the commissioners may make the grants "in perpetuity or otherwise;" which does not by any means signify, much less require, an absolute fee. The commissioners in the Law of 1786 were also given the power to make the grants "in such words and forms as the said commissioners shall direct," a power which they have exercised ever since. The present forms of water grant were adopted by the Commissioners of the Land Office in 1920.76 They are two in number-the grant to promote commerce and the grant for beneficial enjoyment. Both these grants are in form a fee grant qualified by reservations and conditions and subject to the right of recapture.77 Thus beginning in form as an absolute fee, the water grant in the State of New York has become in form a much qualified fee with a right of recapture on most favorable terms. The line of progress, however, has not been a constant but a wavering one. In 1835 the law (Chap. 232) provided that the commissioners should have "no other power than to authorize the erection of such dock or docks as they shall deem necessary to promote the commerce of this state, and the collection of a reasonable and accustomed dockage from persons using such dock or docks;" which is only a license, conveying no interest in the land. In 1850 (Chap. 283) the commissioners were again authorized to grant the land itself "in perpetuity or otherwise" and either for the purpose of promoting commerce or for beneficial enjoyment, the form adopted by the commissioners providing for a fee with exceptions and reservations; and as late as 1894 the form of grant "for full and beneficial enjoyment," in fee without qualification of any sort, was adopted by the commissioners and used by them. It was not until 1899 that the grant for full beneficial enjoyment was abolished on the report of the then Secretary of State to the effect that in his judgment the commissioners had no legal right to make such grants. 78 The recapture clause was first used in 1902 at the request of the City of New York in the case of grants by the state of land under water within the limits of the city to any party other than the city; and is now, as we have seen, employed in grants of such lands by the state wherever situated. In restatement and review of the foregoing history of water grants in New York, it may be well to give a list of the principal varieties of these grants, as follows: Crown grants to individuals. Such grants may be transferred by the grantee at his pleasure. Crown grants to towns. Lands so granted are town lands which the town may transfer without authority of the legislature;7" but a vote of the electors of the town is necessary. In many cases towns have been absorbed by cities or other towns and their lands have passed to their successor. Crown grants to municipalities. Statutory grants by the state to municipalities; grants to municipalities by the land commissioners by virtue of a special statute, such grants being usually made for a specific purpose, such as the promotion of commerce, the municipality being given the right, as a rule, to transfer portions of its grants to individuals for the same purpose. In such transfers the municipality often itself imposes conditions, makes reservations, etc. State grants to railroad corporations of right of way. Such grants are merely easements of passage. Grants may be made to such corporations for purposes other than right of way; in which cases they receive a grant similar to that made other private parties. It should be noted that it is the owner of the fee and not the railroad with the right of way on the water's edge who is the proprietor to whom by statute the land commissioners must first offer the adjacent land under water."0 State grants by private statute to private parties. Such grants have usually been either LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER 217 to promote commerce or for beneficial enjoyment. Grants by the state through its agents, the land commissioners, by authority of general laws. Such grants have been of many sorts. The history of water grants, already given, indicates the different varieties, too numerous to give in this table in full. The main forms are: (a) The license to construct wharves, piers, etc. This conveys no interest in the land itself. (b) The grant in form a fee simple absolute, without reservations or conditions. (c) The grant for a given purpose, usually for the promotion of commerce; but without conditions or reservations for the enforcement of the purpose. (d) The grant for the promotion of commerce, with the condition that if the land is not improved for this purpose it shall revert to the state or municipality. In some cases no time is stated in which the improvement must be made. To cover such cases a statute was passed allowing the state, if grantor, to fix a time with relation to such grant within which the improvement must be made, to prevent the land from reverting. In later grants the time is generally fixed in the grant itself.81 (e) A similar grant for beneficial enjoyment, in which the grantee is authorized to fill the land and use it for non-commercial purposes. (f) A grant similar to (d) or (e) reserving to the public the right to use the land until it is improved. (g) A grant similar to (f) in which the grantor reserves the right to recapture the land on repayment of the purchase price, payment for improvements, etc. Duty of Attorney General It is the duty of the Attorney General to protect in legal proceedings the rights of the state and the people in lands under water. He defends suits in which title to specific tracts of such lands are involved and brings suit for such tracts to which in his opinion the state is entitled. In these proceedings rights only in the specific tract directly in question are conclusively and finally settled, and claimants who are not parties to this suit may litigate their rights in other pro ceedings; but underlying grants are often of necessity interpreted, and such interpretations are of great weight in subsequent proceedings. Often it is the rights of the people in these lands which the Attorney General seeks to vindicate. In pursuance of his duties the Attorney General investigates the grants of the state or its predecessor in title and seeks to recover lands in which the conditions of the grant have not been fulfilled by the grantee. The Attorney General has been most active and vigilant in these respects. Nature of Rights It remains to consider the rights in land under the waters of the State of New York, of the state, the riparian owner and the public in the light of judicial decision. In New York these rights are not, as in England, limited to lands beneath its tidal waters but extend to all lands under the navigable waters within the state.82 The rights run to high water mark except in the smaller navigable lakes, where they go only to low water mark.a8 Rights of State In New York the title to these lands, except as they have been alienated, is in the state in trust, as many cases hold, for the promotion and protection of navigation.84 As owner, the state, whenever it is free to sell, is equally free to hold its land, to sell certain rights in it and retain others, or to sell subject to such conditions as it sees fit to impose. It may be guided by aesthetic considerations and forbid its agents to sell land under water along the Hudson for uses which might deface the river, as New Jersey has done, or impose a plan of development upon lands under water as a condition of sale, which New Jersey has also done (see page 208 et seq.); or give to parks land under water adjacent to them, as it has done on Long Island.8s In short the State of New York may to some extent formulate, has formulated, and to a much greater extent should formulate and follow policies in retaining or disposing of its lands under water, giving due regard to all public interests involved. The fact that the state, like any other land 218 218 PUBLIC RECREATION owner, may give away its lands under water has not always resulted to the public advantage."8 It has made gratuitous grants of submerged lands on Coney Island, Staten Island and elsewhere which it or its municipalities have found it necessary to repurchase at the expenditure of millions of dollars. It has, however, in many cases given such lands to local governments for public use, greatly for the public advantage. Of late years the state has been much more prudent in dealing with this asset which in certain localities is of such great value to the public; but no thorough study of this property has ever been made; and, evidently, it is impossible to deal wisely with it in the absence of such a survey. Like any other land owner the state, as we have seen, is free to sell its rights in land under water to anyone it pleases. The Land Board, by the terms of the statute under which it acts, must first offer these lands to the adjacent riparian owner; but the state by special statute or general act often transfers them to railroad corporations, municipal corporations, etc. without making any such offer; and the riparian owner is not entitled to any compensation. If in pursuance of its title the grantee does any act which deprives the riparian of access to the water, for this loss of access he is entitled to compensation. Rights of Riparian Owner The owner of the title or fee in lands adjacent to lands under water owvns the riparian rights in it. The laying out of an easement highway by a municipality, or the acquisition of a right of way by a railroad corporation (see page 216) does not deprive the fee owner of these interests or give the easement owner any claim or share in them. Riparian rights are appurtenant to the riparian land and cannot be severed from it by sale or other transfer of these rights.87 The rights of the riparian owner are all included in the comprehensive right of access. That right in New York, as in Connecticut, (but not in New Jersey, see pages 209-10), is property, state or a local government as the agent of the state for the improvement of navigation.89 Even a railroad corporation, chartered to promote commerce but operating also for private gain, must compensate him in this case.90 The state and its subdivisions cannot appropriate this right without payment for any public purpose other than the promotion of commerce.9' It has been held that the state and its subdivisions by its authority can acquire this interest without compensation,9" the theory being that the niparian land is subject to this easement. Without question the right may be regulated in many ways without remuneration.93 The right of access in New York, as in Connecticut, (but not in New Jersey, see pages 209-10), is property which the riparian owner has, in addition to the public right, by reason of the situation of his land. In this country very generally by local custom originating in early colonial times it includes not only access to the water but the use of the land under water to facilitate access. This exists whether the title to this land be in a private owner, a municipality or the state.914 In pursuance of that right the riparian may without payment wharf out over this land to deep water. The riparian owner is only one of the parties with property interests in the- adjacent submerged land. His right is that of reasonable use, and he is not legally damaged by the reasonable use of it by others even if his use is thereby slightly obstructed.9' Thus the owner of this land cannot prevent the erection and maintainance of telegraph or telephone poles on the foreshore.98 A bath house on the foreshore, however, even if the riparian's lot is a wide one, is an infringement of his rights;97 for he has the right of access from his entire water front; but the erection of a small temporary tent may be permissible.99 Structures hanging over a stream are not unobjectionable for the reason that they do not touch the land under water.99 Without substantial injury to the riparian owner there would seem to be many uses to which the state or a municipality owning the foreshore LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER 219 each end of a strip of foreshore to which it holds legal title, and invite the public to pass along it for its recreation. The riparian owner may, it is true, build a wharf on this land but may not obstruct the public in its access unnecessarily-in so doing. Also it would seem that the state or municipality may not only fill in the land under water, owned by it, in front of its upland, but may similarly reclaim it in front of the upland owned by others, if it can do so without substantially interfering with their access to the water. Whether this could be done and how would depend in any particular case upon cir area like that in and around New York City, are the rights of the general public in the navigable waters of the state and the land beneath them. These rights will be analyzed, first, as they exist in these waters while the land remains in the ownership of the state; second, as the rights in the waters may be affected by the transfer of the land under them; and third, as these rights exist in the land itself. In general the right of the public in the navigable waters of the state is that of passage over it. The claim of commerce is paramount,10t but the right of the public to resort to these waters Public Privtely owdea(up/land Public High water line, the /itn0 of pub/ic ownership f'oreshore cons/i5ting of sand beach Publicly owned Loow water line--,, Tidal water FIG. 47 SUGGESTION FOR INEXPENSIVE RECREATION DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE PUBLIc Now OWNS THE FORESHORE (Diagram shows possible connection of small waterfront public parks of 3 and 5 acres by a highway to be constructed on the privately-owned foreshore, the cost of constructing the highway to be assessed upon the owners of the upland.) cumstances such as whether the upland was available for intensive commercial use, the distance from shore of the filled land, its location with relation to the channel, etc. The fact that the upland might possibly or eventually be useful for a purpose which would be hampered by the proposed filling would not seem to be a valid objection to it if the eventuality were sufficiently remote; for if a change of conditions made the filling objectionable, it could then be abated.o10 Rights of Public Last to be considered but by no means least important, especially in a congested metropolitan for fishing or any appropriate recreation or other legitimate purpose is well settled.102 This phase of our subject is excellently summed up in a leading case in Massachusetts as follows: " It is contended by the petitioners that the changes made by the commission were not made for the improvement of navigation, and therefore were not authorized, under the rules of law stated above. In the first place, we think it would be too strict a doctrine to hold that the trust for the public, under which the state holds and controls navigable tide waters and the land under them, beyond the line of private ownership, is for navigation alone. It is wider in its scope, and it includes all necessary 220 PUBLIC RECREATION and proper uses, in the interest of the public. In Commonwealth v. Roxbury, 9 Gray 451, 483, Chief Justice Shaw, in speaking of the seashores and the land under the sea, said of the king 'that he held the same publicijjuris for the use and benefit of all subjects, for all useful purposes, the principal of which were navigation and the fisheries.' As the state is not only the holder of the title but the representative of the people, it may exercise the police power over the property for their good. The rights of individuals, both in their persons and in the use of their property, are subject to the exercise of the police power. "103 With the right of the public to use the navigable water goes the right of resort to land below high water mark for similar purposes, whether that land is at the time covered with water or not. The leading case on this point in New York is Barnes v. Midland Railroad Terminal Company.104 In that case both the plaintiff and the defendant owned upland on Staten Island and ran shore resorts. The defendant obtained a grant of land under water adjacent to its upland for the purpose of erecting a pier and other substantial buildings on it, but by the terms of the grant was forbidden in any manner to obstruct the public right of passage between high and low water mark. The lower court held that although the pier violated the terms of the grant, which the state could enforce, the plaintiff could not bring suit because there was no right of passage in the public along the foreshore. The upper court, reversing the court below, held that there was such a public right of passage and that therefore the plaintiff, being specially damaged, could maintain the suit. No decision could be clearer or more emphatic than this one in favor of the right of the public to resort to the foreshore for seaside recreation. The reasoning on which the court based its decision is as follows: Both in England and in this country the king owned the land under water. In this country, as early custom shows, the king abandoned certain rights in these lands which he retained in England. Thus in England the ownership of the king prevents the adjacent riparian owner from wharfing out over the submerged land; but the courts of this state105 and many others have decided that in this country the riparian owner has this right. The right of resort to the foreshore was, the court holds, similarly abandoned; and passed to the people.106 This is the logical result of our cases and in accord with the development of our history and the spirit of our institutions. The defendant could maintain a reasonable pier; and to the extent that it necessarily interfered with the public right of passage, his right was paramount; but so far as he went beyond this the public right prevails. This is so because the defendant, as riparian owner, can acquire only those rights in the foreshore which are necessary to enable him to make a reasonable use of his upland; leaving to the public a reasonable use of the foreshore. There are many cases in New York illustrating and defining the public right of passage. The seashore is not a highway for public travel on foot or in vehicles in the sense that a member of the public lawfully on it can recover damages for injury due to what would be a defect in an ordinary highway; he must take it as he finds it.107 These are the rights of the public in lands under navigable water so long as the lands remain the property of the state. What are the rights of the public in lands transferred by the state to private parties? Before answering this question it will be necessary to answer another. Can the state, holding these lands in trust, alienate them in this way; or rather, since the state has been parting with them for more than a hundred years and no one seriously questions its right to do so,108 when and to what extent can the state part with its rights in them? This latter question cannot be considered in all its bearings until we ascertain upon what title the state holds the lands. It is well settled law that the State of New York holds title to its lands under navigable waters in trust for the protection of the right of its people to navigate these waters.109 The public also, as we have just seen, has the right to resort to these lands and waters for the recreations to which by nature they are peculiarly suited. If the right of resort ever passed to the state, it must have been in trust, leaving the beneficial interest in the people. In that event LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER22 221 the cases with regard to the duty of the state as trustee to preserve in these lands and waters the public's rights of navigation would demonstrate its duty to preserve the public's right of resort in them. Late cases, however, seem to hold that the right of resort has passed wholly to and is vested in the people themselves and has never been in the state at all."10 The answer to the question when and to what extent the state can part with its rights to land,under water is, therefore, only when and to the extent that such alienation in any particular case does not deprive the people of their rights. It may therefore transfer these lands to private parties for the promotion by them of navigation or public recreation. It may also sell these lands to private parties for their "beneficial enjoyment " in no way related to public uses, but only if the land is not needed for navigation or recreation. There are analogies in related fields. A municipality holds street land in trust for street purposes, but may sell it for private use in so far as not needed for streets. Before this can be done, the portion of the street sold must be " discontinued" by permission of the state legislature. Similarly land held for park purposes may be devoted to other purposes or sold for private use. The state cannot transfer land under navigable water to private parties, for the promotion of commerce or beneficial use, so situated or to such an extent as to deprive the state unduly of its control over navigation,"' or recreation; and, on the same reasoning, it seems clear that the state cannot transfer smaller areas which by reason of situation or otherwise are especially needed for navigation or public recreation. It is within the power of the land commissioners as agents of the state to decide whether or not a given parcel of land under water should be sold; and as a rule their action is not subject to judicial review." It seems evident, however, that a transfer by them would be set aside by the courts in a clear case of mistake or abuse of discretion; for in such a case the courts have The right of the United States to use lands under water for the regulation and promotion of navigation is paramount to that of the state"' but the United States has no rights in waters not needed for navigation."' In so far as the state can alienate land under water, it would seem that it can lose title to it by adverse possession."' In the light of the general principle that the state, holding land under water for the benefit of navigation and recreation or subject to these rights in the people, can only make such transfers of this land as promote these objects-, or are not needed for them, let us examine the various forms of transfer and ascertain their validity and effect. The state has granted the right to construct wharves, piers, etc. This is merely a license, conveying, technically, no interest in the land. The state evidently ma.ý convey such rights in a proper case. Such a transfer leaves in the general public the right to use the waters and lands of the state as before until the licensee avails himself of his license; and also after he has taken advantage of it, except as prevented by such use. The licensee is entitled only to a reasonable use of the land, as reasonably necessary to him under his license. In deciding what is reasonable, the rights of the public must be considered. The state may make a grant, in form a fee, conveying the right to fill in the land under water. Such grants are usually made subject to the express condition that if the improvement is not made, the state may enter and take possession of the land. Of such a grant the court in a recent case says: " Reaching the conclusion that these prior acts did not convey title to the lands under water unless filled in it becomes necessary for certain purposes to determine what were the extent and nature of the right granted before it had been exercised. This precise question does not appear to have been definitely settled in this state. In various states it has been held that all that is granted by such an act is a mere license, revocable by the state at will and 222 PUBLIC RECREATION " I think, however, that the privilege amounts to more than this, and that an act granting the right to fill in lands under water, and thereby acquire title to the same, gives an inchoate, vested interest in the lands described which is a property right and of which, unless forfeited or lost in some way, the grantee cannot be deprived without compensation. ii... I think the preponderance of authority in other jurisdictions is in favor of this view, and that indirectly it is sustained by what has been said in some of our own decisions. (Hodson v. Nelson, 122 Md. 330; Bradshaw v. Duluth I. M. Co., 52 Minn. 59; City of Boston v. Lecraw, 17 How. (U. S.). 426, 433; Fitchburg R. R. Co. v. Boston & Me. R. R., 3 Cush. 58; Yates v. Milwaukee, 10 Wall (U. S.) 497; Rumsey v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 79; Bradford v. McCuesten, 182 Mass. 80; Hamlin v. Fairpoint Mfg. Co., 141 Mass. 51; Norfolk City v. Cooke, 27 Grat. (Va.) 430; Clement v.DBurns, 43 N. H. 609; Hanford v. St. P. & Duluth R. R. Co., 43 Minn. 104; Miller v. Mendenhall, 43 Minn. 95; Lockwood v. N. Y. & N. H. R. R. Co., 37 Conn. 387.) "It, perhaps, is unnecessary to give a specific name to this right, but if we are to do this, it may as aptly be termed a franchise as anythingpelse. (Trustees of Southampton v. Jessup, 162 N. Y. 122.)r I think it possesses the nature of a franchise in one respect which may be of importance in this case. The only motive in the nature of a consideration for the grants which were made to claimant's predecessor was the one that he would exercise the privilege which was granted, and by filling in the lands and erecting docks, contribute to the commercial resources and facilities of the City of Brooklyn and save the state the expenses and uncertainties which it might incur if it embarked on this undertaking. (Williams v. Mayor, etc. of N. Y., 105 N. Y. 419, 436.) This, I have no doubt, was a necessarily implied condition of the grants and for a failure to comply therewith they could have been forfeited by the state. This principle, as applicable to the present situation, can be no better stated than was done in respect of a franchise in New York Electric Lines Co. v. Empire City Subway Co., (235 U. S. 179, 193, etc.) and where it was said: 'Grants like the one under consideration are not nude pacts, but rest upon obligations expressly or impliedly assumed to carry on the undertaking to which they relate. (See The Binghamton Bridge, 3 Wall. 51, 74; Pearsall v. Great Northern Railway Co., 161 U. S. 646, 6631-667.) They are made and received with the understanding that the recipient is protected by a contractual right from the moment the grant is accepted and during the course of performance as contemplated, as well as after that performance.' "117 In grants of franchises of this sort, the rights of the people to navigate the water and to resort to the land remain until the execution of the franchise necessarily deprives the people of these rights.' This is true whether the grant is for the promotion of commerce or for beneficial enjoyment.i" These are the rights of the people where there is a condition expressed in the grant that the state may re-enter if the franchise is not exercised. Grants have been made in times past for the promotion of commerce in which no such formal condition was inserted. In such cases it must still be regarded as uncertain whether the grant is in effect an absolute grant (if the state can make an absolute transfer) or is affected by a condition. In conveyances of upland, expressions of this sort with no condition formally expressed, have been held to be mere words of description, leaving the grant an unqualified one, and there is a decision to this effect with regard to a grant of land under water.119 The state has in the past in some cases made grants in form an absolute and unqualified fee; the grant being for beneficial enjoyment, in which it could not be claimed that the fact that it was conveyed for the improvement of navigation, even without a condition or reservation supporting it, qualified the grant. Such a grant purports to give the grantee the power at once to exclude the public from the lands included within its limits without any filling or other substantial permanent improvement necessarily keeping the public out. Grants in form absolute, whether for the improvement of commerce or for beneficial enjoyment, are no longer made; the modern grant being, at most, a franchise to fill the land in and convert it into what is physically upland; or otherwise improve it substantially and permanently. It has been held that when so filled, the land does virtually at least become upland, and for most if not all purposes the grantee acquires an unqualified fee.120 LAW OF LAND UNDER WATER23 223 There is authority or at least dictum for the validity of the absolute grant of land under water.'2' This dictum has been much criticized and can by no means be regarded as recognized law. The' latest judicial utterance on this point is in Appleby v. City of New York,'122 in which the court says: "The plantiffs contend that the land under water between the bulkhead line and their westerly line was granted in fee simple absolute and for beneficial enjoyment; that no public right of navigation remained over the lands thus conveyed. "The question is to what extent has the state by its grants extinguished the jus publicum over such lands. "The state holds the title in fee to lands under water as sovereign for the public, subject to the right of the people to use the river as a water highway. The grant of the lands to the city in 1807 was for the purpose of enabling the city to regulate and construct slips, wharves and piers. The city sold the lands for the purpose of enabling the grantees to fill and use the land for the extension of streets thereon and the erection of wharves, piers, etc. "The g-rant was, therefore, not absolute and unqualified, but was subjlect to the rights of the public. (American Ice Co. v. City of New York, 217 N. Y.* 402, 405,7 406.)- The city could not exclude the public from the use of navigable waters and it could not grant the right to exclude the public from such use so long as the waters remained navigrable. It scarcely needs assertion that it could not destroy the navigability of the Hudson by making exclusive private grants. It could convey submerged lands along the shore to promote commerce, not to destroy it. "If plaintiffs' lands easterly of the bulkhead line had been actually filled in, they would no longer be lands under water and would be free from the regulatory power of the state (First Construction Co. v. State, 221 N. Y. 295), but so long as they remained under w-iater they were subject to the sovereign power of the state to regulate their use for the purposes of navigation. The state has delegated such. power to the city. il***Great cities have been built up by grants of land under water. The City of New York has been similarly developed by extending it over submerged lands. The promotion of the commercial prosperity of the port has been one purpose of such grants. But no case holds that any substantial interference with navigation may thus be authorized. Much that has been said in the cases as to the absolute and uncontrolled power of the state to grant the navigable waters for private purposes as it may grant the dry land it owns is dictum (People v. Steeplechase Park Co., 218 N. Y. 459; Langdon v. Mayor, 903 N. Y. 129), and in conflict with rules laid down in other well-considered cases which hold that the so-called jus prilvaturn, or absolute ownership of lands under navigable waters, together with the exclusive privilege in the waters themselves, which attached to the English' Crown, resides in the people in their sovereign capacity and cannot be conveyed for private purposes. (Town of Brookhaven v. Smith, 188 N. Y. 74; Barnes v. Midland R. R. Terminal Co., 193 N. Y. 3718.) The lands in question remain under the public waters of the state and so long as they remain such, the right to control navigation over them remains in the state to be exercised in the public interest. (Matter of Long Sault Development Co., 212 N. Y. 1; Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. Illinois, 146 U. 5. 387, 453.) The state has succeeded to the jus publicuin of the English Crown and not to the jus privatum (Town of Brookhaven v. Smith, supra; Gould on Waters, Sec. 17), notwithstanding much. unnecessary discussion of the latter doctrine. The jus privaturn in any event is at all times subject to the jus publicuitr. (Tiffany v. Town of Oyster Bay, 234 N. Y. 15.) The right of the grantee to fill in his land under water with solid filling (Duryea v. Mayor, 62 N. Y. 592, 597, 96 N. Y. 477, 496) is a delegated exercise of the public right in aid of commerce and subject to the prior exercise of the public right to regulate navigation directly. The grant for beneficial enjoyment is a grant in aid of commerce. But such grant having once been made, titles traced back to the state as proprietor may not be divested by such regulations, without compensation. " XVII. SURVEY OF LAND UNDER WATER IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP IN THE REGION In the three states of Connecticut, New Jersey and New York the state, owning the land under tidal or navigable waters, has an asset vast in extent and of great usefulness and value. In all three of these states the lands are needed from time to time for commerce, industry, public recreation and private enjoyment. In all three of these states portions of these lands have been devoted to these uses, and in New Jersey and New York the state has in many cases obtained a revenue from their sale. Often, however, land needed for one purpose has been put to other uses, and areas needed by the public have been obtained by private parties for their gain or enjoyment, sometimes for a small part of its worth or without any compensation whatever. In not a few cases these lands have been repurchased by the public at a very large price. In all this there is a lack of that far-sighted prudent management which private parties give to the management of their own affairs. This is due in no small measure to the fact that the state has never known the characteristics, location and extent of the lands that it possesses. In none of the states has there ever been a survey of this great asset which the state owns. For the proper handling of property of any sort a thorough knowledge of it is essential to the formulation of policies. Without it any present use and especially any intelligent preservation of it for future generations cannot be achieved. Such a survey of the land under navigable or tidal waters in the Region, in so far as it could be made by its Legal Division, the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs has attempted. The survey consists of a map showing lands under water in public ownership, with explanatory comments. This survey has two objects. It has been made for use in local planning', and I A former report says on this phase of the subject: "Land under water is an asset of great value often recognized by the planner in laying out certain special features of his plan, but altogether too much neglected in his more general work. In his preliminary planning it also as a demonstration of what might be done by the state in fulfilment of the many great trusts for which it holds these vast areas. It is to explain the scope and state the limitations of this survey that this chapter has been written. To it have been added notes which it is hoped will be of value to any one making a more complete survey in the Region.2 The Survey in Connecticut In Connecticut the Legal Division has not any feasible way of mapping the lands in our Region belonging to the public. The law with regard to land under navigable water in that part of Connecticut within the Region has been already stated. (See page 203.) There are no crown grants to private parties or to local governments carrying title; the land passed from the crown to the colony and the state, and there have been no considerable grants by the state to private parties or local governments. Considerable areas of land under water, however, are now owned practically in fee by private parties and public utility corporations, the courts having ruled that the adjacent riparian owner has by immemorial custom the right to wharf out over land under water and to fill it in, within limitations such as bulkhead and pier head lines imposed by the state and the nation. There would seem therefore to be no records from which a map of the lands in state ownership could be prepared. Such maps, if desired, could be made by an inspection of the shore as it exists; since seems evident that he would be greatly aided by a knowledge of the location and extent of the lands under water still owned by the public or which the public could, in whole or in part, regain. With this knowledge he could better determine what riparian uplands were most desirable for any given feature of his plan and, if immediate development were not feasible, he could point out the value of the lands under water in the future and effectively urge the authorities to retain their full rights in it for future use. Every year the public is expending millions for rights in submerged lands that were in the past given away or sold for a song." 2 These notes, together with the maps to which reference is made in this chapter, have not been included in this printed report, but are on file in the records of the Regional Plan. 224 SURVEY OF LAND UNDER WATER IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP IN THE REGION 225 the state retains all lands which private parties have not acquired by improvement. The Survey in New Jersey The law with regard to land under water in New Jersey has already been stated. (See page 205.) In New Jersey the state owns land up to high water mark under tidal waters only. There are no outstanding colonial grants, title to all the land having passed to the state. The state has parted with portions of its lands from time to time. Transfers were formerly made by the counties, later by the Board of Commerce and Navigation and its predecessors as agents of the state, and at all times by the state legislature. The survey maps were prepared by the Board of Commerce and Navigation. They show, as completely as was considered feasible, the land in the Region owned by the state and the land which has been transferred by the state to local governments or purchased by them from other grantees. In a few cases the maps indicate such other facts as the names of private grantees, etc., but no effort has been made consistently to give such data or to correct it to date; its inclusion being due to the fact that it was, in these cases, on the maps from which the present prints were made, and it would have been a useless expense to exclude it. So also in some cases the nature of the interests transferred-whether lease or absolute grant-is shown, in some cases not. Since it is the practice in New Jersey to convert a lease into a grant upon the request of the holder of the lease and the payment of adequate consideration and almost all the outstanding transfers are now grants, it has not seemed necessary to distinguish on these maps between them. Cancelled grants and leases are sometimes shown as such,-more often simply as lands at present owned by the state. These maps were prepared by members of the staff recommended for the purpose by the secretary of the Board of Commerce and Navigation. Within the limits above indicated they may be relied upon as accurate statements of all the acts of that board and its predecessors. There are no records of the transfers by the counties or the state legislature which could be used for the preparation of these maps, except at the expenditure of an amount of time and money out of all proportion to the usefulness of the results to us; but there are various ways, official and unofficial, in which a knowledge of most of these transfers comes, from time to time, to the board; and this information appears on the maps. The secretary of the board estimates that for the purpose for which they were prepared, the maps are to be relied upon, with a possibility of error of not to exceed 3%; and our investigations lead us to think that this is a reasonably correct estimate. The Survey in New York The law with regard to land under water in New York has already been given. (See page 211.) The state owns land not only under tidal but navigable waters, whether tidal or not. Its ownership runs to high water mark, except in the case of smaller navigable lakes, where it goes to low water mark only. There are many colonial grants to private parties and local governments. Colonial grants are usually included in grants of upland, and it is often a nice legal question to determine whether land under water is included, and if so what its metes and bounds are. There are no records from which it is possible at a moderate expense to map colonial grants for an entire region. The validity and extent of colonial grants of land under water have in many cases been determined by the courts, and in many cases, not having been so passed upon, are still in more or less doubt. The cases usually settle definitely the title to small tracts only as related to the parties to the particular suit. In doing so, however, they very often interpret underlying grants covering extensive areas. These interpretations, although only dicta, are most illuminating. In these cases not only the report but the so-called "Record " or " Case on Appeal " to be found in the larger law libraries should invariably be consulted. It usually contains much material of value in this connection, especially maps. Individuals always, and local governments often, have the right to and have transferred portions of their holdings of land under water. The records of these transfers are buried in the local records, and it is impossible to consult them for 226 226 PUBLIC RECREATION the entire Reg-ion without an excessive expenditure of time and money. There are many persons who have accurate and extensive knowledge of colonial grants in particular localities, as, for instance, corporation counsels of cities and heads of topographical bureaus, present and former town clerks, lawyers of the locality or who have been in cases dealing with land in the locality, real estate brokers, developers and owners and other individuals with specific information. In many cases local expert opinion has seemed to the Legal Division more reliable than its own opinion in dealing with such a vast mass of material; especially when it pointed to what seemed to be generally conceded and known *facts. The division has spent several weeks traveling through the Region in New~ York, collecting this and other available material and making personal observations. Since the Revolution, transfers of land under water have usually been in separate instruments, or at least have mentioned such lands specifically, giving metes and bounds of lands transferred. Transfers by the state have been placed upon maps which are kept up to date and of which blueprints can be obtained at Albany. These transfers are not necessarily valid. The courts have often held that the state did not own the land it attempted to transfer; and the decisions of the courts often indicate with reasonable certainty that other transfers of extensive areas in the Region are also invalid. The state in the public interest quite rightly claims everything it has a reasonable chance of obtaining, and does not concede lack of title until it is forced to do so. The results of legal decisions seldom, and the inferences from them never, appear upon the maps and blueprints. The blueprints, therefore, must be used with discrimination and judgment. The state often transfers land under water subject to conditions, reservations and rights of recapture. Sometimes in these cas Ies the grantees by their acts or failure to perform may have forfeited their grants; sometimes the state waives a forfeiture or extends a grant or issues a by the state appear on the blueprints. The nature of the grant is in every case briefly indicated on the blueprints. They also in many cases cite statutes relating to the areas mapped. There are, of course, complete records open to parties sufficiently interested. Records and Maps of Waterfront Lands As a rule land under water- is not assessed but is taxedI if at all, in taxing the upland at an increased valuation. Also in general, governments have no records of land under water that can be consulted, for an entire region, except at an excessive expenditure of time and money. In the few cases where these lands are assessed as such, or where there are maps of the lands, they have been consulted or copies obtained. In a few cases cities and towns have very generously prepared copies of maps without expense, stating that they recognized the value of the work the Regional Plan is doing. The attempt has been made to include upland beaches in the plans. In many cases the Regional Plan already had these public uplands mapped, in other cases the information was collected by the Legal Division. It is probably incomplete. The maps prepared under the supervision of the Legal Division of the Regional Plan 'are a compilation of the above material interpreted by this division to the best of its ability. It is not intended as basis for action with regard to specific tracts, but will serve, it is hoped, to give the planner of the Region general ideas of value with relation to this great asset and possibly to point the way to similar maps for the entire state prepared by state authority. The maps show land under water the title to which is in the state, the United States, local governments and other public bodies. They do not show lands transferred to private parties in which the state or other public bodies have contingent interest; these lands are shown as privately owned. Only lands outside New York City and in the more outlying portions of the city SURVEY OF LAND UNDER WATER IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP IN THE REGION 227 oped and the maps would give no information that would be of use. General Observations It is well known that where a grant of land is bounded on a large body of navigable water, like the Long Island Sound or the Atlantic Ocean, the boundary line follows'the general line of the water but does not follow all the sinuosities of the coast line; that is to say, the more enclosed harbors and bays are included in the grant, and the land under their waters goes to the grantee. In most instances the courts have passed on the title to bays and harbors under colonial grants to the towns. Nevertheless there are many cases in which any title map must be made on general principles and may err from lack of knowledge of the depth of water, etc. of the locality in question; nor is it ever certain what the courts in a new case will decide. In some cases the line of grant was expressly made around the "neck or loops of land " on the coast, with much the same effect as stated above. It is not so generally recognized that the same principles apply in the interpretation of the grants of the towns to individuals. The towns were the original holders as proprietors of practically all the upland on the main land as well as a varying amount of island, land under water, etc., and have granted practically all this upland to individuals. On the principles applicable to grants to the towns these grants to individuals carried with them title to land under water when included in the general lines of the grant. It follows that probably title to land under the largest and most open bodies of water will remain in the state; title to land under the smaller bodies of water will, in the first instance, go to the towns, together with title to land under the still smaller and more enclosed waters, which, in many if not most cases, will have passed from the towns to individuals. In the absence of an investigation of the depth of the various waters, etc., and, for thorough work, a title examination, no one can say with absolute certainty which of these lands belongs to the town or has passed to individuals. It is a general principle of law that a grant of land bounded on navigable water presumptively ends at high water mark. This principle, useful in interpreting grants by the crown to towns in colonial times, is less so in construing the grants of the towns to individuals. In fact many such grants expressly included much land below high water mark. Marsh and meadow land was sometimes above, sometimes below that mark. Such lands were in colonial times oftentimes more valuable than ordinary upland. The town therefore often granted the marshes and meadows with the adjacent upland; sometimes granted upland, together with meadows, not contiguous or even near, by a description now in some cases become so vague as to raise grave doubts as to title. On the other hand the sandy shore or beach, above and below high water mark, was regarded in early times as worse than useless, since it could not be cultivated and might be taxable. As a result many transfers were made " to the edge or rim " of the water, by which was meant, to the edge of the sandy beach. These transfers, whether original or subsequent to the first grant, raise difficulties in deciding upon title evident to the lawyer and the layman. Where the original grantee took the shore but did not transfer it to his grantee the title to the shore, descending to an ever increasing number of heirs, is especially troublesome. TEXT REFERENCE NOTES FOR CHAPTER XVI 1'The point was decided in Blundell v. Catterall, sB. and Al. 268, in the 1{ings Bench in 1821. That case holds that "the public have no common law right of bathing in the sea; and, as an incident thereto, of crossing the seashore on foot, or with bathing machines for that purpose." The only case in which the point has arisen subsequently in England is Brinckman v. Matley, L. R. (1904) 2 Chancery 313. In that case the court held that there was no such right "whether the foreshore is the property of the crown or of a private owner." The court evidently considered itself bound by tn~e previous case, one judge saying: " Though I do not say that the point may not be open to the House of Lords to reconsider, I think we ought not in this Court even to attempt to discuss it." WAhat the decision on the merits in England would be under the conditions existing today, so different from those of a hundred years ago, it is impossible to say. I The striking illustration of this within the Region is New Jersey. This phase of the subject is discussed on page 205. There are also many illustrations of it outside the Region. For instance, by the Colonial Ordinance of Massachusetts passed in 1647 the proprietors of the upland bordering on the sea were given an estate in fee in the adjoining flats between high and low water marks, within one hundred rods of high water mark, with powýNer to erect wharves, etc., over the land thus granted them. The right of the public of fishing, fowling and passage, however, was reserved to the public. This reservation was established by Sec. 16 of the Massachusetts " Body of Liberties,' whose purpose it was to declare a great principle of public right, abolishing forest, game and private fishery laws and making hunting and fishing free. These rights remained until the upland owner by filling in converted the flats into tillage or mowing land. To this effect is the opinion of Massachusetts' great judge, Chief Justice Shaw, in 61 Mass. 53 (1851); see also his opinion in Weston v. Sampson, 8 Cushing (Mass.) 347. The ordinance of 1647 transferred title to the upland owner; but the public right to navigate, fish and fowl is preserved until the land is filled in. The law with regard to great ponds on which, under Massachusetts law, title to the bed is in the public, is for this reason quite different. These lands the state can use for such public purposes as the progress of civ%,ilization and the increasing wants of the community properly demand. Butler v. Atty. Gen., 195 Mass. 79. There would seem to be no right in Massachusetts under the ordinance to resort to the land. Crocker v. Champlin, 202 Mass. 437. In Maine, which was formerly a part of Massachusetts, the law is the same. Marshall v. Walker, 93 Maine 532. In Vermont the right to fish in all boatable and other waters (not private property) is secured to the inhabitants of the state by the constitution (Sec. 63). 3East Haven v. Hemingway, 7 Conn. 186; Church v. Meeker, 34 Conn. 421; State v. Sargent and Co., 45 Conn. 358. 4Church v. Meeker, 34 Conn. 421; Rowe v. Smith, 48 Conn. 444. For the wording of these grants see Colonial Records of Connecticut, Vol. 3. p. 117. 6 Brower v. Wakeman, 88 Conn. 8. 6 Peck v. Lockwood, 5 Day (Conn.) 22; Chalker v. Dickinson, 1 Conn. 382; Church v. Meeker, 34 Conn. 421; see Clinton v. Bacon, 56 Conn. 508. 7Conn. Special Acts XI,_p. 653 (No. 488), XII, p. 199, 8Vol. X, p. 162, 838; XI, 70; XII1, 197; see statutes: Vol. X, XI and XI I authorizing building of sea walls; also Vol. 18, pt. 1, pp. 75, 140, 146; pt. 2, p. 918. 1Swift, System of Laws of Connecticut (regarded as the Connecticut Blackstone's C'ommentaries) Vol. 1, p. 341. 11 Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn. 382; Prior v. Schwarz, 62 Conn. 132 (citing numerous cases); Ockerhausen v. Tyson, 71 Conn. 31. The extent of these rights and the manner of their exercise are determined by the rule "sic utere tuc" (So use your own property as not to injure others). 11Lockwood v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co-., 37 Conn. 387. i2 Frank v. Lawrence, 20 Conn. 117; State v. Sergent & Co., 45 Conn. 358; Ladies Seamen's Friend Society v. Halstead, 58 Conn. 144, at 150; Prior v. Schwarz, 62 Conn. 132; N. Y.7 N. H. & H. R. R. Co. v. Long, 72 Conn. 10. 13 Peck v. Lockwood, 5 Day (Conn.) 22; East Haven v. Hemingway, 7 Conn. 186; Lockwood v. N. Y.) N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 37 Conn. 387; Prior v. Schwarz (supra); Barni v. Schwarz Bros. Co., 93 Conn. 501; Walz v. Bennett, 95 Conn. 537, at 542. 14 In one case called an "easement;" Armstrong v. Wheeler, 52 Conn. 428. 11 East Haven v. Hemingway (supra); Simons v. French, 25 Conn. 346; Church v. Meeker, 34 Conn. 421; New Haven Steamboat Co. v. Sergent & Co., 50 Conn. 199; Ladies Seamen's Friend Society v. Halstead (supra); Barni v. Schwarz Bros. Co. (supra). 16 See cases cited above; also Pitkin v. Olmsted, 1 Root (Conn.) 217. It is not confined to the citizens of the town or state. Hayden v. Noyes, 5 Conn. 391. '7 Nichols v. Lewis, 15 Conn. 136. 18 Lockwood v. N. Y.1 N. H. & H. R. R. Co., 37 Conn. 387. 11 Mather v. Chapman, 40 Conn. 382. 20 Ladies Seamen's Friend Society v. Halstead, 58 Conn. 144. 21 The nature of the right of the riparian owner is defined by judge Baldwin in Ockerhausen v. Tyson, 71 Conn. 3 1, as follows: "Every owner of land bounded on tide water has a right to use this water for access to his land, and for any other beneficial purpose for the enjoyment of which his literal title gives him peculiar opportunities." 22Lane v. Harbor Commissioners, 70 Conn. 685. '3 State v. Sergent and Co., 45 Conn. 358; Lane v. Smith, 71 Conn. 65. 24 Farist Steel Co. v. Bridgeport, 60 Conn. 278, at 286; Seinble in Town of Orange v. Resnick, 94 Conn. 573. 21 Dawson v. Orange, 78 Conn. 96 at 119; Brower v. Wakeman, 88 Conn. 8. 26 94 Conn. 573. 27 A case illustrating the nature of the rights of a riparian owner is United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co., 269 U. 5. 411. It was a condemnation proceeding brought by the government for the improvement of the river. The United States contended that the trial court had erred in instructing the jury as to the extent and measure of the benefits to the remaining land, to be deducted from the award. The court's charge emphasized the absolutepower of the-fderal governmentover-navi TEXT REFERENCE NOTES 229 gable streams and said nothing as to the fact that until the government acted, any riparian owner would have the right to make landings, docks or piers and otherwise profit specially by the improvement of the river. In holding that this was error the court says: "We are of opinion that an increase in the value of the remaining portion of any parcel of land caused by its frontage on the widened river, carrying a right of immediate access to and use of the improved stream, would constitute a special and direct benefit.... This is in accordance with the rule recognized... in reference to special benefits to lands abutting upon a new or widened street.... It is well settled that in the absence of a controlling local law otherwise limiting the rights of a riparian owner upon a navigable river (citing case), he has, in addition to the rights common to the public, a property right, incident to his ownership of the bank, of access from the front of his land to the navigable part of the stream, and when not forbidden by public law may construct landings, wharves or piers for this purpose.. The charge of the court... was permeated by the fundamental error... that the jury were left to determine the amount of the benefits to be deducted on the theory that a riparian owner on the improved river would have merely such uncertain and contingent 'privileges' of access to the navigable stream and of constructing docks fronting on the harbor line, as the government, in the exercise of an absolute control over the navigation of the river, might see fit to allow him, instead of being instructed that he would have a right to such access and the construction and maintenance of such docks until taken away by the government in the due exercise of its power of control over navigation.... The charge was not merely an over-emphasis of the contingent character of the rights of the riparian owners, but in substance an instruction that they had no rights in this respect, and could only obtain uncertain privileges, as a matter of grace. There is an essential difference between a substantial property right which may be enjoyed until taken away in the appropriate exercise of a paramount authority, and an uncertain and contingent privilege which may not be allowed at all." 28 21 N. J. L. 156, 22 ib. 441; Bell v. Gough, 23 ib. 624; see also Wilson, Atty. Genl. v. Hudson County Water Co., 76 N. J. Eq. 543. 29 P. L. 1851, p. 335. 30 Cobb v. Davenport, 32 N. J. L. 369,; Kanouse v. Stockblower, 48 N. J. Eq. 42; 49 ib. 592, 50 ib. 481; Board of Health of N. J. v. Phillipsburg, 83 N. J. Eq. 402, affd. 85 ib. 161. The land is, of course, subject to the easement of navigation; ib. 3' P. L. 1017. 32 For an interpretation of this expression see Atty. Gen. v. Hudson Tunnel R. R. Co., 27 N. J. Eq. 176, reversed by 27 N. J. Eq. 573. 33 P. L., p. 44. SP. L., p. 113. 35 The unlawful filling in of lands under water does not affect their title or legal status. Wemberger v. City of Passaic, 86 Atl. (N. J.) 59. 36 P. L., p. 216. '3 Jersey City v. American Dock and Improvement Co., 54 N. J. L. 215. 38 Morris and Essex H. H. Co. v. Jersey City, 63 N. J. Eq. 45, affirmed 71 N. J. Eq. 308. 39 A common form of grant is a lease with the option to purchase. For an interpretation of such leases see Cook v. Bayonne, 80 N. J. L. 596; Ocean Front Improvement Co. v. Ocean City Gardens Co., 89 N. J. Eq. 18. 4o Art. 4, Sec. 7, par. 6. 41 P. L. 1894, p. 123. 42 Henderson v. Atlantic City, 64 N. J. Eq. 583. 43 P. L., p. 432. 44 P. L., p. 88. 45 Report of Riparian Commissioners for 1897. 46 P. L., p. 439. 47 P. L., pp. 159, 268. 48 P. L., 1903, p. 387. 49 See notes 40, 41, 42. 50 P. L., p. 205. 5' The remaining sections of the Act (Secs. 6-9) provide for repeals and appropriations. 62 P. L. 1911, p. 840. 63 P. L. 1912, p. 267. 64 P. L. 1917, ch. 130; 1921, chs. 151, 152; 1922, ch. 9. 66 34 N. J. L. 532. 56 The right of pre-emption being of grace and not of right. American Dock and Improvement Co. v. Trustees of Public Schools, 39 N. J. Eq. 409; Bowker v. Wright, 54 N. J. L. 130; Seaside Realty Co. v. Atlantic City, 74 N. J. L. 178; Johnson v. Ocean City, 74 N. J. L. 187. 57 See note 27. 68 State v. Roberts, 25 N. J. L. 525; State (Bentley, Pros.) v. Jersey City, 25 N. J. L. 530; State (Wark, Pros.) v. Carragan, Collector of Bayonne, 37 N. J. L. 264; State v. Yard, Com. 43 N. J. L. 632; Lock Dock Co. v. Board of Equalization of Taxes, 87 N. J. L. 22, 89 ib. 108, 90 ib. 701. 69 The following cases passing upon the methods by which the Atlantic City Board Walk was constructed may be of interest: Atlantic City v. Atlantic City Steel Pier Co., 62 N. J. Eq. 139; Atlantic City v. Scrime, 63 N. J. Eq. 644; Evans v. New Auditorium Pier Co., 67 N. J. Eq. 315; Seaside Realty Co. v. Atlantic City, 74 N. J. L. 178. 63 See cases cited, pp. 209-210. 61 60 N. J. L. 163. 62 71 N. J. L. 562. 63 87 N. J. L. 166. 64 Now Comp. Stats. 1709-1910, p. 3241. 65 Now Comp. Stats., 1709-1910, p. 3249. 66 65 N. J. Eq. 623. 67 In this connection there is often material of value in the annual reports of the Attorney General. Most instructive is a special report entitled " Grants of Land under Water by State of New York, with History and Interpretation Thereof", etc., by Hon. Thomas Carmody, Albany, J. B. Lyon Co., printers, 1913. 68 Except that often a transfer from them was held to be a prerequisite for a grant from their conquerors; and as grants from them throw light upon the subsequent grants from which title must be traced. 69 Crown transfers were after the Revolution recognized as valid; Williams v. Utica, 217 N. Y. 162, at p. 169, citing the authorities; see also Langdon v. Mayor, 93 N. Y. 129; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Schultz, 116 N. Y. 382. These cases and others hold that the state succeeded to the jus publicum and thejus privalum, as held by the crown in England; while other cases hold (Appleby v. City of New York, 235 N. Y. 351, citing the cases) that not only had, prior to the Revolution, the right to wharf out over these lands devolved upon the adjacent riparian owner, but the right to resort to these lands had become the property of the general public. The cases may be reconciled on the theory that the equitable right, or right of enjoyment, had gone to the people while the legal title was in the English Crown and descended from it to the State of New York. 230 PUBLIC RECREATION It is difficult to conceive of the public as such holding title to rights. 70 Coxe v. State, 144 N. Y. 396. 71 Art. III, Sec. 18. 72 Thus it cannot grant an exclusive right to fish in public waters. Slingerland v. International Contracting Co., 43 App. Div. 215; Smith v. Odell, 194 App. Div. 763, 234 N. Y. 267; Stewart v. Turney, 203 App. Div. 486, 234 N. Y. 267, holding that in grants to towns by the crown, exclusive fishing privileges, coupled with ownership of the soil, might be obtained, while the waters remained subject to the public right of navigation as held in Lewis Blue Point Oyster Co. v. Briggs, 198 N. Y. 287. See Doemel v. Jantz, 180 Misc. 225. 73 Const. Art. III, Sec. 20. 74 First Construction Co. v. City of New York, 221 N. Y. 295, at p. 310. A grant of the state to a municipal corporation which is not the riparian owner often requires it to give the riparian owner the pre-emptive right to purchase these lands, if the grantee, given the privilege of sale, exercises it. 75 For the text of the law see note 77. 76 See their proceedings for that year, p. 412. 77 The present law authorizing the commissioners to grant land under water is as follows: Public Lands Law, Sec. 75: SEC. 75. Grants of land under water. This section authorizes grants of land under water: 1. Of navigable rivers and lakes. 2. Of the Hudson River adjacent to the State of New Jersey. 3. Adjacent to and surrounding Great Barn Island in the City and County of New York, and between high and low water mark on such island, but not so as to affect the navigation of the waters surrounding such island. 4. Adjacent to and surrounding Staten Island, but not so as to extend more than five hundred feet into the water from low water mark on said island, except where the legally established pier and bulkhead lines extend more than five hundred feet beyond low water mark, in which case grants may be made to such lines. 5. Adjacent to and surrounding Long Island, and all that part of the former or present County of Westchester, lying on the East River or Long Island Sound, but not beyond any permanent exterior water line established by law. The Commissioners of the Land Office may grant in perpetuity or otherwise, to the owners of the lands adjacent to the lands under water specified in this section, to promote the commerce of this state or for the purpose of beneficial enjoyment thereof by such owners, or for agricultural purposes, so much of said lands under water as they deem necessary for that purpose. No such grant shall be made to any person other than the proprietor of the adjacent lands, and any such grant made to any other person shall be void. No such grant shall be made of any lands belonging to the City of New York, or so as to interfete with the rights of that city or of its successor the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company. In addition to the foregoing, the Commissioners of the Land Office may authorize the use of lands of the state under water, for the purpose of improvement of navigation when the same is carried on by the federal or state government; but private rights or rights of property of individuals, if any, of any nature or description, shall not be taken away nor impaired nor impeded without due process of law. The forms of grant adopted by the Commissioners in 1920 (see their Proceedings for that year, p. 406) are as follows: FORM OF PATENT TO PROMOTE THE COMMERCE OF THIS STATE The People of the State of New York, by the Grace of God, Free and Independent To all to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greeting: Know ye, that pursuant to a resolution of the Commissioners of our Land Office, dated the........ day of............ 19.., and in consideration of the sum of... dollars (8...... ), lawful money of the United States, paid by.............. of.............. (insert name of street and number) in the.............. of................... County of................ and State of..................... and upon the conditions hereinafter expressed, we have given and granted and by these presents do give and grant unto the said.....................the owner of the lands adjacent to the lands hereinafter described, his grantees, heirs, devisees or successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the "patentee"), the following described lands under water, to wit: (here insert description) reserving, however, to the said People the right to use said lands for dockage and wharfage purposes on the conditions hereinafter stated. These letters-patent are issued, however, and this grant is made and accepted: First: To enable the said "patentee" to promote and improve the commerce of this State and to that end to erect and maintain on said lands a public dock, wharf, piers and slips, and to collect from those using same, statutory rates of dockage or wharfage if same have been prescribed, and if not, reasonable and accustomed dockage or wharfage, but not to enable the said " patentee " to erect and maintain a building or buildings for private manufacturing purposes or for purposes of private or beneficial enjoyment or for purposes not strictly for the improvement and promotion of public commerce and in aid of navigation. Second: Upon the express condition that if at the end of five years from the date of these presents, or at any time thereafter, any part of said lands hereby granted are not improved as follows: (a) By building and maintaining thereon a bulkhead or retaining structure and filling in back of same; or (b) By erecting and maintaining on said lands upon piles or other supports a building or buildings for temporary storage purposes, or a pier or piers, of a substantial character; together with the necessary slip or slips; (which shall be known as "improvements"), then these letters-patent and this grant shall become null and void as to the part not so improved; and no right, title or interest in and to the lands hereinabove described not so improved shall vest in the said "patentee" or accrue by virtue of these presents; and the people of the State of New York may thereupon re-enter into and become possessed of the lands hereinabove described or any part thereof which have not been or which are not then so improved, without any liability. There is reserved to the said people the full and free right, liberty and privilege of entering upon and using all and every part of the above described lands which have not been improved as aforesaid, as the said people might have done had this grant not been made. Third: Upon the express condition that if the said "patentee" shall erect and maintain on said lands under water buildings or structures other than those necessary for the temporary storage of goods, wares and merchandise in transit and in aid of navigation, or shall devote said premises to other than public dockage purposes and the loading and unloading of merchandise and persons and the temporary storage of merchandise, then these letterspatent and this grant shall become null and void and no right, title or interest in and to the lands hereinabove TEXT REFERENCE NOTES 231 described shall vest in the said " patentee" or accrue by virtue of these presents; and the People of the State of New York may thereupon re-enter into and become possessed of the lands hereinabove described, or any part thereof, without any liability. Fourth: Upon the express condition that if the State of New York shall at any time hereafter acquire said premises and "improvements," or a part or portion thereof, by appropriation or otherwise, the liability of the State shall be limited to the amount paid by said "patentee " to the state for this patent, or a proportionate part thereof, togethere with the expenses necessarily incurred by the "patentee" for the acquiring of this patent, which are hereby fixed at the sum of $350, and, also, the value of the "improvements" on said premises, or the proportionate part thereof which may be so acquired. The value of such "improvements" if all are so acquired, or such proportionate part of the amount paid by said "patentee" for this patent and of the value of such "improvements" onha portion of such lands which may be so acquired by the State, and all damages, if any, to the remainder of such "improvements" which may not be so acquired, to be paid by the State of New York, shall be determined as provided by the Legislature authorizing such acquisition. (If lands granted are within The City of New York, add the following): Fifth: This grant is made and accepted upon the express covenant, terms and conditions that The City of New York may at any time hereafter acquire the interest in the premises herein described which the patentee may have acquired under or by virtue of this patent, upon paying to the patentee, his heirs, successors or assigns the amount paid by said patentee to the State for the said. interest in said premises, together with the expenses necessarily incurred by the patentee for the acquiring of such patent, which are hereby fixed at the sum of $350, and also the value of the improvements on said premises; or may acquire the interest acquired under this patent to a part or a portion of said premises upon paying to the patentee, his heirs, successors Or assigns the proportionate share of the amount paid by such patentee to the State for such interest in part or portion and a proportionate part of the said expenses, together with the value of the improvements of the portion thereof acquired at the time The City of New York shall acquire title to such interest, and also all damages, if any there be, to the impro-vements upon such, part of the premises herein described not acquired by The City of New York as shall be occasioned by the division of the herein described premises. And that the patentee, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns shall not demand, claim or be entitled to receive any further, other or g-reater compensation for any interest he may have acquired under or by virtue of this patent in or to said premises, or in or to the part or parcel thereof so taken by The City of New York. (Here insert any other restrictions, reservationsorcn ditions.),orcn In testimony whereof, we have caused these our letters to be made patent, and the Great Seal of our State to be hereunto affixed. Witness.......................... Secretary of State of our said State at our City of Albany, the....day of............ in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred................... Passed the Sec retary's office thie' dyo..... 19.... Deputy..Secretary.of.State To All to Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greeting: Know ye, that pursuant to a resolution of the Commissioners of our Land Office, dated the.......day of...19... and in consideration of the sum of.....................dollars ($...........), lawful money of the United States, paid by................. of............................. (insert name of street and number) in the....................of.................... County of.....................and State of....... and upon the conditions hereinafter expressed, we have given and granted and by these presentstdo give and grant unto the said.....................,the owner of the lands adjacent to the lands hereinafter described, his grantees, heirs, devisees or successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the " patentee," the following described lands under water, to wit: (Here insert description) These letters patent are issued, however, and this grant is made and accepted: First: Upon the express condition that if at the end of five years from the date of these presents, or at any time thereafter, any part of said lands hereby granted are not improved as follows: (a) By filling in the lands under water hereinabove described; or (b) By building and maintaining thereon a bulk-head or retaining structure and filling- in back of same; or (c) By erecting and maintaining on said lands upon piles or other supports, a building or buildings, a structure or structures, or a pier or piers, of a substantial character; or by maintaining a dry-dock on said lands; or by dredging and maintaining on said lands, a slip or basin, or slips or basins, for the proper approach to the landing of the "patentee" adjacent to said slip or basin, or slips or basins; (which shall be known as "improvements"), then these letters-patent and this grant shall become null and void as to the part not so improved; and no right, title or interest in and to the lands hereinabove described not so improved shall vest in the said "patentee" or accrue by virtuerof these presents; and the People of the State of New York may thereupon re-enter into and become possessed of the lands hereinabove described, or any part thereof which have not been or which are not then so improved, without ans y w liabilityn. There is reserved to the said people the full and free right, libertyand privilege of entering upon and using all and every part of the above described lands which have not been improved as aforesaid, as the said people might have done had this grant not been made. Second: Upon the express condition that if the State of New York shall at any time hereafter acquire said premises and." improvements," or a part or portion thereof, by appropriation or otherwise, the liability of the State shall be limited to the amount paid by said "patentee" to the State for this patent, or a proportionate part thereof, together with the expenses necessarily incurred by- the "(patentee" for the acquiring of this-patent which are hereby fixed at the sum of $1350 and, also, the value of the " improvements " on said premises, or the proportionate part thereof which may be so acquired. The value of such improvemnents if all are so acquired, or Such proportionate part of the amount paid by said " patentee" *for this patent and of the value of such "improvements " on a portion of such lands which may be so acquired by the State, and all damages, if any, to the remainder of such "improve~ments" whirichmaynotr' be s o acuie d,, Ito be 932 232 PUBLIC RECREATION New York may at any time hereafter acquire the interest in the premises herein described, which the patentee may hav\.e acquired under or by virtue of this patent, upon paying to the patentee, his heirs, successors or assigns the amount paid by said patentee to the State for the said interest in said premises, together with the expenses necessarly incurred by the patentee for the acquiring of such patent, whichi are hereby fixed at the sum- of $350 and, also, the value of the improvements on said premises; or may acquire the interest acquired under this patent to a part or a portion of said premises upon paying to the patentee, his heirs, successors or assigns the proportionate share of the amount paid by such patentee to the State for such interest in part or portion and a proportionate part of the said expenses, together with the value of the improvements on the portion thereof acquired at -the time The City of New York shall acquire title to such interest, and also all damages, if any there be, to the improvements upon such part of the premises herein described not acquired by The City of New York as shall be occasioned by the division of the herein described premises. And that the patentee, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns shall not demand, claim or be entitled to receive any further, other or greater compensation for any interest he may have acquired under or by virtue of this patent in or to said premises, or in or to the part or parcel thereof so -taken by The City of New York. (Here insert any other special restrictions, reservations or conditions.) IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, we have caused these our letters to be made patent, and the Great Seal of our said State to be hereunto affixed. Witness........ Secretary of State of our said State at our City of Albany, the...... day of.............,in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred......... Passed -the Secretary's office the....day of.......... 19.... Deputy Secretary of State. With regard to the third clause above, see the case of Matter of New York (Upper New Yotk Bay between Simonson Avenue, Clifton and Arrietta Street, Tomkinsville, Borough of Richmond) reported in the New York Law journal, Sept. 2, 1924, pp. 1706-1707 (Supreme Court). The case holds that this clause: " Is void and wholly inoperative, for the reason that the reservation is not made to the grantor, and cannot be made to a stranger to the grant (see Ives v. Van Anken, 34 Barb. 566; Craig v. Wells, 11 N. Y. 315; WA/est Point Iron Co. v. Reymert, 45 N. YT. 703, 707; Hinkel v. Stevens, 1.65 N. Y.~ 171; Beardslee v. New Berlin Light and Power Co., 207 N. Y. 34 at p. 39). The doctrine of Lawrence v. Fox (20 N. Y. 268), urged by the city has no application (see Seaver v. Ranson, 224 N. Y. 233).' If this ruling is sustained by the upper courts, it will mean a serious loss to the City of New York, and would seem to call for a careful study of the situation so that a policy may be inaugurated which will obviate it for the -future. Under Section 71 of the New York City Charter the rights of the City to its lands under water are declared to he inalienable. Under Section 822 of the Charter, improvements may be made by the riparian proprietor by agreement between him and the City. Held that the two s-ections must be read together; and that the riparian, 78 See the Proceedings of the Board for 1899, p. 187 if. 71 Town of Islip v. Estate of Havemneyer Point, 224 N. Y. 449. 10 Rumsey v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 114 N. Y. 423 (1889); New York Central & Hudson River R. R. Co. v. Aldridge, 135 N. Y. 83; Matter of City of Buffalo, 206 N. Y. 319. The law is the same where a highway is similarly laid out. Nevius v. Frednuer, 113 Misc. 437, citing the cases. Where a public street meets navigable water at high water mark, there is the right of the public of ingress and egress from and to the water. H-ard v. Blue Point Co., 170 App. Div. 524; Matter of New York (Main Street), 216 N. Y. 67. 81 It was held in the case of Thousand Island Park Association v. Visger, 179 N. Y. 206, that under a commerce grant only public docks can be maintained, affording rights of wharfage to the general public on payment of reasonable charges; and this holding was cited as the rule to be followed by his department by Attorney General Newton in his report for 1920. The case of People v. American Sugar Refining Co., 98 Misc. 703, affirmed 182 App. Div. 212, held to the contrary, and the Attorney General, stating that this affirmation was based upon the fact that "the complaint was so indefinite in its allegations of *fact as to make it impossible for the court to determine the plaintiff's rights," deemed it inadvisable to appeal. 82 In New York the ownership of the state extends not only to tidal but to navigable waters. People v. Canal Commissioner, 33 N. Y. 461; Williams v. Utica, 217 N. Y. 162. Under this principle the state owns the bed of the Mohawk River and the Hudson River, not only where the tide ebbs and flows, but above the tides where they are navigable. It also owns them on the principle that title vested in it under the Dutch law. See above cases; also Danes v. State of New York, 219 N. Y. 67; Fuller Light, Heat & Power Co. v. State of New York, 200 N. Y. 400; and under this principle it owns the bed of boundary rivers. See above cases. 831Stewart v. Turney, 203 App. Div. 486, 237 N. Y. 117. The legislature has the power to grant to a city, to be filled in for park purposes, part of a lake outside of a tow path, where such lake has become useless for navigation. City of Geneva v. Henson, 140 App. Div. 49. 84 Saunders v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 144 N. Y. 75; Coxe v. State, 144 N. Y. 396;- Brookhaven v\,. Smith, 188 N. Y. 74. In other cases it is said that the land owned by the state is subject to the public right of passage. In re Public Service Commission, 224 N. Y. 211, and cases there cited. 85 1924, Ch. 112, Sec. 15. 81 In grants the presumptions are all in favor of the public against the grantee. The People v. New York and Staten Island Ferry Co., 68 N. Y. 71; at least, in grants without adequate valuable consideration, Langdon v. Newv York, 93 N. Y. 129. A grant to a local government for a public purpose is for a valuable consideration. Williams v. The Mayor, 105 N. Y. 419. 87 Blakeslee Mfg. Co. v. Blakeslee &c. Works. 129 N. Y. 155; Peoples Trust Co. v. Schenck, 195 N. Y. 398. 88 Story v. New York Elevated R. R. Co., 90 N. Y. 122; IKane v. N. Y. E. R. R. Co., 125 N.Y. 164; Rumnsey v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 79; see also the ineetn cs fNrwalk v.I Podmore,/86/Conn.E658. TEXT REFERENCE NOTES 233 is outshore of that line, the title to the land remains in the grantee. Harway Improvement Co. v. City of New York, 113 Misc. 788. The new line would, of course, very much reduce, if not annihilate, the value of the land. 10 Rumsey v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 79; Saunders v. New York Central and Hudson River R. R. Co., 144 N. Y. 75; see also Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1, citing the cases. 91 Matter of City of New York (Speedway case, supra). 92 Sage v. The Mayor, 154 N. Y. 61; Slingerland v. International Contracting Co. (supra); but see First Construction Co. v. City of New York, 221 N. Y. 295. 93 See cases in preceding three footnotes. 94 Brookhaven v. Smith, 188 N. Y. 74. 96 Hart v. Mayor, 9 Wend. 571; Siebel v. Pleayl, 172 N. Y. Supp. 798; Blanchard v. W. U. Teleg. Co., 60 N. Y. 510. 96 Oelsner v. Nassau Light and Power Co., 134 App. Div. 281. 97 Tiffany v. Town of Oyster Bay, 192 App. Div. 126; 209 N. Y. 1; 104 Misc. 445. 98 Johnson v. May, 189 App. Div. 196. 99 Powell v. Rochester, 93 Misc. 227. Structures lawfully erected above high water mark do not become subject to removal by the state without legal process when the sea has advanced so as to flow under them. Silver v. Woodbury, Atty. Genl., 185 App. Div. 937, 230 N. Y. 627. The duty, if any, to adapt the buildings under new conditions of the sea's advance, was not before the court. A government agency is not liable to the owner of a building for damage done by pollution of the salt water conveyed by the tide into the creek and conducted into his store to wash oysters; he has no right to have salt water kept fit for human use. There was no sewage cast on his land and no nuisance. All plaintiff's rights are comprised in access. Seaman v. City of N. Y., 176 App. Div. 608. Rules of State Commissioner of Health to prevent contamination of sources of water supply cannot deprive adjacent owners of the ordinary and reasonable use of city water without compensation. These rights include swimming, bathing, watering cattle, boating, fishing, etc. George Trustee v. Village of Chester, 59 Misc. 553, affirmed 137 App. Div. 889, modified 202 N. Y. 398; Heaton v. Village of Chester, 59 Misc. 558, affirmed 137 App. Div. 892, modified 202 N. Y. 603. The rule giving an owner of real property an easement of lateral support in the adjacent land does not apply to lands under the waters of the sea granted by the state for the advancement of commerce. Even if it did, it applies only to the land, and not the wharf on it. White v. Nassau Trust Co., 168 N. Y. 149. The unauthorized filling in of land under water does not change title to it. Nevius v. Fredaner, 113 Misc. 437, 198 App. Div. 250. 100 For this statement there would seem to be no New York authority. There are, however, cases to this effect in Virginia and Maryland, in which states title to the submerged land is in the state. In Virginia the state is the owner of land under tide waters below low water mark, having granted title to the riparian proprietors to that mark. In the case of Taylor v. Commonwealth, 102 Va. 759, it was held that the stat'e was entitled to grant the right to locate an artesian well on its lands n Lelow low water mark. The riparian owner used her land for fishing. A pier would not be an appropriate improvement at this time; and if conditions so changed that a pier was necessary, the court, on application, could grant the riparian owner the right to erect it. In Maryland also the title to land under tidal waters is in the state. In Hodson v. Nelson, 122 Maryland 330, it was held that the riparian owner, not having title to land under water, could not at that time enjoin the maintenance of a crab house on piles driven into the mud in front of his upland; but that the structure must yield to the plaintiff's improvements, if ever it interfered with them. It is interesting in this connection to note that in Texas, where conditions are quite different from those around New York City, any member of the public has the right to erect a bath house between high and low water mark in such a way as not to interfere with the access of the riparian owner. Galveston v. Heidenheimer, 63 Tex. 559. The possibilities in this connection are so well illustrated by a project in contemplation in Louisiana that an article with regard to it from The American City for October, 1924, is annexed, as follows: "To Create a Chain of Four Islands. "New Orleans, La.-Following authorization by the Louisiana Legislature of the issuance of bonds for the development and beautification of the New Orleans shoreline of Lake Pontchartrain, and the creation thereby of an all-year water-side resort, the New Orleans Association of Commerce has submitted plans for such a project to the Levee Board. "Lake Pontchartrain, which is an arm of the Gulf of Mexico forty miles in length and twenty miles in width, is for the most part shallow, its depth in some places being only ten feet. The Association has therefore suggested that the Levee Board take advantage of this feature by the creation of a chain of four islands, as illustrated on the following drawing: (Drawing inserted in original) "These islands, which would contain more than 1,000 acres of land, would afford excellent locations for resort hotels, tea gardens, recreation parks, bathing-beaches, etc. In addition, they would provide a much-needed protected harbor three-quarters of a mile wide and five miles in length. While no estimate of cost and probable revenue was submitted with the plans, the Association has satisfied itself, through consultation with architects, engineers and dredging contractors, that the cost of building up the proposed islands would not exceed the value of the land so provided. It has been estimated that the creation of the land would cost about $7,000 an acre, and by making one-half of this land available for sale at its probable value of about $40,000 an acre, sufficient funds would be received to cover the entire cost of the project, including the embellishment of the parks, construction of driveways, etc. "The Association's plans also include an extension of the present shore-line and the reclamation of several thousand acres of land for public parks, playgrounds, boulevards and residential sites, and the construction of a land and hydroplane base, the need for which has been impressed upon the city of New Orleans many times in recent years. The cost of these developments also, it is believed, will be more than covered by the revenue from the sale of surplus improved waterfront sites. Walter Parker, "General Manager, New Orleans Association of Commerce." Even though a bridge was constructed across a navigable stream with the consent of the federal and state authorities, was built according to plans approved by them, and was not then an obstruction to navigation, yet when by changed conditions it becomes a serious obstruction to navigation, the state and its lawful agencies may require it to be reconstructed. Neither the state nor a city acting for it can contract away its police power. The duty of a railroad company not to impair the usefulness of a stream is a continuing one. People v. Metropolitan Railway Co., 285 Ill. 246; Metropolitan Railway Co. v. Sanitary District, 285 Ill. 342. 234, PUBLIC RECREATION 101 Blanchard v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 60 N. Y. 510. 102 Broolhaven v. Strong, 60 N. Y. 56; Smith v. Odell, 234 N. Y. 267. The state can no longer grant special fishing privileges in waters that remain navigable, even when it has parted with the title to the land under them. (See pp. 212-214.) The state cannot grant exclusive fishing privileges in Maryland (Sollers v. Sollers, 77 Md. 148) or North Carolina (Bell v. Smith, 171 N. C. 116) or New Jersey (Paul v. Hazelton, 37 N. J. L. 106). The state may grant exclusive rights to plant oysters to its own citizens; for it has a proprietary right in the soil. The privileges secured to all citizens of the United States by the United States Constitution do not include the right to share in the property of a state. The United States Constitution protects only fundamental rights, McCreedy v. Commonwealth, 27 Grattan (Va.) 985. Hunting: Smith v. Odell, 194 App. Div. 763, 234 N. Y. 267; Stewart v. Turney, 203 App. Div. 486. Bathing: Barnes v. Midland Railroad Co., 193 N. Y. 378. Boating for Pleasure: People v. Delaware and Hudson Co., 213 N. Y. 194; see Crocker v. Champlin, 202 Mass. 437. Any legitimate purpose: Barnes case, above; People v. Page, 39 App. Div. 110; Murphy v. City of Brooklyn, 98 N. Y. 642. Skating: See Parsons v. Powder Co., 198 Mich. 410; Woodman v. Pitkin, 79 Maine 456. See generally, State v. Korrer, 127 Minn. 60. The fact that, in the present changed conditions of the stream, its use for commerce or navigation is insignificant, does not destroy the property rights therein of the states, or give the owner of the adjacent upland the right to appropriate the stream and bed to his individual use. People v. Page (supra). In 1910 the State of Wisconsin issued a report of a Committee on Water Powers, Forestry and Drainage, a portion of which is as follows: The courts in other jurisdictions have held that those using navigable waters for the purpose of pleasure have equal rights with those who use the same for purposes of commerce and profit. In West Roxbury v. Stoddard, 7 Allen, 158, 171, the court in the course of its opinion, said: "The purpose of the navigation is immaterial... and those who pass upon the water for the purpose of pleasure, fishing, or fowling have equal rights with those who navigate for business, trade or agriculture." In State v. Club, 100 N. C. 477, it is said: " Navigable waters are natural highways-so recognized by government and the people, and hence, it seems to be accepted as a part of the common law of this country, arising out of the public necessity, convenience and common consent, that the public have the right to use rivers, lakes, sounds and parts of them, though not strictly public waters, if they be navigable, in fact, for the purposes of a highway and navigation, employed in travel, trade and commerce. Such waters are treated as publici juris, in so far as they may be properly used for such purposes, in their natural state." The same court, in State v. Baum, 128 N. C. 600, says: "The rule now most generally adopted, and that which seems best suited to our own domestic conditions, is that all water courses are regarded as navigable in law which are navigable in fact, that is, that the public have the right to the unobstructed navigation as a public highway for all purposes of pleasure and profit, of all water courses, whether tidal or inland, that are in their natural condition capable of such use." The Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in Atty. Genl. v. Woods, 108 Mass. 436, 439, in the following language, very definitely holds that the right to navigate for pleasure is equally as sacred as the right to navigate for commerce and profit: "It is also denied that the stream is navigable, although it is about two feet deep at low water, because it is not proved to be used for purposes of navigation except with pleasure boats. The case of Rowe v. Granite Bridge Co., 21 Pick. 344, 347, is cited to sustain this position. Chief Justice Shaw there says: 'It is not every small creek in which a fishing skiff or gunning canoe can be made to float at high water, which is deemed navigable. But in order to have this character it must be navigable for some purpose useful to trade or agriculture.' The same thing in substance is stated in Charlestown v. County Commissioners, 3 Met. 202, and Murdock v. Stickney, 8 Cush. 113, 115. But this language is applied to the capacity of the stream, and is not intended to be a strict enumeration of the uses to which it must be actually applied in order to give it this character. Navigable streams are highways; and a traveller for pleasure is as fully entitled to protection in using a public way, whether by land or by water, as a traveller for business." Michigan follows the rule laid down in the preceding Massachusetts case: "It (Grand River) has never been navigable for boats, except for canoes and bateaux, above Lyons, and no steamboats have been above the rapids at Grand Rapids for many years. Small steamboats have run between the mouth and the city of Grand Rapids, and, with the aid of government appropriations, the river below the rapids at that city may be a waterway of great commercial utility; but above the rapids it has nearly served its usefulness as a navigable stream, except for small pleasure boats. The running of logs, lumber and timber upon it is no longer of consequence, on account of the exhaustion of the forest supply of easy access to its tributaries. But it will ever be an important public stream, and its navigability for pleasure is as sacred in the eye of the law as its navigability for any other purpose." Grand Rapids v. Powers, 89 Mich. 94. Farnham, in his treatise on waters and water rights, p. 131, asserts that: "Everyone has an equal right to the reasonable use of the water for all legitimate purposes of travel and transportation." Again at p. 134 the author says: "The use of the stream is not confined to purposes of commerce if it is in fact navigable, but it may be used for pleasure as well as business." Angell on Water Courses, p. 701, asserts in language similar to that used by Farnham, that the right of navigation for commerce and profit and for pleasure are equal in the eyes of the law. At Section 537 it is said: "If a stream is naturally of sufficient size to float boats or mill-logs, the public have the right to its free use for those two purposes, unincumbered with dams, etc." To substantiate this assertion the following cases are cited: Wadsworth v. Smith, 2 Fairf. (Me.) 278; Browne v. Chadbourne, 31 Maine 9; Moore v. Sanborne, 2 Gibbs (Mich.) 519; Morgan v. King, 18 Barb. (N. Y.) 277; s. c. 31 Barb. (N. Y.) 9; Barclay R. R. Co. v. Benson, 39 Penn. St. 194. In Minnesota it is held that navigable lakes, if navigable for purposes of pleasure, are navigable within the reason and spirit of the common law rule. " Most of the definitions of 'navigability' in the decided cases... seem to convey the idea that the water must be capable of some commerce of pecuniary value, as distinguished from boating for mere pleasure. But if, under present conditions of society, bodies of water are TEXT REFERENCE NOTES 235 used for public uses other than mere commercial navigation, in its ordinary sense, we fail to see why they ought not to be held to be public waters, or navigable waters, if the old nomenclature is preferred. "Certainly, we do not see why boating or sailing for pleasure should not be considered navigation as well as boating for mere pecuniary profit. Many, if not most, of the meandered lakes of this state are not adapted to, and probably will never be used to any great extent for commercial navigation; but they are used-and as population increases, and towns and cities are built in their vicinity, will be still more used-by the people for sailing, rowing, fishing, fowling, bathing, skating, taking water for domestic, agricultural and even city purposes, cutting ice, and other public purposes which cannot be enumerated or even anticipated. To hand over all these lakes to private ownership, under any old or narrow test of navigability, would be a great wrong upon the public for all time, the extent of which cannot, perhaps, be now even anticipated. " Lamprey v. State, 52 Minn. 181. Justice Marshall in the Rossmiller case, supra, states that the public have the right to use navigable waters for every legitimate purpose. " It has been universally supposed, we venture to say, that the right of every person within the state to its public waters for every legitimate purpose. which does not wrongfully interfere with the right of any other person to like enjoyment, subject only to such mere police regulations as the legislature in its wisdom prescribe to preserve the common heritage of all, is a constitutional right of all persons within the state." 103 Home for Aged Women v. Commonwealth, 202 Mass. 422, at p. 434. 104 193 N. Y. 378. See also Nolan v. Rockaway Park Improvement Co., 76 Hun. 458; Aguino v. Riegelman, 104 Misc. 228. 10" Brookhaven v. Smith, 188 N. Y. 74. 11-6 The court seems to hold that the right of seaside resort to the foreshore is in the people and not in the state in trust for the people. Apparently the court in the late case of Appleby v. City of New York, 235 N. Y. 351, holds to the same general theory; and it cites earlier cases to the same effect. 0'1 Murphy Adm'r v. City of Brooklyn, 98 N. Y. 642. See Siebel v. Pleayl, 172 N. Y. Sup. 798 (Supreme Court). 118 See Staten Island Ferry Case, 68 N. Y. 71; Abbott v. Curran, 98 N. Y. 665; People v. Jessup, 160 N. Y. 249; Steeplechase Case, 218 N. Y. 459. 101 Coxe v. State, 144 N. Y. 396; Matter of City of New York (Speedway case) 168 N. Y. 134; Brookhaven v. Smith, 188 N. Y. 74. 110 Barnes case, cited above; Appleby v. City of New York, cited with some fullness on p. 223. "1I Coxe v. State, 144 N. Y. 396. 112 People ex rel Barnham v. Jones, 112 N. Y. 597; People ex rel Underhill v. Saxton, 15 App. Div. 262, affd. without opinion, 154 N. Y. 748. The grant of the state cannot be attacked collaterally unless void on its face. Lally v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 123 App. Div. 35. 113 Coxe v. State, 144 N. Y. 396, for example. 114 Slingerland v. International Contracting Co., 169 N. Y. 60. 1"I Ramsey v. N. Y. &. N. E. R. R. Co., 130 N. Y. 88. The United States may take land under navigable water for a lighthouse, but not for a fish hatchery (Edmundon Island Case, 42 Fed. Rep. 15). 116 City of New York v. Railroad Co., 198 App. Div. 517, 234 N. Y. 113. 117 First Construction Co. v. State of New York, 221 N. Y. 295, at 316-317. I's People v. Delaware & Hudson R. R. Co., 213 N. Y. 194, at p. 200; First Construction Co. v. City of New York, 221 N. Y. 295, at 316-317; Appleby v. City of New York, 235 N. Y. 351. "I0 Abbott v. Curran, 98 N. Y. 665. 120 Appleby v. City of New York, cited below. See also application of City of New York, 122 Misc. 863. 121 People v..Steeplechase Park Co. 218 N. Y. 459. The case cites the authorities. The actual point decided was that the grant was not open to collateral attack, but could only be questioned by the state, which was not a party. 122 235 N. Y. 351. APPENDIX- STATISTICAL TABLES TABLE I.-STATISTICS OF OPEN SPACES IN NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS, BY COUNTIES-1921 County Parks" Name New York (State).. Bronx.......... Kings (Brooklyn) New York (Manhattan).. Queens.......... Richmond........ Total New York City........ Estimated population 1921 760,000 2,055,000 2,261,500 518,000 121,000 AcresI Acres 26,524 43,898 14,038 69,101 36,600 5,715,5001 190,161 I I. Dutchess (Part of) Nassau......... Orange (Part of).. Putnam......... Rockland....... Suffolk........... Westchester. New Jersey Bergen........... Essex........... Hudson......... Middlesex....... Monmouth (Part of):... Morris......... Passaic.......... Somerset........ Union.......... Connecticut Fairfield (Part of) Total......... 19,500 142,500 68,500 11,500 48,000 116,500 361,000 217,000 663,000 634,000 165,000 103,000 83,500 261,500 48,500 1205,500 299,000 9,163,000 74,000 175,360 265,680 154,240 117,120 588,800 286,720 151,680 81,280 27,520 199,680 270,000 304,000 125,440 195,200 65,920 264,448 3,537,249 4,415.9 1,431.3 1,571.5 1,096.1 373.6 8,888.4 6.0 55.5 16,940.0 0.0 18,234.7 284.0 1,459.0 1,081.0 3,749.3 700.1 88.5 15.5 91.5 264.0 6.0 143.0 1,064.5 53,071.0 Per cent of county area 16.6 3.3 11.2 1.6 1.0 4.7 0.01 0.03 6.4 0.0 15.6 0.05 0.5 0.7 4.6 2.5 0.04 0.006 0.03 0.2 0.003 0.2 0.4 1.5 Population per acre 172 1,437 1,440 473 324 643 3,250 2,568 4 3 410 248 200 177 906 1,864 6,645 913 991 8,083 1,437 281 173 Acres per 1,000 population 5.8 0.7 0.7 2.1 3.1 1.6 0.3 0.4 247.3 0.0 379.9 2.4 4.0 5.0 5.6 1.1 0.5 0.2 1.1 1.0 0.1 0.7 3.6 5.8 Cemeteriesa Acres 484.0 919.0 21.0 2,084.6 561.6 4,070.2 0.0 205.0 106.5 0.0 17.5 2,643.6 1,729.0 645.5 519.0 320.5 276.8 219.3 255.0 417.0 119.5 298.5 253.5 12,096.4 Municipal watershed propertiesb Acres 128.5 58.0 322.0 508.5 2,703.0 5.5 8,621.4 20,432.9 3.5 209.0 31.5 6.0 6,432.5 15,700.0 628.0 55,281.8 Total open spaces Per Popu- Acres cent. per Acres of ation 1,000 county acre popuarea lation S13,467.11 7.1 1424 2.4 5,028.4 2,408.3 1,592.5 3,502.7 935.2 6.0 2,963.5 17,052.0 8,621.4 18,252.2 2,927.6 23,620.9 1,730.0 4,477.3 1,052.1 371.3 234.8 6,t779.0 16,381.0 125.5 441.5 1,946.0 120,449.2 0.01 1.7 6.4 5.6 15.6 0.5 8.2 1.1 5.5 3.8 0.2 0.1 2.2 13.1 0.06 0.7 0.7 3.4 3,250 48 4 1 3 40 15 125 148 603 445 438 12 16 387 466 154 76 0.3 20.8 249.0 750.0 380.2 25.1 65.5 8.0 6.8 1.7 2.2 2.3 81.2 62.6 2.6 2.1 6.5 13.2 19.0 5.5 11.3 5.1 2.6 151 853 1,420 148 129 6.6 1.2 0.7 6.8 7.7 "No parks or cemeteries of less than one acre are included. b Includes municipal reservoirs and lands devoted to the collection and storage of water supply. 237 238 PUBLIC RECREATION TABLE II.-STATISTICS OF OPEN SPACES IN NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS, BY COUNTIES-1927 County Parksa Munic- Total open spaces ipal Ceme- waterEstimated Per Popu- Acres teriesa shed Per Popu- Acres cent lation per - prop- cent lation per Name popu- Acres Acres of lo 1n000 Acres ertiesb Acres of laio 1,000 lationpe-pe 1,0 1927 county acrePopu- county acrePopuarea lation Acres area lation New York (State) Bronx...........933,000 26,524 4,463.6 16.8 209 4.8 484.0 128.5 5,076.1 19.1 184 5.4 Kings (Brooklyn) 2,282,000 43,898 2,576.3 5.9 885 1.1 919.0 50.4 3,545.7 8.1 644 1.6 New York (Manhattan)........2,172,500 14,038 1,745.0 12.4 1,245 0.8 21.0.. 1,766.0 12.6 1,230 0.8 Queens...........760,500 69,101 1,318.8 1.9 577 1.7 2,084.6 261.6 3,665.0 5.3 207 4.8 Richmond........151,500 36,600 378.3 1.0 400 2.5 561.6. 939.9 2.6 161 6.2 Total New York City......... 6,299,500 190,161 10,482.0 5.5 601 1.7 4,070.2 440.5 14,992.7 7.9 420 2.4 Dutchess (Part of) 24,500 74,000 6.0 0.01 4,083 0.2.... 6.0 0.01 4,083 0.2 Nassau..........220,500 175,360 2,829.7 1.6 78 12.8 205.0 455.0 3,489.7 2.0 63 15.8 Orange (Part of).- 83,500 265,680 17,986.3 6.8 5 215.4 106.5 5.5 18,098.3 6.8 5 216.0 Putnam...........13,000 154,240 0.0 0.0.. 0.0 0.0 8,621.4 8,621.4 5.6 2 663.2 Rockland.........59,500 117,120 19,734.7 16.8 3 332.0 17.5.. 19,752.2 16.9 3 332.0 Suffolk..........154,000 588,800 11,548.6 2.0 13 75.0 2,643.6.. 14,192.2 2.4 11 92.2 Westchester......448,000 286,720 16,007.6 5.6 28 35.7 1,729.0 20,532.9 38,269.5 13.4 12 85.4 New Jersey Bergen........... 265,500 151,680 1,126.0 0.7 236 4.2 645.5 3.5 1,775.0 1.2 149 6.7 Essex............ 754,000 81,280 4,015.9 4.9 188 5.3 519.0 209.0 4,743.9 5.8 159 6.3. Hudson.......... 690,000 27,520 740.1 2.7 932 1.1 320.5 31.5 1,092.1 4.0 632 1.6. Middlesex........186,500 199,680 88.5 0.04 2,107 0.5 276.8 6.0 371.3 0.2 503 2.0, Monmouth (Part of):............109,000 270,000 15.5 0.006 7,032 0.1 219.3.. 234.8 0.1 464 2.2. Morris........... 88,000 304,000 106.5 0.04 826 1.2 255.0 8,865.5 9,227.0 3.0 10 104.8. Passaic..........292,000 125,440 o417.7 0.3 699 1.4 417.0 17,200.0 18,034.7 14.4 16 61.8. Somerset......... 52,000 195,200 112.2 0.06 463 2.2 119.5.. 231.7 0.1 225 4.5 Union...........247,000 65,920 3,720.0 5.6 66 15.0 298.5.. 4,018.5 6.1 61 16.2: Connecticut Fairfield (Part of) 353,500 264,448 1,064.5 0.4 332 3.0 253.5 628.0 1,946.0 0.7 182 5.5 Total......... 10,340,000 3,537,249 90,001.8 2.5 115 8.7 12,096.4 56,998.8 159,097.0 4.5 65 15.4 a No parks or cemeteries of less than one acre are included. b Includes municipal reservoirs and lands devoted to the collection and storage of water supply. cIncludes Garrett Mt., 153.7 acres, open to the public but not dedicated for park purposes. APPENDIX-STATISTICAL TABLES 239 TABLE III.-STATE, COUNTY AND LOCAL PARK AREAS IN NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS, BY COUNTIES-1927 County Park areas" State and county Local Per cent Name Acres Per cent Per cent Total of county Acres of county Acres of county area area area New York (State) Bronx.......................... 26,524.... 4,463.6 16.8 4,463.6 16.8 Kings (Brooklyn)............... 43,898.... 2,576.3 5.9 2,576.3 5.9 New York (Manhattan)......... 14,038.... 1,745.0 12.4 1,745.0 12.4 Queens........................ 69,101.... 1,318.8 1.9 1,318.8 1.9 Richmond...................... 36,600.... 378.3 1.0 378.3 1.0 Total New York City.......... 190,161.... 10,482.0 5.5 10,482.0 5.5 Dutchess (Part of).............. 74,000.... 6.0 0.01 6.0 0.01 Nassau........................ 175,360 2,672.8b 1.5 156.9 0.09 2,829.7 1.6 Orange (Part of)................ 265,680 17,862.0c 6.7 124.3 0.05 17,986.3 6.8 Putnam....................... 154,240 Rockland...................... 117,120 19,690.00 16.8 44.7 0.04 19,734.7 16.8 Suffolk........................ 588,800 4,922.3b 6,400.0d 1.9 226.3 0.04 11,548.6 2.0 Westchester.................... 286,720 15,487.00 5.4 520.6 0.18 16,007.6 5.6 New Jersey Bergen........................ 151,680 940.0c 0.6 186.0 0.12 1,126.0 0.7 Essex......................... 81,280 3,744.7e 4.6 271.2 0.33 4,015.9 4.9 Hudson......................... 27,520 587.1e 2.1 153.0 0.56 740.1 2.7 Middlesex...................... 199,680.... 88.5 0.04 88.5 0.04 Monmouth (Part of)............ 270,000.... 15.5 0.01 15.5 0.01 Morris......................... 304,000.... 106.5 0.04 106.5 0.04 Passaic........................ 125,440... 417.71 0.33 417.7 0.3 Somerset....................... 195,200.... 112.2 0.06 112.2 0.06 Union......................... 65,920 3,609.0e 5.5 111.0 0.17 3,720.0 5.6 Connecticut Fairfield (Part of)............... 264,448 351.0b 0.1 713.5 0.27 1,064.5 0.4 Total........................ 3,537,249 76,265.9 2.2 13,735.9 0.4 90,001.8 2.5 No parks of less than one acre are included. b State Parks...........................Total 7,946.1 Acres r Interstate Parks....................... " 38,492.0 " d Federal Forest Preserve................. " 6,400.0 " e County Parks.......................... " 23,427.8 " J Includes Garrett Mt., 153.7 acres, open to the public, but not dedicated for park purposes. 240 PUBLIC RECREATION TABLE IV.-PUBLIC PARKS AND FOREST PRESERVES OF 1,000 ACRES OR MORE WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 200 MILES OF NEW YORK CITY Park and forest area in acres State State County City or or Total Existing Proposed metropolitan local Connecticut,............................8,672 11,000a.... 19,672 Maryland-Virginia.............................. 110,000.... 110,000 Massachusetts................................ 67,360 20,000a 6,752 3,366 97,478 New Jersey.................................. 28,086 32,463 4,057.. 64,606 New York................................... 242,460 446,920 3,754 3,607 696,741 Pennsylvania................................. 282,400.... 3,754 286,154 Washington, D. C................................... 1,606 1,606 Total.....................................628,978 620,383 14,563 12,333 1,276,257 a Proposed by the State of New York as part of the Tri-State Park. TABLE V.-STATISTICS OF GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUBS, AND PUBLIC PARKS IN NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS, BY CERTAIN COUNTIES Acres per 1,000 County Golf and country clubsa 1923 Public2parksb Per cent of 1924 county area Mem- PopMem- ulaers tion EstimatedaNum- Mem- Acres Asessed Num- Acres Clubs Parks ClubsParks Name popula- Acres her hersArs valuation ber-Ace Clb PakCusPrs tion 1924 New York (State) New York City... 6,000,000 190,161 13 3,825 1,344 $1,808,300 125 9,367.8 0.7 4.9 350 1.6 Nassau.......... 145,000 175,360 29 8,565 4,102 3,056,825 14 123.0 2.3 0.07 479 0.8 Suffolk...........115,000 588,800 22 4,183 2,996 1,518,450 11 284.0 0.5 0.05 716 2.5 Westchester.......390,000 286,720 38 19,412 5,231 10,596,702 42 5,443.0 1.8 1.9 269 14.0 New Jersey Bergen.. 9 243,000 151,680 6 2,615 888 572,375 11 1,081.0 0.6 0.7 340 4.4 Essex...720,000 81,280 12 3,674 1,487 1,050,900 41 3,763.0 1.8 4.6 405 5.2 Middlesex.........179,500 199,680 4 1,420 399 115,970 5 88.5 0.2 0.04 281 0.5 Morris............86,500 304,000 9 1,061 1,260 412,900 6 91.5 0.4 0.03 1,188 1.1 Passaic...........284,500 125,440 2 500 443 118,300 12 264.0 0.35 0.2 886 0.9 Somerset...........51,000 195,200 4 1,001 440 196,500 3 106.0 0.2 0.05 440 2.1 Union.............230,000 65,920 8 2,770 1,141 993,600 16 2,533.0 1.7 3.8 412 11.0 Connecticut Fairfield (Part of). 327,000 264,448 12 2,823 1,434 814,203 19 1,064.5 0.5 0.4 506 3.3 Total............ 8,771,500 2,628,689 159 51,849 21,165 $21,255,025 305 24,209.3 0.8 0.9 408 2.8 a Figures for Golf and Country Clubs based on information received up to July, 1923. b Figures for Public Parks based on information received up to June, 1924. APPENDIX-STATISTICAL TABLES 241 TABLE VI.-COMPARATIVE PUBLIC PARK STATISTICS FOR COMMUNITIES OF OVER 25,000 POPULATION Parks City New York (State) New York City....... Yonkers............. Mount Vernon....... New Rochelle........ Newburgh.......... White Plains......... New Jersey Newark.............. Jersey City......... Paterson............ Elizabeth........... Bayonne............. Passaic.............. Hoboken........... Union City...... East Orange.......... Perth Amboy........ West New York...... New Brunswick...... C lifton............. Irvington........... Orange............ Montclair............. Plainfield............ K earny.............. Bloomfield.......... Connecticut Bridgeport.......... Stamford........... Norwalk............ Estimated population 1927 County Local Total iI I 6,299,500 119,000 53,400 47,400 30,400 30,000 467,700 322,200 144,000 114,800 93,600 71,000 68,200 64,200 63,700 49,300 42,900 40,100 38,100 36,300 36,200 34,600 33,400 33,100 27,500 165,000 43,000 30,500 Acres 1,700.0 257.0 450.0 615.0 771.5 256.2 40.0 103.5 7.4 11.0 30.4 47.4 47.6 77.6 110.0 60.5 Acres per 1,000 population 14.3 4.8 9.5 20.5 1.65 0.65 0.35 1.0 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.3 1.3 2.25 3.3 2.2 Acres 10,482.0 70.3 15.6 113.5 40.0 26.8 15.0 84.0 291.2a 29.0 24.0 117.0 8.5 2.0 18.5 3.5 6.5 77.5 9.5 6.0 75.5 55.0 28.0 3.0 411.0 84.5 110.5 Acres per 1,000 population Acres Acres per 1,000 population I I Population per acre 1.7 0.6 0.3 2.4 1.3 0.9 0.03 0.25 2.0 0.25 0.25 1.65 0.1 0.03 0.3 0.07 0.15 1.9 0.25 0.2 2.2 1.65 0.85 0.1 2.5 1.95 3.6 10,482.0 1,770.3 272.6 563.5 40.0 641.8 786.5 340.2 291.2a 69.0 127.5 117.0 15.9 13.0 48.9 3.5 6.5 77.5 9.5 53.4 47.6 153.1 165.0 28.0 63.5 411.0 84.5 110.5 1.7 14.9 5.1 11.9 1.3 21.4 1.7 1.1 2.0 0.6 1.4 1.65 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.07 0.15 1.9 0.25 1.5 1.3 4.45 4.95 0.85 2.3 2.5 1.95 3.6 601 67 196 84 760 47 595 947 495 1,664 734 607 4,289 4,938 1,303 14,086 6,600 517 4,010 680 760 226 202 1,182 433 401 508 276 Total............. 8,599,100 4,585.1 0.5 12,207.9 1.4 16,793.0 1.95 512 a Includes Garrett Mt., 153.7 acres, open to the public but not dedicated for park purposes. COMPARATIVE DISTRIBUTION WITHIN THE REGION AREA New York City...... Other Communities... Balance of Region.... Total............. 297.5 square miles.... 5.4% 216.7 i "....3.9% 5,014.0 " "...90.7% 5,528.2 "....100.0% POPULATION, 1927 estimated New York City...... 6,299,500.............. 60.9% Other Communities... 2,299,600.............. 22.2% Balance of Region.... 1,744,900............... 16.9% Total............. 10,340,000..............100.0% PARK AREAS New York City..... 10,482.0 acres............ 11.6% Other Communities County........... 4,585.1 ".............5.1% Local............. 1,725.9.............1.9% Balance of Region... 73,208.8 "............ 81.4% Total............. 89,935.2........... 100.0% PARK AREAS (Exclusive of Interstate Parks) New York City....10,482.0 acres............ 20.3% Other Communities... 6,311.0 "............. 12.2% Balance of Region....34,716.8. "........... 67.5% Total............. 51,509.8 "....... 100.0% SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY NOTE.-The following list of references to books, pamphlets, reports and magazine articles has been selected from the 1927 edition of the recreation bibliography entitled "Sources of Information on Play and Recreation," published by the Recreation Department of the Russell Sage Foundation, 130 East 22d St., New York. This bibliography, revised to the fall of 1927, contains over 1,400 carefully selected titles, and lists 58 organizations which furnish printed matter and other service in many branches of recreation. CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING FOR RECREATION Boston (Mass.) Park Department. Report on Future Parks, Playgrounds, and Parkways, by Arthur A. Shurtleff. Nov. 1925. 60 pp. illus. Free. Contains a wealth of practical suggestions for regional park developments. Brewer, C. E. Influence of Zoning on the Design of Public Recreation Facilities. In Proceedings of American Society of Civil Engineers, Feb. 1925, vol. 51, pp. 242-6. Zoning as affecting distribution and location of playgrounds, etc. Burnap, George F. Parks-Their Design, Equipment, and Use. J. B. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 1916. 328 pp. illus. $8.50. Chap. v, Neighborhood; Chap. vi, Recreation in Parks; Chap. vii, Playgrounds in Parks. City Planning, a quarterly magazine, which is the official organ of the American City Planning Institute and the National Conference on City Planning. City Planning Pub. Co., 9 Park St., Boston, Mass. $3.00 a year, 75 cents a copy. Committee on State Park Plan, New York State Association, 51 Chapel St., Albany, N. Y. A State Park Plan for New York, 2nd ed. Jan. 1924, 96 pp. illus. Ford, George B. Parks and Playfields-A Mathematical Method of Determining Their Location, Size and Urgency. American City, vol. 38, pp. 115-18, Apr. 1928. Hanmer, Lee F. Planning for Play. The Survey, vol. 54, pp. 444-7, July 15, 1925. Some of the methods and results of the Recreation Survey of Greater New York for the Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs, especially with reference to adequate provision for play space. Harmon, Wm. E. Provision for Recreation Space in Growing Cities. The Playground, vol. 18, pp. 683-4, Mar. 1925. - Value of Parks and Playgrounds in Real Estate Development. The Playground, vol. 17, pp. 440-4, Nov. 1923. Hubbard, H. V. Parks and Playgrounds; Their Requirements and Distribution as Elements in the City Plan. The Playground, vol. 16, pp. 418-22, 473-6, 545-7, Dec. 1922-Feb. 1923. Lewis, Nelson P. Planning of the Moder City. A review of the principles governing city planning. John Wiley & Sons, 440 Fourth Ave., New York. 1922. 457 pp. illus. $5.00. Chap. 7, Parks and Recreation Facilities. Lohmann, Karl B. The Design of the Larger Municipal Park. Parks and Recreation, vol. 9, pp. 115-35, illus. Nov.-Dec. 1925. Mendenhall, Herbert D. "Safety Playgrounds" in Residential Blocks. American City, vol. 33, pp. 542-3, Nov. 1925. Municipal Planning, Park and Art Administration in American Cities. Collated from replies to questionnaire sent out by the American Civic Association, 905 Union Trust Bldg., Washington, D. C. Amer. Civic Ass'n, May 1, 1925. 62 pp. 75 cents. Nolen, John. New Towns for Old; Achievements in Civic Improvement in Some American Small Towns and Neighborhoods. Marshall Jones Co., 212 Summer St., Boston, Mass., 1927. 198 pp. illus. $3.00. Shows the present tendency of home seekers to be toward towns offering special educational and recreational advantages. - Twenty Years of City Planning Progress in the United States. Proceedings of Nat'l Conference on City Planning, 1927, pp. 1-20. (Address the Secretary, Flavel Shurtleff, 130 East 22d St., New York.) Olmsted, Frederick Law. Relation of Park Planning to City and Regional Planning. Parks and Recreation. vol. 8, pp. 203-7, Jan.-Feb. 1925. Parker, Geo. A. Making City Parks Self-supporting. American Civic Ass'n, Washington, D. C. Leaflet, 5 cents. Perry, Clarence Arthur. The Neighborhood Unit-A Scheme of Arrangement for the Family-Life Community. Included in Volume VII of Regional Plan of New York and Its Environs. Reynolds, H. A. Town Forests-Their Recreational and Economic Value and How to Establish and Maintain Them. American Tree Ass'n, 1214 16th St., Washington, D. C. 1925. 56 pp. Free. 243 244 PUBLIC RECREATION SOME RECENT CITY PLANNING REPORTS (Confined to those which include special provisions for recreation.) Baltimore, Md. Report and Recommendations on Park Extension for Baltimore to the Board of Park Commissioners, 1926, by Olmsted Brothers (Henry V. Hubbard), consultants. City Plan Committee of the Department of Public Works, Baltimore. $2.00. (Order from Board of Park Commissioners.) Birmingham, Ala. A System of Parks and Playgrounds for Birmingham: Preliminary Report upon the Park Problems, Needs, and Opportunities of the City and Its Immediate Surroundings, by Olmsted Brothers. Park and Recreation Board of Birmingham, 1925. 31 pp. illus. Free. Cincinnati, Ohio. Official Plan of the City of Cincinnati, by Technical Advisory Corporation, New York. City Plan Commission, Cincinnati, 1925. 274 pp. illus. $2.17. Chapters on Parks and Playfields, Schools and Play-Yards. Columbus, Ga. City Plan of Columbus, Ga., by John Nolen and Associates, Cambridge, Mass. Columbus Planning Board, 1926. 34 pp. illus. $1.75. Includes park, parkway and playground recommendations. New Brunswick, N. J. The New Brunswick Plan, by Herbert S. Swan. City Planning Commission, 1925. 92 pp. illus. Chapter on Parks and Playgrounds. Schenectady, N. Y. Preliminary Report on Major Streets, Transit, Parks and Playgrounds, by Harland Bartholomew. City Planning Commission, 1924. 70 pages, illus. Free. RECREATION SURVEYS Atkinson, R. K. Playground Facilities in the All-Year Schools of Newark, N. J., Part V in The All-Year Schools of Newark, N. J., the report of a survey made to the Newark Board of Education by Dr. Wilson Farrand and Prof. M. V. O'Shea, 1926, pp. 79-96. Free pamphlet. Buffalo, Recreation Survey of. Conducted by Buffalo City Planning Association, Inc., under the direction of L. H. Weir. Published jointly by Dept. of Parks and Public Buildings, City Planning Com'e of the Council, and Buffalo City Planning Ass'n, 1925. 369 pp. illus. with maps. 25 cents. (Order from Buffalo City Planning Ass'n, 110 Delaware Ave., Buffalo, N. Y.) Cleveland Recreation Survey. Cleveland Foundation, 710 Federal Reserve Bank Bldg., Cleveland, Ohio. Seven volumes, 50 cents each. Some of these are now out of print, but as the set will doubtless be found in most public libraries, the complete list of titles is given below: Delinquency and Spare Time, by Henry WV. Thurston. 1918. 189 pp. School Work and Spare Time, by F. G. Bonser. 1918. 176 pp. Wholesome Citizens and Spare Time, by John L. Gillin. 1918. 182 pp. The Sphere of Private Agencies, edited by Cleveland Foundation. 1920. 150 pp. Commercial Recreation, by Charlotte Rumbold and Raymond Moley. 1920. 155 pp. Public Provision for Recreation, by Rowland Haynes and Stanley P. Davies. 1920. 197 pp. A Community Recreation Program, by Rowland Haynes and Carlton K. Matson. 1920. 150 pp. (This is a summary of the survey.) Kiwanis Club of New York City. A Survey of New York City Boys, by F. F. C. Rippon. Made for the Kiwanis Club of New York City, 54 West 33d St., New York, 1926. 51 pp. Free. The survey covers: Distribution of boys according to race, religion, occupation and social status; the effects of various social influences upon delinquency problems; a study of the social agencies specializing in boys' work; and recommendations. Parks, Playgrounds and Public Recreation Facilities. 1927 Municipal Index (published by the American City Magazine Corp., 443 Fourth Ave., New York), pp. 635-48. Statistics for 1926 covering municipalities of the United States of 5,000 population and over. Rogers, J. F. Municipal and School Playgrounds and Their Management. U. S. Bureau of Education, Washington, D. C. School Health Studies No. 6, Jan. 1924. 22 pp. 5 cents. (Order from Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C.) Statistics and other findings gathered from returns of a questionnaire sent to all superintendents of schools in cities having a population of 30,000 or more. Torrey, Raymond H. State Parks and Recreational Uses of State Forests in the United States. Nat'] Conference on State Parks, Interior Dept. Bldg., Washington, D. C., 1926. 259 pp. illus. Free to members of the Conference. Report of a survey made by the National Conference on State Parks, at request of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, to determine extent and character of existing facilities for outdoor recreation provided by State agencies, and the needs and prospects of extending them. Weir, L. H. Park and Recreation Statistics. Bureau of Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, Washington, D. C., 1927. (In preparation, fall, 1927.) Includes fifteen or more tables giving statistics gathered by means of a questionnaire sent to every incorporated community in the United States, and by personal visits to many of the larger cities. Year Book Number of The Playground (315 Fourth Ave., New York), is issued annually, usually in April (price 50 cents). The information given includes tables of playground and community recreation statistics for the preceding year, lists of officers of recreation commissions, boards and associations, and statistics of the play areas under leadership, and of the recreation workers, employed and volunteer, in the community recreation systems of the country. CONSTRUCTION AND ADMINISTRATION Backyard Playgrounds. U. S. Children's Bureau, Washington, D. C. Child Welfare Folder No. 2. 4 pp. illus. Free. Specifications for making play apparatus. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 245 Batchelor, W. C. Swimming Pool Construction. Reprinted from April 1926 American City by Playground and Recreation Ass'n of America, 315 Fourth Ave., New York. 4 pp. illus. 10 cents. A valuable discussion of outdoor pool construction with plans for pool and bath house. Bengtson, Bengt N. Indoor and Outdoor Swimming Pool Sanitation. Nation's Health, vol. 9, pp. 41-5, April 1927. Sub-title: "Modern pool hygiene considers the eradication of possible transmissible mediums for any communicable diseases from the swimmer, the water, and the tank." Burnett, L. R. A City's Responsibility for the Leisure Time of the Industrial Men. Amer. Phys. Educ. Rev., vol. 29, pp. 1-4, Jan. 1924. Industrial recreation program of Paterson, N. J. Doell, C. E. Methods of Financing Park Projects. Parks and Recreation, vol. 9, pp. 31-7, Sept.-Oct. 1925. For reprint, apply to American Institute of Park Executives, Rockford, Ill. Haas, O. F., and Sharp, H. M. Night Lighting for Outdoor Sports. Engineering Dept., National Lamp Works of General Electric Co., Nela Park, Cleveland, O. Bull. 51, Nov. 5, 1925. 24 pp. Free. (Excerpts are given in American City, vol. 34, pp. 265-8, Mar. 1926.) Discusses the various types of electric light equipment and gives comprehensive lighting plans for tennis, volley ball, bowling, bathing beaches, swimming pools, and a number of other outdoor recreations. Hadden, Gavin. Athletic Facilities to Meet Modern Needs in Towns and Cities. Reprint from American City for May 1926. 8 pp. illus. Layout and construction of athletic fields and field houses. --- Space vs. Sports. Amer. Phys. Educ. Rev., vol. 27, pp. 228-33, May 1922. Importance of bearing of space restrictions on the various outdoor athletic sports. NOTE: Above reprints of Mr. Hadden may be obtained from him at 280 Madison Ave., New York, free of charge. Haynes, Rowland. How Much Playground Space Does a City Need? Pamphlet No. 158. American City Magazine Corp., 443 Fourth Ave., New York. 15 cents. (Reprinted from American City, vol. 16, pp. 241-7, Mar. 1917.) Holman, Genevieve T. Street and Vacant Lot Play. The Playground, vol. 18, pp. 162-7, June 1924. History of movement, and practical suggestions. Hubbard, Henry V. Parks and Playgrounds-American Experience as to their Requirements and Distribution as Elements in the City Plan. Revised from paper given before the (American) National Conference on City Planning, for presentation at the International Town Planning Conference, Amsterdam, 1924. 25 pp. illus. 10 cents. (Apply to author, Cambridge 38, Mass.) Hutchinson, Dorothy. Preparation of School Grounds for Play Fields and Athletic Events. U. S. Bureau of Education, 1923. Phys. Educ. Series, No. 1. 17 pp. illus. 5 cents. (Order from Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C.) Layout and Equipment of Playgrounds. Playground and Recreation Ass'n, 315 Fourth Ave., New York, 1921. 60 pp. Illus. with plans. 50 cents. Includes athletic field layout, and a chapter on homemade apparatus. Lighting for Recreations (both indoor and outdoor). Compiled by J. H. Kurlander. Edison Lamp Works of General Electric Co., Harrison, N. J. 40 pp. Free bulletin. Lohmann, Karl B. Construction and Beautification of Playgrounds and Recreation Fields. The Playground, vol. 20, pp. 205-8, July 1926. Lowrie, Chas. N. Fundamentals of Design to Create Beauty in Playgrounds. American City, vol. 36, pp. 445-9, illus., April 1927. Meeds, C. H. Should Playgrounds Be Landscaped? Parks and Recreation, vol. 7, pp. 71-7, Sept.-Oct. 1923. A summary of this article appears in The Playground, vol. 17, p. 554, Jan. 1924. Nash, Jay B. Administration of Play and Recreation Activities in a City. The Playground, vol. 17, pp. 213-4, illus., July 1923. Reprinted as a pamphlet by the Playground and Recreation Ass'n. Free. - Organization and Administration of Playgrounds and Recreation. A. S. Barnes & Co., 67 West 44th St., New York, 1927. 547 pp. illus. $4.00. An up-to-date, complete manual for the recreation director, on all phases of the subject. - - Organizing a City's Play and Recreation Assets. American City, vol. 34, pp. 475-9, May, 1926. Reprint, American City. Pamphlet No. 230; 20 cents. Parks in the Larger Cities of the United States, compiled by Caroline L. B. Segrist. Municipal Reference Library Notes, New York, vol. 12, No. 13, pp. 53-7, Apr. 7, 1926. 5 cents. Statistics as to extent, cost, lighting, maintenance and administration of parks in 66 cities. Peaslee, H. W. Location of Playgrounds Relative to Landscaping. Parks and Recreation, vol. 8, pp. 356-8, Mar.-Apr. 1925. Swimming Pools and Other Public Bathing Places: Standards for Design, Construction, Equipment and Operation. Report of the Joint Committee on Bathing Places of the American Public Health Association and the Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, Oct. 1926. Reprinted from Amer. Jour. of Pub. Health for Dec. 1926, vol. 16, pp. 1186-1201. Amer. Pub. Health Ass'n, 370 Seventh Ave., New York. 25 cents. (Also printed in the 1927 Municipal Index, pp. 476-83.) Wagner, H. S. Municipal Golf-Its Influence on Park and Recreation Affairs. Parks and Recreation, vol. 10, pp. 147-51, Nov.-Dec. 1926. --- On the Influence of Golf in Park Development. Parks and Recreation, vol. 7, pp. 399-401, Mar.-Apr. 1924. 246 PUBLIC RECREATION Weir, L. H. Parks-A Manual of Municipal and County Parks. Prepared by Playground and Recreation Ass'n of America. A. S. Barnes & Co., New York, 1928. 2 vols. $7.50 each. Treats exhaustively of all phases of park and recreation system administration and organization. West, Myron H. Park Design. Mimeographed and distributed by Engineering Extension Dept., Purdue University, Lafayette, Ind. 7 pp. Free. Wirth, Theodore. A Feasible Plan to Finance Municipal Golf Links without Taxing the Public. Parks and Recreation, vol. 8, pp. 10-14, Sept.-Oct. 1924. - Is Park Department Logical Branch of City Government to Conduct Municipal Recreation Program? Parks and Recreation, vol. 10, pp. 141-4, Nov.-Dec. 1926. ---- Let's Work for More Public Golf Courses. Parks and Recreation, vol. 7, pp. 388-95, Mar.-Apr. 1924. Reports of Administrative Bodies. Below is given a selected list of official bodies administering parks, playgrounds, and other recreation facilities in the New York Region, from which printed reports of their work may be obtained upon request: Connecticut State Park and Forest Commission, Hartford, Conn. Elizabeth, N. J., Recreation Commission. Essex County, N. J., Park Commission, 810 Broad St., Newark, N. J. Hudson County, N. J., Park Commission, 921 Bergen Ave., Jersey City, N. J. Long Island State Park Commission, 302 Broadway, New York City. Palisades Interstate Park Commission, 25 Broadway, New York City. State Council of Parks, 302 Broadway, New York City. Union County, N. J., Park Commission, Warinanco Park, Elizabeth, N. J. Westchester County, N. Y., Park Commission Bronxville, N. Y. Westchester County, N. Y., Recreation Commission, Court House, White Plains, N. Y. CAMPING AND HIKING Boy Scouts of America, Dept. of Camping, 2 Park Avenue, New York, publish the following pamphlets: Camp Buildings and Scout Shelters (construction of). 1922. 29 pp. illus. 15 cents. Camp Health, Safety, and Sanitation. 1923. 70 pp. illus. 20 cents. Camp-Site Development Plans. 1927. Illus. with drawing plans, etc. $1.50. Covers all kinds of camp buildings, sleeping quarters, and equipment. Children's Health Camp Manual. State Com'e on Tuberculosis and Public Health of the State Charities Aid Ass'n, 105 East 22d St., New York. No. 183, 1927. 46 pp. illus. 25 cents. Considers all the details involved in planning, building, and running a children's health camp; including recreation program. Coleman, Laurence Vail. Contributions of Museums to Outdoor Recreation. A Report prepared at the request of the National Conference on Outdoor Recreation, Washington, D. C., 1928. 45 pp. Finch, Lewis S. Sanitary Supervision of Tourist Camps and Recreation Places. American City, vol. 36, pp. 661-4, May 1927. Gibson, H. W. Camp management. Murray Printing Co., Cambridge, Mass. 1923. 265 pp. $5.00. A manual for camp directors. Helper, J. M. Sanitation Problems in Resorts and Tourist Camps. Amer. Jour. Pub. Health, vol. 14, pp. 925-30, Nov. 1924. Also, Mich. State Dept. of Health Bulletin, vol. 12, pp. 411-9, Dec. 1924. Ready, Marie M. The Organized Summer Camp. U. S. Bureau of Education, Phys. Ed. Series No. 7, 1926. 14 pp. illus. 5 cents. (Order from Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C.) Torrey, R. H., Place, Frank, Jr., and Dickinson, R. L. New York Walk Book. Amer. Geographical Soc'y, 3755 Broadway, New York, 1923. 251 pp. illus. Map inserts. Pocket ed., $2.00; library ed. with additional illus. and text, $4.00. Suggestions for excursions afoot within a radius of 50 to 100 miles of New York City, including Highlands of the Hudson, Catskills, etc. Wack, Henry Wellington. Camping Ideal, The: The New Human Race. Red Book Magazine, 1925. 257 pp. $2.00. Presents findings of a survey of 121 camps in New York and Pennsylvania and the Northwest and treats of the camp movement in general as a significant branch of modern educational instrumentalities. Wallis, R. S. Tourist Camps. Engineering Extension Dept., Iowa State College, Ames. Bull. No. 56, revised, 1925. 63 pp. illus. Single copies free. Describes typical tourist camps, and advises on all details of construction and administration. Weir, L. H., editor. Camping Out: A Manual on Organized Camping. Macmillan Co., 60 Fifth Ave., New York, 1924. 636 pp. illus. $2.00. A valuable manual of detailed information on selection of camp site, planning, equipment, organization, sanitation, diet and nutrition, programs, leadership and camp standards; bibliographies. RURAL RECREATION An Experiment in County Recreation, by the Superintendent of the Recreation Board of Chester County, West Chester, Pa. The Playground, vol. 18, pp. 283-4, Aug. 1924. Lindeman, E. C. Minimum Recreational Requirements of Small Towns and Villages. American City, vol. 29, p. 56, July 1923. Marsh, Chester G. County Recreation Program Helps Small Towns and Villages. American City, vol. 30, pp. 150-2, illus., Feb. 1924. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 247' U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D. C. The following bulletins are issued by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics of the Department: Rural Planning-The Social Aspects of Recreation Places. No. 1388, Mar. 1924. 30 pp. illus. 5 cents. Rural Planning-The Village. No. 1441, Mar. 1925. 45 pp. illus. 10 cents. (Order above bulletins from Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C.) Waugh, Frank A. Country Planning. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 383 Madison Ave., New York, 1924. 183 pp. illus. $1.25. Includes consideration of problem of furnishing of playgrounds, parks, forests and school grounds. Rural Improvement: The principles of civic art applied to rural conditions, including village improvement and the betterment of the open country. Orange Judd Pub. Co., 15 East 26th St., New York, 1914. 265 pp. illus. $1.25. Includes chapter on Public Grounds-parks, playgrounds, school grounds, etc. SOCIAL VALUES Anders, J. M. City Parks and Playgrounds as Health Agents. Scientific Monthly, vol. 15, pp. 42-9, July 1922. Curtis, Henry S. Education through Play. Macmillan Co., New York, 1915. 359 pp. illus. $1.80. Believes that the play problem of children is one of the chief problems of our cities and that the schools have a very definite responsibility in this matter. A full exposition of this phase of the play problem, based on conditions here and abroad. Gulick, Luther Halsey. A Philosophy of Play. Association Press, 347 Madison Ave., New York, 1920. 308 pp. $2.00. This posthumous book by Dr. Gulick was written out of the rich experience of over twenty years of vital interest in interpreting the place and meaning of play in human life. Hetherington, Clark W. Play Spaces as Health Education Equipment. Amer. Phys. Educ. Rev., vol. 31, pp. 1124-9, Dec. 1926. Health values of supervised play; necessity of providing trained play leaders. Lee, Joseph. Play in Education. Macmillan Co., Newv York. 1915. 500 pp. $1.80. A discussion of the various theories of play and the importance of play in life. Lies, Eugene T. Community Recreation: Its Significance,. Objectives, Machinery and Standards. In National Conference of Social Work, Proceedings, 1926, pp. 493 -500. Park, Robt. E. and Others. The City: Human Behavior in the Urban Environment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1925. 239 pp. $2.00. Chapter V, Community Organization and Juvenile Delinquency. Platt, Charles. Leisure as a Cause or Cure of Crime. American City, vol. 35, pp. 863-9, Dec. 1926. The increased need for properly organized recreation movements. Reaney, M. Jane. The Place of Play in Education. Methuen & Co., 36 Essex St., London, W. C. 2, England, 1927. 121 pp. 3s. 6d. (approx. 87 cents). Shows the fundamental biological importance of play in human life. Rogers, James E. Conservation of Human Resources through the Leisure Time of the People: A National Issue. Amer. Phys. Educ. Rev., vol. 28, pp. 101-5, Mar. 1923. Ross, Edward A. Adult Recreation as a Social Problem. Amer. Jour. of Sociology, vol. 23, pp. 516-28, Jan. 1918. Discusses the social value of public playgrounds, recreation fields, and community theatres. Thomson, John Arthur. Towards Health. Putnam, 1927. $2.00. Includes a chapter on recreation. Thrasher, Frederic M. The Gang-A Study of 1,313 Gangs in Chicago. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill., 1927. 571 pp. $3.00. Deals with the relations of the gang to the problems of juvenile demoralization, crime and politics in the great city. Winton, Roy W. Recreation as a Community Force. Amer. Phys. Educ. Rev., vol. 28, pp. 96-105. March 1923. LAND UNDER WATER Farnham, Henry Philip. Law of Waters and Water Rights. 3 vols. Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing Co., Rochester, N. Y., 1904, clxxx, 2956 pp. $22.50. Getman, Anson. Principles and Sources of Title to Real Property As Between the State and the Individual, and the Relative Rights of Individuals; How the Individual or State Acquires Title and How the Individual Secures Compensation; Tax Titles, Rules, Regulations, Procedures, Forms. Matthew Bender & Co., Albany, N. Y., 1921. xxvi, 877 pp. $12.00. Moore, Stuart A. History of the Foreshore and the Law Relating Thereto; with a hitherto unpublished treatise by Lord Hale, "De Jure Marns," and Hall's Essay on the Rights of the Crown in the Sea Shore. Stevens & Haynes, Temple Bar, London, Eng., 1888. liv, 984 pp. ~1-18s. New York State Attorney General, Annual Report of, for the Year 1913. Vol. 1. J. B. Lyon Co., Albany, N. Y., 1914. 352 pp. ADDRESSES OF PERIODICALS LISTED IN BIBLIOGRAPHY American City, The, 443 Fourth Ave., New York. American Journal of Public Health, 370 Seventh Ave., New York. American Journal of Sociology, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill. American Physical Education Review, G, Highland Station, Springfield, Mass. Nation's Health, The, 660 Cass St., Chicago, Ill. Parks and Recreation, American Institute of Park Executives, Box 432, Rockford, Ill. Playground, The, 315 Fourth Ave., New York. Red Book Magazine, 33 West 42d St., New York. Scientific Monthly, Science Press, Garrison, N. Y. Survey, The, 112 East 19th St., New York. INDEX Access to and through parks: traffic problems and recreation centers, 27-29, 86, 97; on holidays, 28; advantage of parkways, 29; planning for, needed, 41; hiking trails, 83-86 Accidents, in playground districts, 169 Adams, Thomas, 6, 36 Adequacy of playgrounds: "play districts," 157-166; percentage of, 158; in Manhattan, 158, 159, 164; in Bronx, 158, 160, 161, 165; in Brooklyn, 158, 162, 163, 165-166; maps, 159, 160, 162; "play district" key maps, 159, 161, 163 Aerial views: of Brooklyn Navy Yard, 140; of Long Island, 188, 196 Airplane landing fields, suggestions for, 145 Allen, Kenneth, 114 American Association of Museums, 86 American Institute of Park Executives, 134 American Museum of National History, 86 Amersfort Park, Brooklyn, 124 Anderson Park, in New Jersey, 43 APPENDIX-Statistical Tables, 237-241 Appropriations: for parks in Westchester County, 41, 42; for parks in Essex County, 42, 43; for parks in Hudson County, 44; for parks in Union County, 44 Aqueducts. See Reservoirs Area: of Region, 20; of unimproved land, 20; Westchester parks, 21, 42; relation of, to population growth in New York City, statistics, 39-41; of county parks, 41-44; and distribution of open spaces, 49 -78; relation of, by counties, to population, charts, 52-53, 54, 55, 56; of reservations and country parks, map, 55, 57, 58; of parks in Hudson River Valley, map, 58, 59; of parks in northern New Jersey, map, 58, 60; of Long Island parks, map, 61, 62-63; of park spaces in New York City, table and maps, 63 -68, 69; waterfront mileage, 70-71, 177-180; of golf and country club spaces, maps, 71-72, 73, 74; summary for parks and playgrounds, 76-78; of Central Park, 97, 103, 148; of play space, by districts, 157 -166; statistics, tabulated, 237-241 Artificial lakes, in New Jersey and Westchester, 91, 93 Assessments: Westchester County valuations, 45; for parks in Essex County, 46; influenced by parks, 46; district assessment plan, 134 Athletics: cricket fields illustrated, 27, 28; field in Weequahic Park illustrated, 43; municipal space for, maps, 64, 65, 66, 67-68; athletic field defined, 102; facilities and locations, 103-104; park acreage for, 103, 104; need for expansion of, 104; Public Schools Athletic League, 104; field in Crotona Park, illustrated, 104; appeal of, 125; chart, and field plan illustrated, 125; extent of fields in New York City, 126; need of fields for schools, 126 Atlantic City, count of beach areas, 127 Attendance at playgrounds: Tompkins Square Playground, 153, 154; radius of, illustrated, 153, 155; Heckscher Playground, 154, 156 Automobiles: menace of, and street play, 30-32; recreation needs promoted by, 32; interfere with hikers, 83, 86 Backyard playgrounds: in New York City, 68; promoted by Home Playyards, Inc., 68, 107; plan in Brooklyn 107; John Jay tenement, Manhattan, illustration, 107; play space requirements and layout, 122 Baisleys Pond Park, in Queens, 89 Barrier beaches on Long Island, aerial view of, 187, 196 Bassett, Edward M., 5, 27, 137, 201 Bathing: beaches menaced by water pollution, 27, 70, 92 113-114; waterfront mileage for, 68, 70, 114; fresh water pool in Queens illustrated, 70; in lakes and streams, 70, 92; floating bath houses, 70, 180; beaches and waterfront parks, 90-94, 113, 177; swimming pool illustrated, 91; in Passaic River, 92; facilities limited, 92, 93; in Bear Mountain Park, 93; Long Island beaches, 93, 94, 115-116, 187-190; public bath house, 93; in New Jersey, 94; at city parks and beaches, 113-116; illustrations, 113, 115; crowds at Coney Island illustrated, 115, 116; counts at beaches, 116, 127; space requirements for beaches, and factors to be considered, 126-127; resorts of special merit, 187, 189; and bungalow colonies, 187; on North Shore, 191. See also Beaches Battery Park, 68, 104, 115, 123 Bayonne Park, in New Jersey, 44 Beaches: and waterfront parks, 90-94, 113, 200, 201, 219; amusement facilities at, 90; limited number of, 92, 93; Westchester, 93; administration plan at Oyster Bay, 93; Long Island, 93, 94, 115-116, 187-190; access to, 94; Manhattan Beach, 114, 115; water pollution, 114; mileage in New York City, 114; Coney Island, 115, 116, 126; South, 115; counts of, tabulated, 116; space requirements for bathing, 126 -127; factors to be considered for, 126; facilities provided at, 126; Atlantic City area count, 127; three important, 177; in Richmond, 179; importance of, 187; Long Island barrier, off south shore, 187; merits as bathing resorts, 187, 189; particular locations on outer, 189-190; on Long Island's north shore, 191; Hemlock, illustrated, 192; aerial view, 196; town, 198; shore drives along, 198; public waterfront possibilities for creation of, 201, 219 Bear Mountain Bridge, 58, 95 Bear Mountain Park: illustrations of, frontispiece, 78, 83, 93; maps show extent of, 49, 50, 51, 82; importance of, and area, 81; trails, roads and camp sites, illustrated, 82, 83, 84, 89, 90; beginnings of, 135 Betsey Head, playground in Brooklyn, 47, 171; wading pool in, illustrated, 173 BIBLIOGRAPHY, 243-247 Board of Aldermen of New York, 37 Board of Commerce and Navigation of New Jersey, 207, 225 Board of Education, playgrounds supervised by, 68, 126 Botanical Gardens, 100-101 Boulevard, defined, 87 Bowling Green, an early residential neighborhood, illustrated, 37 Branch Brook Park, in New Jersey, 43, 45, 46, 81 Bridges: Bear Mountain, 58, 95; proposed, 94; Queensboro, 185, 186; Hell Gate, 185; for Fire Island, 190 Bronx, The: municipal playground and athletic space, map, 52, 65; summary of parks in, 76; ratio of park space to population, 127; need of recreation space in, 139; adequacy of play space in, 157, 158, 160, 161, 165; sanitary districts, and children's play in, studied, 170-171; waterfront uses, 177 Bronx Park: Department, 48; area and educational value of, 100-101; Botanical Gardens, 101; Zoological Park, 101 Bronx Parkway Commission, 41 Bronx River Parkway: legislation for creation of, 41; illustrated, 42; land values increased by, 45, 46; extension, 58; use of, for driving, 87; suggested developments for, 142-143; origin, 195 Bronx Valley Sewer Commission, 41 249 250 PUBLIC RECREATION Brooklyn: dense population nearest East River, 20; McKinley Park playground illustrated, 22; park growth in, and population statistics, 39, 40-41; municipal playground and athletic space, map, 66, 68; summary of parks in, 76; athletic field chart and plan illustrated, 125; recreation space needs in, 139 -140; proposals for transfer of Navy Yard, 140; adequacy of play space in, 157, 158, 162, 163, 165-166; sanitary districts, and children's play in, studied, 171-174; waterfront uses in, 178-179; "bungalow colonies,'" 179; land grant, 214 Brownsville, land value increases near Betsey Head playground, 47 Bungalow colonies, and bathing, 177, 179, 180, 187 Camping: Bear Mountain Park sites for, illustrated, 82; overnight shelter illustrated, 83; co-operative aid for, 84, 88; types of, 89-90; appeal of, 89; marking for approved camp sites, illustrated, 89; and summer training courses, 90 Camp Upton, 94, 136, 192, 193 Catskill Park, 58 Cedar Brook Park, in New Jersey, 44 Cemeteries: distribution and extent of, maps showing, 49, 50, 51; statistics, 237, 238 Census: of playground attendance, 153-156, 167-176; Tompkins Square Playground, 153, 154; of Heckscher Playground, 153, 154, 155; of children's play in twelve congested districts, 167-175; of children using recreational facilities in MIanhattan, 174; of street play, 175; analysis of street census, 176; statistics tabulated, 237-241 Central Park: influence on city standards, 20, 21, 97; vehicular traffic problems, 29, 97-98; in early days, illustrated, 38; population nearby, 64; playfields, illustrated, 96, 97, 98, 148; character and extent, 97; play facilities, and Heckscher playground, 98, 148 -152; athletic area, 103; North iMeadow illustrated, 148; tennis courts, 148; permits, 148; field houses and shelters, 149; lakes, 149-150; coasting in, illustrated, 149; menagerie, 150; Metropolitan Museum of Art, 150; band-stand, 150; conservatory, 150; Casino and concessions, 150; views of, 150, 152; traffic regulations and policing, 151, 183, 205; playground recommendations, 151; comparative study of child population around, 151; attendance at He-Ickscher playground, 153, 154, 155. Children: adjacent play spaces and supervision needed for, 26; street play and traffic problems, 30-32; playground space requirements, 118-123; play space in twelve congested districts, 167-176; estimated number using play facilities in Manhattan, 174; street play census in Manhattan, 175; activities analyzed, 176 CHILDREN'S PLAY IN TWELVE CONGESTED DISTRIcTS, 167-176 Chrystie Street, widening and housing project, 124 Citations: of law of land under water, 204, 205, 209, 210, 211, 220, 221, 222, 223; reference notes on court opinions, 228-235 City Hospital, 185 City park system: standards of space for, 117-118, 127 -133; comparison of park areas to population and city areas, tabulated, 128; needs, for active recreation, 129; open-space standards for, 129-132; space requirements for, summarized, 133 City recreation facilities: use and extension of, 96-116; location and functions of parks, 96-97; park area and attractive features, 97; Central Park, extent and description of, 97-99; Prospect Park, 99; waterfront park lands, 99-100; Van Cortlandt, Pelham Bay and Forest Parks, 100; Bronx Park, 100-101; neighborhood recreation areas defined, 101-102; athletic fields and playfields, 103-104; neighborhood parks and playgrounds, 104-106; school playgrounds, 106; interior courts as playgrounds, 106-107; roof playgrounds, 107-109; recreation piers, 109-113; waterfront parks and beaches, 113-116. See also Recreation grounds Colonial law: of land under water, 202-203; importance of waterfront for recreation, 202; of land under water in England, 202-203; in America, 203 Commissioner of Correction, 181 Commissioners of the Land Office, New York, 214, 215, 216 Common Council, 38 Community centers. See Recreation grounds Community types in the Region, 20 Comparison: between private and public open spaces, 71-76; of park areas to population and city areas, tables for, 128, 241 Condemnation: plan to secure playground space, 123, 134; and the Housing Law, 124 Coney Island: holiday crowds at, illustrated, 28, 115, 116; shore front and attractions, 116, 126: beach conditions, 116; counts of beach areas, 127; Luna Park, 126; space requirements, 126; Sea Gate section, 179; land grants to, 218 Congestion. See Density of population Connecticut: summary of parks in, 77; recreation development possibilities, 144; land grants by, 200; law of land under water, 203-205; riparian rights, 204; survey of land under water in public ownership, 224 Conservation Department of Massachusetts, 84 footnote Co-operation: and planning for recreation facilities, 22, 34; need of, by public authorities, 145; in waterfront improvement, 145 Corlear's Hook Park, 104 Country clubs: private open spaces used by, 71; provide and maintain trails, 84; statistics, tabulated, 240 Country Lane and Bridle Trail Association, 86 Country parks: extent and location of, 55, 57, 58; use and extension of, 80-82, 96; accommodations for hikers in, 81, 83; acreage, 81; Bear Mountain Park best example of, map, 81, 82, 83, 84, 89; near city limits, 81; Branch Brook Park, 81; Tri-State Park, 81; trails, 83-86; approaches to, considered, 86-88; picnic grounds in, 88-89; camp sites, 89-90; waterfront recreation, 90-94; Hudson River district, 94-95; space standards in, 117; statistics, tabulated, 239, 240, 241 County Board of Supervisors, Westchester, 42 County distribution and extent of open spaces, 52-55, 56 County Park Commission, Westchester, 42 Court decisions: on title of land under water in Connecticut, 203-205; in New Jersey, 205-211; in New York, 211-223; reference notes for, 228-235 Crotona Park, athletic field illustrated, 104 Cul-de-sacs: dead-end streets, desirability of, 29-30; in Forest Hills Gardens, illustrated, 30 Delano, Frederic A., 98 Density of population: in the Region, 20, 25; comparison of park areas to, 127-132; of children in twelve districts, 167-175; in Italian section of Brooklyn, 173; and street play census in Manhattan, 175 Department of -ealth, 70, 89, 177footMnote Department of Plant and Structures, 71 Department of Street Cleaning, 109 DISTRIBUTION AND EXTENT OF OPEN SPACES IN THE REGION, 49-78 District studies of children's play, 167-176 Dock Department, 109, 137, 179 Dutch titles to land, and confirmation of, 211-212 Eagle Rock Reservation, park in New Jersey, 43 Early views: regarding parks, 37-38; of Bowling Green, 37; Mr. C. C. Hieatt quoted, 37; of Mayor Westervelt, 37; New York IHIerald quoted, 38 INDEX 251 East River: dense population near, 20; islands, 132, 139; potential use of islands in, 181-186; population along shores of, 181; map, showing district population, 182; map, showing present and potential use of islands in, 184; channels, and boat service, 185; Q ueensboro Bridge over, 185, 186 EAST RIVER ISLANDS AS POTENTIAL RECREATION GROUNDS, 181-186 East Side Park, in New Jersey, 43 Echo Lake Park, in New Jersey, 44 Elizabeth Park, in New Jersey, 44 Elwell Law, 134 England: footpaths for hikers, 85; persons per acre of parks in London, 129 footnote; Urban Report of Liberal Land Committee, 129 footnote;- law of land under water in, 202-203, 220; colonial land grants, 204, 205, 211, 212 Environs of New York: needs and opportunities for recreational development in, 141-144; New Jersey Palisades improvements suggested, 142; Bronx River Parkway improvement, 142-143; Long Island park and parkway plans, 143; New Jersey developments urged, 143; river valley improvements, 143; Connecticut development, 144; parkway suggested for, 144 Essex County: park movement and expenditures, 42 -43, 60, 81, 126; Park Commission, 45, 46; Branch Brook Park, 43, 45, 46, 81; park area, 52, 54 Estates, abandoned, on Long Island, 194-195 Excess condemnation, for acquiring park space, 124, 134 Excess purchase, plan of securing land, 134 Expenditures: for Westchester County parks, 41, 42; for Essex County parks, 42, 43, 46; for Hudson County parks, 44; for Union County parks, 44 Extent and distribution of open spaces in the Region, 49-78 FACILITIES FOR ACTIVE RECREATION IN CENTRAL PARE, 148-152 Federal Bureau of Forestry, 136 Federal government transfer of land, for recreation, 135 -136 Fire Island: State Park development, 61-62, 190; ocean front beaches, 70, 190 Floating bath houses, 70 Footpaths: for hikers, 85; in England, 85; along shore, 198. See also Hiking Foreign born: in congested districts, 167, 169, 170, 171, 173; illiterates, 171, 173 Forest Hills Gardens: a cul-de-sac in, illustrated, 30; backyard playground, 107 Forest ParkI in Queens, 40, 100 Forest preserves: extent and location of, maps showing, 52, 55, 57, 58; Catskill Park, 58; Kittatinny Forest Park, 58; on Long Island, 62; Upton National Forest, 62; recreation facilities in, 80-90; need of, 81; hiking trails in, 83-86; Adirondacks Forest Preserve, 84; Vermont fire patrol for, 84; Department of Forest Recreation, 84; for temporary use, 1136-137; statistics, 240. See also Government reservations Fort Washington Park, illustration, 100 Galloping Hill Park, in New Jersey, 44 Gifts of land, methods of securing by, 135 Glenfield Park, in New Jersey, 43 Golf: private open spaces for, 71; country clubs, maps showing, 71, 72, 73, 74; comparison of clubs with Preserve, 84; state co-operation for, 84; Poundridge, 127; waterfront mileage, 179; Long Island park, plan for, 197; statistics, 240. See also Forest preserves Gramercy Park: frontage on, in demand, 21; gift of, under easement plan, 135 Grand jurors Association, 181 Grants of land under water: colonial history of, 202, 203, 225, 227; law in England, 202-203, 220; varies in different states, 203; law in Connecticut, 203-205; in New Jersey, 205-211; at time of Revolution, 2055; acts authorizing, 206; nature of grantees' rights to, 206-208; planning power of state for, 208-209; importance of, in New York, 211; Indian titles to, 211; Dutch titles to, 211-212; English, 212; state, 212, 214; by Commissioners of Land Office, 214; forms of, in New York, 214-217: forms of, 215, 216-217; rights of public in, 219-223; general observations on, 227; reference notes for, 228-235 Great Kills: waterfront bathing, 27; marsh land, 179 Great South Bay: for bathing, 187; parks on, 190; a pleasure resource, 190 Green Brook Park, in New Jersey, 44 Grover Cleveland Park, in New Jersey, 43 GROWTH AND VALUE OF PARKS AND RECREATION GROUNIDS, 3 7-48 Hackensack Meadows, 92 Hanmer, Lee F., 5, 6, 243 Harlem: River waterfront, illustrated, 145; Sanitary District, 170; street census, 170; play space adequacy, 170 H-armon Foundation gifts, 135 Harriman and Bear Mountain Park, 49, 135. See also Bear Mountain Park Harrison, Shelby M., 6 Heckscher Playground, illustrations, 98, 152; attendance at, 153, 154, 155 Hempstead, reservoir property, 195, 197 Hendrik Hudson Memorial Drive, 89 Hieatt, C. C., 37 footnote Hiking: trails and shelters, illustrated, 82, 83-86; popularity of, 83, 86; "New York Walk Book' on, 83; Palisades Interstate Park Commission activities, 83; 85; camp shelters, illustrated, 83; notable trails for, 84, 85; along Morris Canal, 84; problems, 84, 86; in Tni-State and Mount Beacon Parks, 85; footpaths, 85; motor traffic interferes with, 86; report on planning for, 86; and co-operation of Country Lane and Bridle Trail Association, 86. See also Foo'tpaths Hoboken Park, in New Jersey, 44 Holiday crowds tax transit facilities, 28 Home Playyards, Inc., 68, 107 Housing Law, and condemnation, 124 Hudson Boulevard, in New Jersey, 44 Hudson County Park Commission, 43 Hudson River: and Bear Mountain Park, 81; general recreation uses of district, 94-95; bridge, 95; illustrated, 100; and Palisades, 141-142; land grant act, 206 Hudson River Valley, park areas, 58, 59 Illiteracy, in districts of foreign born, 171, 173 Improved housing, and plan of condemnation, 123-124 Independence Park, in New Jersey, 43 Indian land titles, 211 TIntro ors t unsdilsrae,3;a ly 2 5 2 - 252 PUBLIC RECREATION Island parks: in East River, recomnmended, 181, 183), 185 -186; advantages of, 183; possible types, and facilities, 183-184; m-ap showing rearrangement of Welfare Island, 184; communication with, and proposals, 185)-186 ivy IHill Park, in New Jersey, 43 Jamaica Bay: developments, 70; pollution, 70; waterfront, 179 Jones Beach: ocean-front development plans, 62, 70; State Park, 62, 70, 189, 190; ocean boulevard for, 62, 70; causeway, 62, 94, 188, 189; bathing colony, 187; aerial view from above, 188; most desirable site for popular resort, 189; distance factor an argument for, 189; illustration, 192 Key spots on Long Island: which should be preserved, 194-198; South Shore, 194-195, 197; North Shore, 197-198; town beaches, 198; shore drives and footpaths, 198 Kill van Kull, 206 Kittatinny Forest Park, 58 Lakes: in Central Park, 149-150; reservoirs, 150; Ronkonkoma, on Long Island,.192 Land Board, of New York, 218 Land, for recreation: ways of securing, 134-138; by purchase, 1134; by gift, 135; by transfer, 135-136; acquired for temporary use, 136-137; statutory requirements for securing, 13 7-138 Land under water: Colonial law of, 202-203, 225, 227; law in England, 202-203; Connecticut l-aw, 203-205; New Jersey law, 205-211; New York law, 211-223; survey of, and public ownership, 224-227; general observations on grants of, 227; reference notes for court opinions on, 228-235 Land values: increased by parks and recreation grounds, 47; bordering Betsey Head playground, 47; and park space, 124 Land Values in N~ew York and Its Environs, 47 footnote LAW~ OF LAND UNDER WATER, 202-223, 228-235 Lay, C. D., 189 Loading and unloading, use of streets impaired by, 31, 32 Loede, Frederick WV., Jr., 5 Long Island: beaches, and water pollution, 27, 70, 92, 113-114; park system, 61-63; map showing recreation sites, 62-63; plans for ocean-front development, 62, 70, 94, 189; State Park Commission plans, 62, 70, 74, 94; Fire Island Park development, 62, 70; Jones Beach Park development, 62, 70, 189, 190; Upton National Forest, 62; recreation facilities map, 62; forest reserves, 62; summary of parks in, 77; South Shore development, 94; causeway to be built, 94; highways to beaches, 94; eastern developments, 94; Camp Upton, 94, 192; North Shore areas, 94; neighborhood park illustrated, 132; regional and local parks, 187-198; barrier beaches on South Shore, illustration, 187, 196; bathing resorts, 187; aerial views, 188, 196; speculative "boom' on South Shore, 189, 192; Jones Beach a desirable site for resort, 189; Fire Island State Park, 190; Montauk development, 190; Great South Bay parks, 190; North Side waterfront parks, 191; inland park areas, 191; tax-title lands, 192; changing conditions of South Side estates, 194-195; neglected opportunities along south shore, 1.95; reservoir reservations, 197; topography- of North Side, 197-1.98; town beaches, 198; shore drivres and footpaths, 198; rocky water Manhattan: dense population of lower area, 20, 39; recreation problems in lower, 20; growth and value of parks and recreation grounds in, 37-40; early views regarding open spaces in, 37-38; park growth in twenty-five years, 38-40; municipal playground and athletic space in, map, 63, 64; acres of park in, 64, 76, 77; summary of parks in, 76; need of recreation space in, 127-132, 139; adequacy of playground space in, 157, 158, 159, 164; sanitary districts, and children's play in, studied, 167-170; waterfront uses, 177 Manhattan Beach, 114, 115 Manhattan Park Commissioner, 183 Marine Park, in Brooklyn, 40, 70 Marsh lands on Long Island, map showing, opposite 190 McComb's Dam Park, 103 McKinley Park, in Brooklyn, illustrated, 22 Menagerie, and concessions in Central Park, 150 Merkel, Hermann W., 98, 151 Merrick Road: Long Island, 189, 194; estates on, 194 -195 Metropolitan Hospital, 185 Minneapolis: recreation block illustrated, 23; assessment plan of land acquisition in, 134 Mohansic: golf course, 48; Park, 136 Monahegan Park, in New Jersey, 44 Montauk Point, 62, 190; aerial view toward, 196 Morris Canal: recreation possibilities, 60-61, 143; illustration, 61; trails along, 84 Moskowitz, Mrs. Henry, 183 Motion picture theatres: study of children's attendance at, 170, 171, 173; conditions in, and admission charges, 171, 173 Motor cars versus horse-drawn vehicles, 30, 31 Museums: nature, 86; study stations, 86; Trailside Museum, 86; American Association of, 86; Metropolitan Museum of Art, 150; Contributions of M'useumns to Outdoor Recreation, by L. V. Coleman, 246 Nassau County: ratio of park areas to population, 53, 54, 75; golf and country clubs, 71, 74, 76; extent of parks in, 77; South Shore plans, 94, 187, 188, 189 -190; Great South Bay, 187, 190; park statistics tabulated, 237, 238, 239, 240. See also Jones Beach National Association of Real Estate Boards, 37 National Conference on State Parks, 38 National Outdoor Recreation Conference, 134, 246 National Recreation Congress, 37 footnote Nature trails: and museums, 86, 246; study stations, 86 Navigation: and law of land under water, 202-223; maps by Board of Commerce and Navigation, 225 Navy Yard, Brooklyn: possibilities of site as combined airport and park, 140; aerial view, 140 NEED OF RECREATION SPACE, AND OPPORTUNITIE S FOR ITS EXTENSION, 139-145 Neighborhood recreation: areas defined, 101, 102;' children's playground service and supervision, 102; baseball at Corlear's Hook Park illustrated, 103; function of parks and playgrounds, 104-106, 123 -125; vacant lots for, 105; park space requirements for, 123-133; park, illustrated, 124. See also Recreation grounds "Neighborhood -unit" plan, 124, 243 New Jersey: available areas in, 25; growth of parks in Essex County, 42-43; park growth in Hudson County, 43-44; p ark growth in Union County, 44; property values adjacent to parks in Newark, 45-46; increment -nvaue.i Tnt Wrd"T ofI ElýIzabeth,.4; ratiodo INDEX 253 front parks proposed, 94; constructive park program urged, 143; law on land grants, 200, 205-211; early land grant laws, 205; Wharf Act, 206; acts authorizing grants, 206; grantees' rights, 206-208; planning power, 208-209; riparian's rights statutory, 209-210; rights of public to land under water, 210-211; survey of land under water in public ownership, 225 New York Bay and Wharf Act, 206 New York Conservation Commission, 88 New York Enabling Acts, 105, 123 New York Region defined, 20 New York State: waterfront responsibilities, 27; ratio of parks in, to population, 56; forest reserves, map showing, 57, 58; study of sewage disposal, 93; park lands given legal status in, 102-103; laws on playgrounds, 137; Town Law, 138; law on land grants, 200, 211-223, 225; Indian land titles, 211; Dutch land titles and grants, 211-212; English grants of land under water to, 212; grants to federal government, 212; map showing land under water grants, 213; grants by Commissioners of Land Office, 214; forms of land grants, 214-217; Attorney General on land grants in, 217; rights of state in land titles, 217-218; rights of riparian owner, 218-219; rights of public in land under navigable waters, 219-223; survey of land under water in public ownership, 225-226 New York University, summer camp courses, 90 New York W'Valk Book, by Raymond Torrey, 83, 246 North Bayonne Park, in New Jersey, 44 North Hudson Park, in New Jersey, 44 Object of a regional plan, 21 Olmsted, Frederick Law, Jr., 97, 243 Open spaces: requirements and difficulties in obtaining, 24-25; profitable use of, 25; for large reservations and country parks, 25, 55-57, 58; for playgrounds and city parks, 25; relation between private and public, 32; distribution and extent in Region, 49-78; systems in various metropolitan regions, map for, 52, 53; county distribution of, 52-53, 54, 55; relation to population, diagram showing, 55, 56; extent and location, map showing, 55, 57, 58; in Hudson River Valley, map, 58, 59; northern New Jersey, map, 58, 60; Morris Canal property, illustration, 60-61; Long Island Park System, map showing, 61-63; for play in New York City, maps showing, 63-68, 69; waterfront, 68, 70-71; used by golf and country clubs, 71-76; parks, summary of, 76-78; statistics, tabulated, 237-238 Orange Park, in New Jersey, 43 Oraton Parkway, in New Jersey, 43 Overcrowding: population densities, 20, 25; of transit facilities on holidays, 28; in twelve sanitary districts, 167-176 Palisades: preservation of, and suggested developments for, 141-142, 208; illustrations of, 142 Palisades Interstate Park: Commission, 49, 55, 83, 85; highway connecting with Catskill Forest Reserve, 58; bathing, 70 Park Board, Westchester, 43 Park Departments of New York City, 71 Park growth, in New York City during past twenty-five years, 38-41 Parks: important factors in urban development, 20-21; standards improved by, 20, 21; McKinley Park illustrated, 22; available space for, 25; waterfront, 26, 27, 36, 70, 71; means of access to and through, S27; Van Cortlandt playfields illustrated, 27, 28; early views regarding, 37-38; growth in New York City during past twenty-five years, 38-41; areas in New York City, 39; growth in Manhattan, 39-40; growth in Bronx, 40; growth in Brooklyn, 40; growth in Queens, 40; growth in Richmond, 41; growth in adjoining counties, 41-44; appropriations and expenditures, 41, 42-46; Bronx River Parkway illustrated, 42; developments, illustrated, 44, 90; value to community, conclusions on, 45-48; revenue from, 47-48; distribution and extent of, 49-78; systems compared, 52, 53; relation of, to area and population, charts, 52-53, 55; reservations and country, 55, 57, 58, 80; areas in Hudson River Valley, map, 58, 59; areas in northern New Jersey, map, 58, 60; Long Island system, maps, 61-63; existing, in New York City, maps, 63-68, 69; summarized, 76-78; of 100 acres or more, 76, 77, 78; recreation facilities in country, 80-95; acres of, outside the Region, 81; extent and popularity of Bear Mountain Park, illustration, 81, 82, 83, 84, 89, 90; paths and trails, 83-86; highway approaches, 86-88; picnic grounds, 88-89; camp sites, 89-90; waterfront, 90-94; in Hudson River district, 94-95; neighborhood, illustration, 123-125; areas compared to population and city areas, tabulated, 128; neighborhood, on Long Island, illustrated, 132; relation of, to traffic, 145; improve circulation in four ways, 145; uses of waterfront parks in New York City, 177-180; proposed for East River Islands, 181-185; on Long Island, regional and local, 187-198; state, on Fire Island, 190; on Great South Bay, 190; space for, on north shore, 191; inland areas for, 191, 192, 193; statistics, tabulated, 237-241 PARKS ON LONG ISLAND-BOTH REGIONAL AND LOCAL, 187-198 Parks on Long Island: regional and local, 187-198; importance of beaches, 187; outer beach locations, 189 -190; on north side of Great South Bay, 190; map showing, opposite 190; North Side waterfront parks, 191; inland, 191; tax-title lands, 192; Camp Upton, 192-193; regional 193; local, purposes of, 194; key spots, preservation of, 194-195, 197-198 Parkways: defined, 29, 87; improve land values, 29; Bronx River, creation of, and illustration, 41, 42; community value, 45, 46; approaches to country parks, 86-88; use of term, 87; in Brooklyn, 87; Bronx Parkway, 87; in various states, 87; Westchester County, 87; extension of, needed, 87; suggested requirements, 144 Passaic River: public and private use of, illustrated, 92; water pollution, 92, 114 Pedestrians: street privileges of, usurped, 31; hiking trails, 83-86; footpaths for, 85; on country walks, destructive, 85; motor traffic interference to, 86; protection for, in Central Park, 151 Pelham Bay Park, 64, 68, 100, 103, 115, 177 Perry, Clarence A., 124, 243 Physical characteristics of Region, 20 Picnic grounds: popularity of, and problems of control, 88-89; state camps, 88; Palisades Interstate Park Commission provides, 88-89; at Baisleys Pond Park, illustrated, 89; equipment for, 89; posted notices needed for, 89 Piers. See Recreation piers Place of Play in Education, The, by M. Jane Reaney, 23, 247 Planning the New York Region, 21 footnote "Play Districts," maps, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163 Playfields: in McKinley Park, illustrated, 22; Van Cortlandt Park illustrated, 27, 28; hockey field in Prospect Park illustrated, 40; in Weequahic Park, illustrated, 43; in Manhattan, map, 64; Bronx map, 65; Brooklyn map, 66; Queens map, 67; number of acres for, in New York City, 68; public school, 68; Richmond map, 69; summarized, 76-78; at Bear Mountain Park, illtistration, 78, 81, 82; in Central Park, 96, 97, 98, 148; definition of, 101; and athletic fields in New York City, 103-104; neighborhood, illustrated, 131 PLAYGROUND ADEQUACY, 157-166 254 254 PUBLIC RECREATION Playground adequacy: by districts, 1157-166; ' Play Districts," maps, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163; statistics, by boroughs, 164, 165, 166 Playground and Recreation Association of America, 52, 128 foot-note, 134 PLAYGROUND ATTENDANCE, 153-156 Playgrounds: problems of, 20-36; basis of studies for, 21-22; McKinley Park, 22; recreation block in Minneapolis, 23; space requirements, 24-26; waterfront, 26-27; access to, 27-29; in Van Cortlandt Park, 27, 28; use of streets for, 30-31; relation of, to land values, 47; Betsey Head, in Brooklyn, 47; and zoning, 47; distribution and extent of, 49-78; Playground and Recreation Association of America report, 52; county areas, 52-53; existing play spaces in New York City, maps, 63-64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69; summary of, 76-78; use and extension of, 80-95; in reservations and country parks, 80-83; illustration, 81; in large city parks, 96-103; definition of, 101; neighborhood, 104-106; school, 106, 119, 120; interior courts as, 106; roof, 107-109; space requirements for children, 118-123; plans, 119, 120, 122; space requirements summarized, 122-123; St. Gabriel's, illustrated, 124; necessity for, emphasized, 144; in Central Park, 15 1-152; attendance at, by census, 153-156; adequacy of, by districts, 157-166; in twvelve congested sanitary districts, 167-174 Policing of parks: inadequacy of, for Central Park, 151, 183; ease of, for island parks, 183 Pollution. See Water pollution Population: of Region, 20; density per acre, 25; governs land values, 303; growth, and park areas in New York City, statistics, 39-41; ratio of parks to, 55, 56, 124 -1235; around Central Park, 64; comparison of park areas to, tabulated, 127-132; of twelve congested sanitary districts, 167-1705; foreign born, in congested districts, 167, 169, 170, 171, 173; illiteracy of, in Brooklyn districts, 171, 173; near shores of East River, 181, 182; relation of park areas to, statistics tabulated, 237, 238, 240, 241 Port and -Industrial Areas, A Study of, 26 footnote Port of New York Authority, 209 Port of New York, relation to New York Region, 20 Prison Association of New York, 181 Private and public open spaces, relation between, 032 PROBLEM OF PUBLic RECREATION, 20-36 Prospect Park: standards improved by, 20; hockey field illustrated, 40; relation to population, 64; area and attractions, 99; tennis courts illustrated, 102; athletic area, 103 Public Lands Law, 214 Public Schools Athletic League, 104 Purchase of land, methods of securing by, 134 Queens: unimproved land in., 20-21, 25); need for a central park in, 25; waterfront available for recreation, 27; Sunnyside interior court illustrated, 33; park area and population growth, 39, 40; municipal playground and athletic space, map, 67, 103; summary of parks in, 76; recreational space needs, 140 -141; adequacy of play space in, 157, 158 Rahw,,ay River Park, in New Jersey, 44 Randall's Island: present and potential uses for, 181, 183; communication with, 185 Reaney, M. Jane, 23, 247 Recreation grounds: problems in planning for, 20-36; space requirements, 24-26, 117-133; waterfront and athletic, maps, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 125-126; golf and country clubs, maps, 71, 72, 73, 74; public and private provision for, compared, 71, 74, 75, 76; summarized, 76-78; use and extension of outlying, 80-95; in reservations and country parks, 80-90; picnic, 88-89; for campers, 89-90; waterfront parks and beaches, 90-94, 113, 126, 177; Hudson River District, 94; use and extension of facilities, 96-116; in Central Park, 97-98; in Prospect Park, 99; Manhattan, 99 -100; in outlying parks, 100-101; Bronx Park, 100 -101; areas defined, 101, 102; athletic fields, 103 -104, 125-126; functions of neighborhood, 104-106, 123-125, 129; school, 106; interior court, 107; roof space for, 107-109; space requirements for, 117-133; bathing beach, 126-127, 187; needs for, outlined, 129; ways of securing land for, 134-138; extensions outlined, 139-145; in Central Park, 148; East River Island plans, 181-186 Recreation piers: existing, 71, 110; status and uses of, 109-112; in Manhattan, illustrated, 110; administration, 111, 137; in Baltimore, 111; new, for Brooklyn, 111; entrances, 111; plans showing location of, 111, 112; gymnasia, 112; joint use of, 137 Recreation space needs: and opportunities for extension, 13-4;in Manhattan, 139; in Bronx, 139; in Brooklyn, 139-140; in Queens, 140-141; in Richmond, 141; in environs, 141-144; for waterfronts, 144; for playgrounds, 144-145; for airplane landing fields, 145; and traffic, 145; co-operation for, 146: in twelve congested districts, 167-176 Recreation studies, basis of, 2 1-22 Regional and local parks: on Long Island, 187-198; as resorts, 193-194; purposes of local parks, 194; statistical tables, 237-241 Regional Plan: Committee, 21; Legal Division, 137, 1717, 200, 224, 226 Regional Survey, 26 footnote, 31 footnote Reservations. See Government reservations Reservoirs: area distribution surrounding, 49, 60, 80; in New Jersey, 60; hiking trails and, 84, 85; Ashok 'an, 85; properties on Long Island, 197; State Park Commission plan, 197 footnote; water-shed properties statistics, 237, 238 Revenues: from park concessions, 47-48; Bronx Park Department statement on, 48 Revolutionary times, and land grants, 205, 212, 226 Richmond County: unimproved land in, 20-21, 25; park area and population growth, 39, 41; athletic space, map, 69; summary of parks in, 76; recreational space needs, 141; adequacy of play space in, 157, 158; waterfront uses in, 179-180; Staten Island waterfront, 177, 179-180; land grants on Staten Island, 218, 220 Riparian Commissioners of New Jersey, 207 Riparian rights to land under water, 204, 209, 217, 218 Riverbank Park, in New Jersey, 43 River parks: needs, and possible sites for, 90-92; 141-144; proposed for East River Islands, 183, 184, 185. See also Hudson River Riverside Park, 99, 115 Roof playgrounds: in New York City, 68, 107, 108, 109; use of, 108; on libraries and settlements, 108; on tenements, 108; on business buildings, 108-109; on Long Island plants, 109; folk dancing on, illustrated, 109; on department store, illustrated, 109; play space standards, 122 Russell Gardens, Long Island, illustrated, 132 INDEX 255 Sanitation. See Water pollution School playgrounds: space for, in New York City, 68; of Board of Education, 104; high school sites and areas, 104,105; Public Schools Athletic League, 104; for neighborhood recreation, 106; illustration, 106; needs for, 106; vacation playgrounds, 106; on roof, illustrated, 109; space requirements for, 119; plans, illustrated, 119, 120; athletic fields, plan and chart illustrated, 125-126; temporary use for, of school sites, 137 Scout organizations:. and recreation, 80; nature museum at Boy Scouts camp, 86 Sea: navigation of, and law of land under, 202-223; right of enjoyment of, 202, 203 Sewage and garbage: disposal of, to protect beaches imperative, 27, 92, 93, 114; Bronx Valley Sewer Commission, 41; Bronx River pollution, 41; affect river bathing, 70; in Passaic River, 92; legislative control of, 93; extent of pollution from, and tests for, 113-114. See also Water pollution Shelters: for hikers, illustrated, 83, 84; aid for, 84; in Central Park, 149 Shore drives, delight of, 198; in or connecting waterfront parks, 201, 219 Smith, Alfred E., 38, 46 footnote South Beach, 115 South Mountain Reservation, park in New Jersey, 43 SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR RECREATION, 117-133 Space requirements for recreation: bases of estimates for, 24, 117; standards in country parks, 25, 117; in city parks, 25, 117-118; for children's playgrounds, 26, 118-123; for neighborhood parks, 123-125; for athletic fields and playgrounds, 125-126; for bathing beaches, 126-127; in a city park system, 127-133; summarized, 133 Standards: in recreation centers, 20; space standards in country parks, 117; of space in city parks, 117-118; of playground space, 118-123; of space for neighborhood parks, 123-125; of athletic field and playground space, 125-126; of space for bathing beaches, 126-127; of space for a city park system, 127-133 State Hospital Commission, 181 State laws for land under water, 203-223, 228-235 Staten Island. See Richmond State Surveys of land under water: in public ownership, 224-227; report on, and twofold object of, 224; Connecticut, 224; New Jersey, 225; New York, 225-226; records and waterfront maps for, 224, 225, 226 Statistics: of open spaces in New York and environs tabulated, 237-239; of state, county and local park areas, by counties, tabulated, 239; of park and forest areas in nearby states, tabulated, 240; of golf and country clubs and public parks, tabulated, 240; for large communities compared, 241 Statutory requirements: for setting aside playground plats, 137-138; new law provisions, 138 Storey, Charles J., 5, 6 Street planning: and the recreation problem, 29-30; cul-de-sacs as residential streets, 29, 30 Street play: and traffic, 30-32; past and present, 30-31; illustrations, 31, 169, 170; in twelve congested districts, 167-176; in Manhattan sanitary districts, 167-170, 174, 175; Bronx sanitary districts for, 170 -171; in Brooklyn districts, 171-174; environmental influences on, plans showing, 168, 172; accidents, 169; children's attitude toward, 170, 171, 173; census of congested districts of Manhattan, 175; activities and analysis of, in Manhattan, 175, 176 Sunnyside, Queens: interior court, illustrated, 33, 10W7; neighborhood playfield illustrated, 131; gift land in, under easement and dedication plans, 135 SURVEY OF LAND UNDER WVATER IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP IN TEE REGION, 224-227 Swimming pool, at Tibbetts Brook Park, illustrated, 91, 92 Taconic Park Commission, 95 Tangier: aerial view from over, 190, 196; TangierFire Island park sites, 190, 193 Tax-title lands, 192 Temporary use: of recreation areas acquired for public purpose, 136-137; examples of joint use, 136-137 Tennis courts: in Prospect Park, 102; Manhattan Beach, 114; in Central Park, 148 Thomas Jefferson Park, playground illustrated, 105 Thomson, John A., 23, 247 Tibbetts Brook Park, 90, 91 Titles to land. See Grants Tompkins Square Playground: plan, 119; census of, 153, 154 Torrey, Raymond, 83, 246 Traffic: impedes access to playgrounds, 27; and street play, illustrations, 30-31; changed character of, and present congestion, 31, 32; relation of, to park plans, 145; in Central Park, 151 Trails: in Bear Mountain Park, illustrated, 82, 83, 84; provision for, and popularity of, 83, 86; RamapoDunderberg Trail, 83; Long Trail, 84; in White Mountains, 84; near New York City, 84; methods of legal establishment of, in Massachusetts and New York, 84 footnote; for nature study, 86; Country Lane and Bridle Trail Association, 86 Transfer of land: methods of acquiring recreation areas by, 135-136; examples of, 135-136 Transit: facilities overcrowded on holidays, 28; more open spaces would relieve, 28; traffic through parks, 86, 97 Tri-State Park, 81, 85, 95 Tuttle, Arthur S., 114 Union County: park system, 44; Commission report, 46 United States Department of Agriculture, 94 Upton National Forest, Long Island, 52, 62 USE AND EXTENSION OF CITY RECREATION FACILITIES, 96-116 USE AND EXTENSION OF OUTLYING RECREATION FACILITIES, 80-95 Vacant lot playgrounds, 105, 169 Valley developments suggested, 91, 92, 94, 143 Value: of play, 22-24; of community parks, 45-48; of property adjacent to parks, 46-47; outstanding example of, 47; of waterfronts, 91, 201, 218, 219 Van Cortlandt Park: playfields illustrated, 27, 28; advantages of, and area, 100; athletic area, 103 Verona Park, in New Jersey, 43 Walking clubs, and trails, 83, 84 Ward's Island: proposed rearrangement of, 181, 183; communication with, 185; land grants around, 214 Warinanco Park, in New Jersey, 44 Washington Park, in New Jersey, 44 Washington Square Park, frontage on, in demand, 21 Watchung Reservation, park in New Jersey, 44 Waterfronts: reservation important, 26; beaches polluted by sewage and garbage, 27, 70, 113-114; parks, 27, 68, 70, 90-94, 99, 113-116, 180, 200, 201, 219; in Switzerland, 36; Long Island State Park Commission plans, 62, 70; Battery Park, 68; development and extent of, 68, 70-71; Fire Island State Park beach, 70, 190; fresh water, 70, 91; floating bath houses, 70; amusement facilities, 90; value of, 91, 202; river, 91, 92; artificial lake, 91; swimming pool illustrated, 91; in New Jersey, illustrated, 92, 94; legislation to protect, 93; beach plan for north shore of Long Island, 93, 94; important developments on south shore of Long Island, 94; Montauk Point, 94; Hudson River, 94-95; park lands on upper Manhattan, 99 -100; Riverside Park, 99; value of waterfront parks 256 PUBLIC RECREATION summarized, 99-100; mileage for bathing, 114; Manhattan Beach, illustrations, 114; Coney Island Beach, illustrated, 115; South Beach, 115; beach counts tabulated, 116; need and opportunities for recreational development of, in Manhattan, 139; in Brooklyn, 139-140; in Richmond, 141; Palisades 142; extension of facilities urged, 144; Harlem River, illustrated, 145; particular need of co-operation for, 146; congested play district in Brooklyn, 173; mileage and uses in New York City, 177-180; Manhattan, 177; Bronx, 177; Brooklyn and Queens, 178-179; Richmond, 179-180; map, 178; parks on Staten Island, 180; rights to, discussed, 200; recreational possibilities of public, 201; access to, dependent upon right to land under water, 202; maps showing title to land under water, 207, 213; diagram suggesting inexpensive recreation development of, 219; survey maps and records of waterfront lands, 224, 225, 226 WATERFRONT USES IN NEW YORK CITY, 177-180 Water pollution: menace to bathing, 27, 70, 92, 113-114, 177; legislation to prevent, 93; destructive to fish and water fowl, 93; tests tabulated, 114; of river valleys, 143. See also Sewage and garbage Watsessing Park, in New Jersey, 43 WAYS OF SECURING LAND FOR RECREATION, 134-138 Weequahic. Park, in New Jersey, 43 Weir, L. H., 52, 244, 246 Welfare Island: present use and proposed rearrangement of, map, 181, 184, 185; communication with, 185, 186 Westchester County: park areas, 21, 72, 76; playflelds in Van Cortlandt Park illustrated, 27, 28; park growth in, 41, 53, 71, 76; summary of parks in, 77; parkways, 87, 91; Tibbetts Brook Park, illustrations, 90, 91; artificial lakes, 91; beaches, 93; Park Commission, 93;, counts of park areas, 127 Westchester Park Commission, 45, 48, 136 Westervelt, Mayor Jacob A., 37 West Hudson Park, in New Jersey, 44 Westside Park, in Essex County, N. J., 43; West Side Park, in Hudson County, N. J., 44 Wharf Act, 205), 206 Wheeler Park, in New Jersey, 44 Wildwood Park, Long Island, 191 Williams, Frank B., 5, 27, 199 Woodlands Park, Westchester, 88 Yanticaw Park, in New Jersey, 43 Zoning: space reservation by, 32-33; inadequacy of, 34; Resolution, 34 Zoological Park, 101 REGIONAL PLAN OF NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS LIST OF VOLUMES REGIONAL SURVEY Volume I MAJOR ECONOMIC FACTORS IN METROPOLITAN GROWTH AND ARRANGEMENT Volume IA1 CHEMICAL, METAL, WOOD, TOBACCO, AND PRINTING INDUSTRIES Volume IB FOOD, CLOTHING AND TEXTILE INDUSTRIES, WHOLESALE MARKETS, AND RETAIL SHOPPING AND FINANCIAL DISTRICTS Volume II POPULATION, LAND VALUES AND GOVERNMENT Volume III HIGHWAY TRAFFIC Volume IV TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION-INCLUDING A STUDY OF PORT AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS Volume V PUBLIC RECREATION Volume VI BUILDINGS: THEIR USES AND SPACES ABOUT THEM, INCLUDING REPORTS ON ZONING, HOUSING, SUNLIGHT.IN URBAN AREAS, AND ECONOMICS OF HIGH BUILDINGS Volume VII PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, INCLUDING REPORTS ON ECONOMICS OF LAND SUBDIVISION, NEIGHBORHOOD UNITS, NEW TOWNS AND GARDEN CITIES Volume VIII PUBLIC SERVICES AND MISCELLANEOUS REGIONAL PLAN Volume I ILLUSTRATED REPORT, CONTAINING Inter Alia: (a) REVIEW OF PLANNING AND OF GENERAL INFLUENCES AND GROWTH IN THE NEW YORK REGION *(b) STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES AND STANDARDS AFFECTING REGIONAL, COUNTY, CITY, AND VILLAGE P-LANNING (c) DESCRIPTION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING PROJECTS FOR TREATMENT OF SPECIFIC AREAS AND PROBLEMS IN NEW YORK CITY AND INCLUDING PROPOSALS FOR CIVIC AND ART CENTERS, NEIGHBORHOOD UNITS AND MODEL PLANS (d) THE MECHANICS AND APPLICATION OF PLANNING UNDER EXISTING LAWS Volume II ATLAS OF COMPLETE GRAPHIC PLAN OF NEW YORK REGION, WITH DIAGRAMS AND AN ILLUSTRATED DESCRIPTION AND TABULATED SUMMARY OF ALL PROPOSALS Set of Maps GRAPHIC PLAN ON SHEETS FOR MOUNTING, INCLUDING KEY MAP AND LEGEND The volumes will be uniform in size, bound in cloth and illustrated with maps, diagrams, sketches and photographs. The advance subscription for the complete series, of survey and plan volumes, together with a copy of the map for mounting, will be fifty dollars. All survey volumes, except IA and IB, may be purchased separately, at three dollars each. The two plan volumes, when published, may be purchased together at twenty-five dollars, and a set of the sheets of the graphic plan at ten dollars. Further particulars will be sent on application Published by REGIONAL PLAN OF NEW YORK AND ITS ENVIRONS 130 EAST 22ND STREET, NEW YORK CITY DX I III71 I4 I44", SK IItA I IIIiI-------..... Iawl "" s III17 IRA? -7% fly A N,, wit Inow, II IIgag, 1 sort Mot matt I- 'tz' mMolzeno:ol lots V t wit in lot A IIWAR VAST lot n's Q -ý4 not 3 I=0 IClint A Ann n sKon; 1 poll...... ZITO wit lot j2U djoAl -000TY.. VASYKno: IYK 1 too j TO - 54 ITO nsýl ISo: yyýqg nth; IWAS NA Man 2 ON& l1q, Ono QQ MOVE TO AN 'TOO 0"P -'IT cum to won 0", *no "TV 2 1 z an"; 0 Mot 1P unit-, also,", IA owl ORN is mow iVon- motto IIIP0 I