Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Provision and distribution of local open space in urban residential areas Cowie, Arthur Robert 1968

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1968_A6_7 C68.pdf [ 5.89MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0104272.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0104272-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0104272-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0104272-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0104272-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0104272-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0104272-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0104272-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0104272.ris

Full Text

THE PROVISION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL OPEN SPACE IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS P a r t of a Group T h e s i s 'THE NODULAR METROPOLITAN CONCEPT" by ARTHUR ROBERT COWIE B . S c . i n F o r e s t r y , U n i v e r s i t y of New Bru n s w i c k , 1958 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n the S c h o o l of Community & R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d s,t?mclard f o r Maste r of Science„ THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l , 1968 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head of my S c h o o l or by h i s representatives„ I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n permission,, S c h o o l of Community & R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, B.C. Date A p r i l , 1968 ABSTRACT T h i s t h e s i s i s p a r t of a comprehensive group s t u d y undertaken by f i v e s t u d e n t s i n the S c h o o l of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g . S e c t i o n I , which i s a combined s t u d y , e x p l o r e s p r e s e n t t r e n d s and concepts of urban growth i n N o r t h America,, As a r e s u l t of a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n , a s t u d y c o n c e p t , "The Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept," was derived,, An h y p o t h e s i s was f o r m u l a t e d to s e r v e as a st u d y base f o r i n d i -v i d u a l r e s e a r c h by members of the group. S e c t i o n I I of t h i s t h e s i s i s the au t h o r ' s - i n d i v i d u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n which l o o k s at one a s p e c t , the p r o v i s i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of l o c a l open space w i t h i n r e s i d e n t i a l areas of the p r e s e n t c i t y form and the Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n form of development„ In Chapter I , p r e s e n t i n a d e q u a c i e s w i t h i n N o r t h American c i t i e s are p o i n t e d out and v a r i o u s c u r r e n t c l a s s i -f i c a t i o n s and s t a n d a r d s are o u t l i n e d . I t was i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e y do not appear to meet p r e s e n t and f u t u r e needs. Ch a p t e r I I l o o k s at income as a v a r i a b l e of i n e q u a l i t y i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of l o c a l open,space. The p r e s e n t system of d i s t r i b u t i o n and the s t a n d a r d s of l o c a l parks are examined i n the c i t i e s of Vancouver and M o n t r e a l , I n e q u a l i t i e s between h i g h income areas and low income areas i n r e s p e c t to park q u a l i t y were s u b s t a n t i a t e d . F a c t o r s t e s t e d f o r park q u a l i t y ii„ i n c l u d e d a c r e a g e , types of f a c i l i t i e s , s e c l u s i o n and annual e x p e n d i t u r e s . I t was found t h a t lower income areas had the l e a s t a c r e a g e , types of f a c i l i t i e s , s e c l u s i o n and annual park e x p e n d i t u r e per c a p i t a . The N o d u l a r M e t r o p o l i t a n system of open space was examined i n Chapter I I I to a s c e r t a i n whether i t o f f e r e d a more e q u i t a b l e and f u n c t i o n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n than the p r e s e n t g r i d system,, A t h e o r e t i c a l open space model t h a t f o l l o w s the p r i n c i p l e s of t h i s concept was f o r m u l a t e d and p a r t l y t e s t e d by use of a p r e l i m i n a r y s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r a c t i v i t y s u r v e y . The model i l l u s t r a t e s a r a d i c a l change to the p r e s e n t open space system. Three forms of l o c a l open space are proposed f o r s t u d y : i n t e n s i v e a c t i v i t y open space, c o r r i d o r open space and p a r k l a n d open space. Due to l i m i t -a t i o n s of time and s u r v e y d a t a o n l y the p a r k l a n d c a t e g o r y was t e s t e d as an i l l u s t r a t i o n of methodology f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . The r e s u l t s of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e used i n the s u r v e y i n d i c a t e d t h a t the p r e s e n t u n c o - o r d i n a t e d system of l o c a l park d i s t r i b u t i o n i s not meeting b a s i c human needs. The p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l economic group of persons i n t e r v i e w e d e x p r e s s e d a need f o r l a r g e open spaces t h a t o f f e r e d a v a r i e t y of a c t i v i t i e s but were p r e d o m i n a t e l y p a s s i v e i n c h a r a c t e r as i l l u s t r a t e d by the p a r k l a n d c a t e g o r y w i t h i n the t h e o r e t i c a l open space model. The s t u d y i n d i c a t e d t h a t the b e h a v i o u r a c t i v i t y approach would be f e a s i b l e f o r f u t u r e use. i i i „ The r e s u l t s of the s t u d y to date i n d i c a t e t h a t the p r o v i s i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of open space w i t h i n the c i t y c o u l d be perhaps more a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e d under a form of redevelopment such as t h a t of the N o d u lar Metro-p o l i t a n Concept, i v . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The a u t h o r wishes t o ex p r e s s his s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n t o a l l those persons who a i d e d i n the course of t h i s r e s e a r c h . P a r t i c u l a r thanks must go t o P r o f e s s o r R o b e r t W. C o l l i e r , the a u t h o r ' s a d v i s e r . The author a l s o wishes to thank P r o f e s s o r H.P. O b e r l a n d e r , P r o f e s s o r V. S e t t y Pendakur, P r o f e s s o r W a l t e r G. Hardwick and P r o f e s s o r E r n e s t Landauer f o r t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e and g u i d a n c e . Thanks are a l s o due to f e l l o w group s t u d e n t s , Ian Chaiig, Monica Lindeman, Ro n a l d Mann and Ashok S h a h a n i ; and to the a u t h o r ' s w i f e , J u l i e , f o r her h e l p f u l a s s i s t a n c e and t y p i n g . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A 0 S T R . A C 7 o o o o o e o o o o . o o c o o o o o o o X ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i v L IS T 0 F1 T A B L f c i S o © o o o o o o © o © o c o o © o * v i i i LIST OF FIGURES AND MAPS . . . . . . ... . . . . i x SECTION I GROUP THESIS: THE NODULAR METROPOLITAN CONCEPT A. BASIS'OF STUDY 1 B o . A P i - ROACH o o o o o . o o o o o o o o o - o 2 C. THE PROBLEM . o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3 D. URBAN GROWTH 6 M e t r o p o l i t a n i z a t i o n . . . . . . . . . 6 M e g a l o p o l i s . . o . . . . . . . . . . 11 E„ URBAN FORM AND STRUCTURE . . . . . . . 12 T h e o r e t i c a l Concepts . „ . . . . . 15 The Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Technology . . . . . 19 B u i l d i n g Systems „ . . 22 Urhan P a t t e r n o o o o o o o o o o .23 F o SOCIAL AND SPATIAL SYSTEM . . . „ . . 23 G. GROUP HYPOTHESIS 25 H. INDIVIDUAL THESIS TOPICS . . . . „ . . 26 SECTION 11-5 INDIVIDUAL THESIS.:' THE PROVISION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL OPEN SPACE IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION At o GE*jMEf"L A Hi Q A o o e o o o o o o o o o O 5 Q 1 v i . Page B. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 o 2 Open Space and Urban Development . . . . . 5 . 2 F u n c t i o n s of Open Space . . . ' . . . . . 5 . 3 " G i v e n " and "Made" Form . . . . . . . . 5 . 5 C i t y Park as P a r t of Development . . . . 5 . 6 L e i s u r e Time and Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . . 5 . 7 Need f o r U r b a n - O r i e n t e d R e c r e a t i o n . „ . 5 . 9 Open Space S t a n d a r d s . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 1 1 C. THE STUDY PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.12 D. STUDY APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 1 4 CHAPTER I I : ANALYSIS OF EXISTING QUALITY OF LOCAL PARKS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESIS . . . . . . . . . 5 . 1 6 CHOICE OF RESEARCH AREAS . . . . . . . . . 5 . 1 6 DEFINITIONS o . o o . o - o o . o . . o . o o 5 . 1 7 LIMITATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 1 9 DESCRIPTION OF METHOD AND PROCEDURE FOR TESTING STUDY HYPOTHESIS . . . . . . . 5 . 1 9 SUMMARY OF FACTORS TESTED . . . . . . . . . 5 . 2 1 OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS . . . . . 5 . 2 3 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. CHAPTER I I I : ANALYSIS OF THE OPEN SPACE SYSTEM WITHIN THE NODULAR METROPOLITAN CONCEPT A. FORMULATION OF OPEN SPACE MODEL . . . . . . 5 . 2 5 The Study Model Approach . . . . . . . . 5 . 2 5 P o s t u l a t e s f o r Urban L o c a l Open Space . 5 . 2 6 A T h e o r e t i c a l Open Space Model . . . . . 5 . 2 7 Open Space C a t e g o r i e s . . . . . . . . . 5 . 2 8 •B. DESCRIPTION OF METHODS AND PROCEDURE FOR TESTING THE THEORETICAL OPEN SPACE MOD EL g o 0 0 (f 0 g o o o o o o o o o o o O O Q 3 0 C h o i c e of Re s e a r c h A n a l y s i s . . . . . . 5 . 3 0 T e s t Used i n A n a l y s i s . . . . . . . . . 5 . 3 0 C h o i c e of Que s t i o n s used f o r A n a l y s i s . 5 . 3 0 L i m i t a t i o n s of Survey Data . . . . . . 5 . 3 1 C * S UR.VE Y 9 0 0 9 0 Q 9 0 0 O 9 9 9 9 0 0 Q g 5 o 31 B r i e f D e s c r i p t i o n of Respondents' S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . . . . . „ . . 5 . 3 1 Summary of Survey R e s u l t s . . . . . . . 5 . 3 2 v i i . Page D. OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS . . . . . 5.33 •Open Space A c t i v i t y . „ . . . . . .' . . 5 . 3 3 Open Space Model « „ . . . . . « . . . 5.35 CHAPTER IV : SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 3 6 APPENDIX A. U.S. LOCAL AND METROPOLITAN PARK STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . 4 1 B. LOWER MAINLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED LOCAL AND METRO-POLITAN PARK SYSTEM AND STANDARDS . . 5.46 C. VANCOUVER PARKS ACCORDING TO CENSUS TR AC JCS O O O O O e o o o o o o o o o 5 » 49 D. VANCOUVER PARK QUALITY FACTORS ACCORDING TO CENSUS TRACT INCOME GROUPINGS o . . . . . . . . . a . . 5 o 5 2 E. SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ACTIVITY SURVEY . . 5.55 F. SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ACTIVITY SURVEY R ES ULTS o o o o o o o o o o o o » » o 5 0 5 6 G. SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ACTIVITY SURVEY BIVARIATE TABLES IN PERCENTAGES . . . 5.59 B IB L IOGR./\Pl~I o o o o o o o o o o o o o o « o o o o o 5 o 6 1 v i i i . LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page I CENSUS TRACT INCOME GROUPING „ . . . . , 5.20 I I SUMMARY OF FACTORS TESTED FOR VANCOUVER o o « o o o . o . . . •. . 5.21 I I I SUMMARY OF FACTORS TESTED FOR MONTREAL , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 , 5 0 2 2 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 URBAN MATRIX VARIABLES . . . . . . . . 2a 2 NODULAR METROPOLITAN CONCEPT '. . . . . 25a 5.1 NODULAR METROPOLITAN CONCEPT o . . . . 5.29a 5.2 A THEORETICAL OPEN SPACE MODEL . . . . 5.29a LIST OF MAPS MAP 5.1 VANCOUVER CENSUS TRACTS 1961 . . 5.2 VANCOUVER AVERAGE FAMILY WAGE AND SALARY INCOME . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 VANCOUVER MAJOR TRAFFIC ATERIALS SECTION I GROUP STUDY THE NODULAR METROPOLITAN CONCEPT A. BASIS OF STUDY A r e v i e w of the f o l l o w i n g l i t e r a t u r e emphasises the u n c o - o r d i n a t e d s t a t e of c i t y development. I f i t i s p o s s i b l e f o r mankind to a n t i c i p a t e ( p l a n f o r ) the f u t u r e , i t i s i m p o r t a n t to d i s c o v e r the k i n d s of changes t h a t may o c c u r . The purpose of t h i s s t u d y i s to i d e n t i f y under-l y i n g v a r i a b l e s t h a t are s h a p i n g urban s o c i e t y and s t r u c t u r e s p e c i f i c a l l y to e x p l o r e a form of development which i s be-coming e v i d e n t i n the c i t y today. From t h i s a n a l y s i s i t i s apparent t h a t s p e c i f i c f u n c t i o n a l nodes have formed n a t u r a l l y w i t h i n the p r e s e n t urban system. T h i s s t u d y assumes t h a t p r e s e n t growth t r e n d s i n the c i t y can be r e c o g n i z e d and a n a l y s e d . Based on t h i s a n a l y s i s , i t i s b e l i e v e d t h a t the most d e s i r a b l e t r e n d s can then be r e i n -f o r c e d to shape f u t u r e form and s t r u c t u r e . B. APPROACH The approach to t h i s s tudy has been i n t e r - and m u l t i -d i s c i p l i n a r y o I t i s a p o s t u l a t e of t h i s r e s e a r c h t h a t Com-munity and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g must o p e r a t e w i t h i n a compre-h e n s i v e and c o - o r d i n a t e d framework. In view of t h i s , an attempt has been made to c o n s t r u c t a p r e l i m i n a r y model (see m a t r i x , F i g u r e 1 ) . Because of the l i m i t a t i o n s of time and p e r s o n n e l , o n l y s e l e c t e d components of the c o n c e p t u a l model are e x p l o r e d , A more complete i n d e n t i f i c a t i o n and a n a l y s i s of a l l the model's components would r e s u l t i n a b e t t e r under-s t a n d i n g of the l a r g e r c o n t i n u i n g urban growth p r o c e s s . The t o p i c s of i n d i v i d u a l s t u d i e s are a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d on the b a s i s of i n d i v i d u a l r e s e a r c h e r ' s e x p e r i e n c e and i n t e r e s t . I t i s o n l y on t h i s b a s i s t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g can be made. FIGURE 1 VARIABLES O H C C o *J O H _ _ - P *H UV UU V c .o >a CCT3 3 O-H t o E C © • u u WSJ p S) O JJ *7 B + J A (—I - P - H E s . o © E -p . .» E "3 C - P <D • H L J . H - P g -H ri , H .2 0 a £> O - P > J-* o o P o l i t i c a l Sclfcce p o l i t i c a l theory p u b l i c adiduistration p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s leadership & decision - c i t i n g power t influence Sociolocv e o c i a l behavior eocial structure Economies J -L'j 1) teonetary & f i s c a l policy lncoae distribution p r i c e theory economic £rovtb Business A c r i n i s t r a t i o r A -— naxketing finance ' policy & ... administration estate ranaganent public rejations accounting Urban Fora & _ — -architecture landscape c i v i c design land U6e It zoning Lair n m l c i p a l lav land & Earltiae l e » constitutional lair * torts — — — corporation leu Engineering U t i l i t i e s 4 services . Bysteus analysis Q "transportation " .... -- - —. •-eonmnication structural design ! t 1 Urban Ctorrephy 1 Tirban systems urban processes V S o c i a l PsTCl'.olofTT 1 S t a t i s t i c s 1 1 U R B A N M A T R I X V A R I A B L E S CHANG COWIE LINDEMAN MANN SHAHANI Ms. X T C. THE PROBLEM By the year 2000, the urban p o p u l a t i o n of the U n i t e d S t a t e s i s ex p e c t e d to be double,"'' Moreover, p e o p l e are ex p e c t e d to be more a f f l u e n t as t h e i r p e r s o n a l income i n 2 c o n s t a n t d o l l a r s i n c r e a s e s by f i f t y per c e n t . W h i l e these a n t i c i p a t e d changes have not y e t been r e a l i z e d , the c a p a c i t i e s of our c i t i e s are f a s t r e a c h i n g t h e i r l i m i t s . For example, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s are a l r e a d y congested i n the l a r g e 3 m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s , c o n v e n i e n t l y l o c a t e d l a n d f o r ho u s i n g i s becoming s c a r c e , and c o s t s of p r o v i d i n g p u b l i c s e r v i c e s and u t i l i t i e s are becoming p r o h i b i t i v e . The c r u c i a l problem a r i s i n g out of t h i s i s how to p l a n our m e t r o p o l i t a n areas so t h a t they can accommodate the a n t i c i p a t e d growth and change. I t i s e s t i m a t e d t h a t by the 1980's or at l e a s t by the year 2000, we w i l l have to r e b u i l d our c i t i e s t o accommodate the a n t i c i p a t e d p o p u l a t i o n i n c r e a s e and to s a t i s f y the p r e f e r -ences of a more a f f l u e n t s o c i e t y . By the year 2000, more urban homes, p l a c e s of b u s i n e s s and p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s w i l l have to be b u i l t than have been b u i l t s i n c e the f i r s t towns were s t a r t e d i n North A m e r i c a . At l e a s t h a l f of todays urban Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission, P r o j e c t i o n s to Years 1976 and 2000: Economic Growth, P o p u l a t i o n , Labour Force, L e i s u r e and T r a n s p o r t a t i o n , (Washington,•D.C.: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1962), p . " 9 'Lowdon Wingo, J r . , C i t i e s and Space, ( B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1963), p.11. ' w i l f r e d Owen, The M e t r o p o l i t a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Problem, (New York: Doubleday & C o . I n c . , 1966), p . l . d w e l l i n g s w i l l p r o b a b l y r e q u i r e r e p l a c i n g because they 4 w i l l no l o n g e r s e r v e the needs of f a m i l i e s . In a d d i t i o n , h a l f of todays urban b u s i n e s s and i n d u s t r i a l b u i l d i n g s w i l l r e q u i r e r e p l a c i n g because they w i l l no l o n g e r s e r v e changing 5 p r o d u c t i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n methods. I t i s l i k e l y t h a t our c i t i e s w i l l have to be r e s t r u c t -ured to accommodate r a d i c a l l y new means of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . High d e n s i t y c i t i e s l i k e New York have a l r e a d y found the c o s t of a u t o m o b i l e t r a v e l to the c i t y core p r o h i b i t i v e . In low d e n s i t y c i t i e s , such as Los A n g e l e s , the c o s t i n money, time and space of r e l y i n g s o l e l y on the a u t o m o b i l e i s e q u a l l y p r o -h i b i t i v e . For example, t w o - t h i r d s of Los A n g e l e s ' downtown i s g i v e n over to the a u t o m o b i l e - about o n e - h a l f of t h i s to p a r k i n g l o t s and garages and the r e s t to roadways and highways!" Most of todays c i t i e s have grown w i t h l i t t l e p l a n n i n g . A l t h o u g h they u r g e n t l y need r e b u i l d i n g and r e s t r u c t u r i n g , t h e y have n e i t h e r the money nor the- a u t h o r i t y . Our l a r g e r c i t i e s are beset w i t h problems of slums, t r a f f i c c o n g e s t i o n , s p r a w l , u g l i n e s s , h o u s i n g ; w i t h the p r o v i s i o n of i n a d e q u a t e open space; w i t h a i r and water p o l l u t i o n ; w i t h outmoded forms of p u b l i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and t a x a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , most c i t i e s have enormous problems w i t h e d u c a t i o n , p o v e r t y and r a c i a l s e g r e g a t i o n . 4"What K i n d of C i t i e s Do We Want;" N a t i o n s C i t i e s , ( V o l . 5 , No. 4, A p r i l , 1967), p. 18..' ^ I b i d . ^Los Anqeles C i t y P l a n n i n g Department, "Major I s s u e s f o r Los A n g e l e s " May 2, 1966, p.4. O u t d a t e d , i n f l e x i b l e p o l i t i c a l b o u n d a r i e s have h e l p e d to encourage p e o p l e and i n d u s t r y i n t o , the lower t a x suburbs and to make p l a n n i n g e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t . The w e a l t h i e r f a m i l i e s have escaped to the suburbs l e a v i n g the c e n t r a l c i t y t o d e t e r i o r a t e . Our c i t i e s c o n t i n u e to use a t a x system t h a t p e n a l i z e s improvements and s u b s i d i z e s o b s o l e s c e n c e which 7 i n e v i t a b l y l e a d s to b l i g h t , s p r a w l and spread of slums. I n s p i t e of a l l these problems, which v a r y i n degree a c r o s s N o r t h A m e r i c a , our m e t r o p o l i t a n areas c o n t i n u e to grow and c r y out f o r i m a g i n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s to making our urban environment more l i v a b l e . P l a n n e r s l i k e W i l l i a m Wheaton and V i c t o r Gruen b e l i e v e t h a t the ess-ence of urbanism i s v a r i e t y , and t h a t o n l y a v i b r a n t n i g h t - a n d - d a y "downtown*'1 ( c i t y c o r e ) can s u p p o r t the v a r i e t y of s h o p p i n g , s e r v i c e s , c o n t a c t s , j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s , c u l t u r e and r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s needed to make a c i t y an Q a t t r a c t i o n . Any v i a b l e c i t y core needs peo p l e l i v i n g w i t h i n and a d j a c e n t to the area - not j u s t daytime commutors. The p r o v i s i o n t h r ough urban renewal of a f u n c t i o n a l and l i v a b l e h a b i t a t f o r these c e n t r a l c i t y d w e l l e r s i s the f o c u s of the group r e s e a r c h e f f o r t d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s t h e s i s . W.R. Thompson, A P r e f a c e to Urban Economics, ( B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1965), p„320. 'Nations C i t i e s , O p . c i t . , pp.26-27; and V i c t o r Gruen, The Heart of our C i t i e s , (New York: Simon and S c h u s t e r , 1964) ppo292-339. D. URBAN GROWTH 1. M e t r o p o l i t a n i z a t i o n B e f o r e d i s c u s s i n g the c e n t r a l core area of the c i t y , i t i s i m p o r t a n t to mention the g e n e r a l f o r c e s which have c o n t r i b u t e d to the growth of our m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s . P e t e r 9 H a l l d e s c r i b e s such f o r c e s . The f i r s t i s t h a t t o t a l pop-u l a t i o n has i n c r e a s e d at a r a p i d r a t e and t h r e a t e n s to go on i n c r e a s i n g . The second f a c t o r was the s h i f t o f f the l a n d i n t o i n d u s t r y and s e r v i c e o c c u p a t i o n s i n the c i t i e s . T h i s , however, i s no l o n g e r a major f a c t o r s i n c e over t w o - t h i r d s . of N o r t h Americans now l i v e i n urban a r e a s . The t h i r d f a c t o r i s t h a t a l a r g e p a r t of the urban growth i s b e i n g c o n c e n t r a t e d i n the a l r e a d y l a r g e m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s . T h i s c o n c e n t r a t i o n p r o b a b l y i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the more d i v e r s e economic and s o c i a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e i n the l a r g e c e n t r e s . M e t r o p o l i t a n areas have grown f a s t e r than the r e s t of N o r t h A m e r i c a i n e v e r y decade s i n c e the t u r n of the c e n t u r y , except f o r the d e p r e s s i o n y e a r s 1930-1940. By 1960 almost t w o - t h i r d s of the p o p u l a t i o n of the U n i t e d S t a t e s l i v e d i n the S t a n d a r d M e t r o p o l i t a n S t a t i s t i c a l Areas d e l i n e a t e d by the census. In Canada 87.5 per cent were c l a s s i f i e d as urban (non-farm) p o p u l a t i o n . T h i s i s a 109 per cent i n c r e a s e from 1 9 2 1 - 1 9 6 1 . 1 0 9 P e t e r . H a l l , The World C i t i e s ,• (New Y ork: M c G r a w - H i l l , 1967). 1 0 E c o n o m i c C o u n c i l of Canada, Toward S u s t a i n e d & B a l a n c e d Economic Growth: 2nd Annual KevTevvTTDttavva: Queen's P r i n t e r , Growth w i t h i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n areas has not been d i s t r i b u t e d e v e n l y . The c e n t r a l areas of c i t i e s have grown r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e , w h i l e the suburban r i n g s have grown at a much h i g h e r r a t e . Some, of the l a r g e r c i t i e s ' c e n t r a l areas have a c t u a l l y l o s t p o p u l a t i o n d u r i n g the l a s t decade. Some of the many reasons f o r the l o s s of p o p u l a t i o n i n c l u d e a l a c k of a v a i l a b l e space f o r f u r t h e r b u i l d i n g , the obso-l e s c e n c e of ho u s i n g and i n d u s t r i a l p l a n t s i n the core a r e a s , and the u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of r a p i d , cheap methods of communi-c a t i o n and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . The l o s s e s of p o p u l a t i o n i n the c e n t r a l areas do not n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t economic d e c l i n e but r a t h e r the d e c e n t r a l -i z a t i o n of p o p u l a t i o n and i n s t i t u t i o n s to the suburbs. H i s -t o r i c a l l y the n a t u r a l c l u s t e r i n g of c o m m e r c i a l , i n d u s t r i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l a c t i v i t i e s was due i n p a r t to the absence of a w e l l d e v e l o p e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system. M o b i l i t y was l i m i t e d s i n c e few peopl e had a p e r s o n a l mode of t r a n s p o r t . When mass p r o d u c t i o n and ownership of a u t o m o b i l e s became a r e a l i t y , the form of the c i t y began to change. S i n c e people were now able to t r a v e l l o n g e r d i s t a n c e s i n a s h o r t e r p e r i o d of t i m e , they began to move to the o u t e r f r i n g e s of. the c e n t r a l c i t y . Decen-t r a l i z a t i o n of the r e s i d e n c e a l s o brought w i t h i t many r e t a i l and s e r v i c e e n t e r p r i s e s . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e has been a t r e n d towards the d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of m a n u f a c t u r i n g and w h o l e s a l i n g f i r m s s e e k i n g to escape the c o n g e s t i o n of the c e n t r a l c o r e . "^R. Vernon, M e t r o p o l i s , 1985, (Cambridge: H a r v a r d University P r e s s , 1960), pp.116-120. A n o t h e r f a c t o r w hich has encouraged r e s i d e n t i a l d e c e n t r a l -i z a t i o n i s the i n t e r v e n t i o n of government i n the hous i n g 12 market. Through the U.S. and Canadian Housing A c t s , l o n g term, low i n t e r e s t l o a n s made s i n g l e f a m i l y home ownership p o s s i b l e on a l a r g e r s c a l e and encouraged the development of suburban s u b d i v i s i o n s . I t appears t h a t the p r i m a r y i m p l i c a t i o n s of i n c r e a s e d m o b i l i t y and government h o u s i n g p o l i c y on urban form i s a d i s p e r s i o n of a c t i v i t i e s . But w h i l e the c i t y i s becoming more d i s p e r s e d , s p e c i a l i z e d f u n c t i o n a l areas appear to be .developing. The d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n of r e t a i l i n g , w h o l e s a l i n g and i n d u s t r y has a l t e r e d the f u n c t i o n of the urban c o r e . The-core i s e v o l v i n g from a c e n t r a l b u s i n e s s d i s t r i c t t o a c e n t r a l 13 i n t e l l i g e n c e d i s t r i c t . That i s to say, t e r t i a r y and q u a r t e r n a r y economic a c t i v i t i e s are becoming the predominate l a n d uses. F i n a n c i a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o f f i c e s , r e s e a r c h and c o n s u l t a t i v e f i r m s , e n t e r t a i n m e n t and c u l t u r a l f a c i l i t i e s are i n c r e a s i n g i n the core areas of c i t i e s . Those r e t a i l f i r m s which remain downtown are becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y o r i e n t e d to the daytime w o r k i n g p o p u l a t i o n and to those people who l i v e 14 i n or a d j a c e n t to downtown. 12 W.R. Thompson, O p . c i t . , p.355 13 ""Personal I n t e r v i e w w i t h Dr. Edward Higbe.e, Vancouver, B.C., November, 1967. - ^ P e r s o n a l I n t e r v i e w w i t h Dr. W a l t e r Hardwick, Vancouver, B.C., A p r i l , 1967, W i t h i n the core i t s e l f , s p e c i a l i z e d f u n c t i o n a l d i s t r i c t s can be i d e n t i f i e d . For'example, a f i n a n c i a l d i s t r i c t , a h i g h o r d e r goods shopping d i s t r i c t , and an e n t e r t a i n m e n t s t r i p may be e a s i l y o b s e r v e d . T h i s c l u s t e r -i n g of l i k e a c t i v i t i e s r e f l e c t s the d e s i r e f o r f a c e to f a c e -i n t e r a c t i o n o r , as i n the l a t t e r c a s e s , the d e s i r e by con-15 sumers f o r comparisons. ° Urbanism - Perhaps the f i r s t t h i n g t h a t s t r i k e s an o b s e r v e r of our c i t i e s i s the tremendous change of r u r a l to urban p o p u l a t i o n d u r i n g the l a s t few decades. Though change i s c o n s t a n t i t i s the a c c e l e r a t i n g r a t e of change i n the age of a u t o mation which has wrought havoc w i t h the "good.old times,'" 1 Changing l i f e s t y l es are pa r t and p a r c e l of r a p i d l y growing urban a r e a s . The i n c r e a s i n g acceptance of urbanism as a way of l i f e has ushered i n an urban s o c i e t y which e x h i b i t s an i n c r e a s i n g a f f l u e n c e among the g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of i t s members. The s h o r t e r work week, which i s a consequence of a u t o m a t i o n , i s making i t s appearance f e l t . " ^ I n c r e a s i n g l e i s u r e time and r e c r e a t i o n a l p u r s u i t s are bywords of a more a f f l u e n t s o c i e t y . The impact t h i s has had so f a r on the urban scene i s the i n c r e a s i n g emphasis t h a t i s p l a c e d on the d e v e l -17 opment of l e i s u r e time a m e n i t i e s and urban open spaces. 15 W a l t e r Hardwick, The Vancouver Sun, J u l y 8, 1967, p.6 ^ ^ P r o c e e d i n g s of the I n t e r n a t i o n a 1 C o n f e r e n c e on A u t o m a t i o n , F u l l Employment and B a l a n c e d Economy, (Rome, I t a l y : B r i t i s h and American F o u n d a t i o n s on A u t o m a t i o n & Employment, 1967; and Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, O p . c i t . , p.64 1 TN.P. M i l l e r &D.M. Robinson The L e i s u r e Age: I t s C h a l l e n g e to R e c r e a t i o n , (Belmont, Ca 1:"~W¥cTslvoTlTrTTIb^ 1963), pp.472-473 10. A n o t h e r phenomenon of the age o f a u tomation i s the i n c r e a s i n g g e o g r a p h i c m o b i l i t y of the N o r t h American popu-l a t i o n . I t i s a f a c t t h a t one out of f i v e persons i n the 18 U.S. i s now moving ev e r y y e a r . T h i s means t h a t a work-i n g p e r s o n i n h i s l i f e i s l i k e l y to change h i s r e s i d e n c e e i g h t times and two or t h r e e of them would i n v o l v e moves to an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t community. One consequence of t h i s g r e a t e r m o b i l i t y i s the l o s s of p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t s w i t h 19 r e l a t i v e s and n eighbours who are l e f t b e h i n d . In a d d i t i o n to urbanism as a way of l i f e and i n c r e a s e d g e o g r a p h i c m o b i l i t y , d i f f e r e n c e s i n urban r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n are becoming more pronounced. The growth of the c i t y under a f r e e e n t e r p r i s e system, or under any n o n - c e n t r a l i z e d system, i s l e a d i n g to a h i g h degree of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of r e s i d e n t i a l areas by type of s t r u c t u r e , q u a l i t y of h o u s i n g and l e v e l s of r e n t a l v a l u e s . Under a market system of a l l o c a t i n g h o u s i n g , where p e o p l e l i v e depends i n l a r g e measure on the r e n t or s a l e s p r i c e they pay. A c o n s i d e r a b l e degree of r e s i d e n t i a l s e g r e g a t i o n r e s u l t s between persons i n v a r i o u s income b r a c k e t s and between persons i n v a r i o u s o c c u p a t i o n s . However, r e c e n t f i n d i n g s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e t h a t r a c i a l and e t h n i c r e s i d e n t i a l s e g r e g a t i o n are more than j u s t economic d i s c r i m i n a t i o n . They a l s o have l e d to the h i g h degree of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of r e s i -d e . Abrams, The C i t y i s the F r o n t i e r , (New Y o r k : Harper & Row, 1965), p.17; and Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, O p . c i t . , p.57 1 9M.B. C l i n a r d , " C o n t r i b u t i o n s of S o c i o l o g y to U n d e r s t a n d i n g D e v i a n t Behavior" 1' i n Contemporary S o c i a l Problems, Merton & N i s b e t ( e d . ) , (New Tor k : Ha r c o u r t , Br ace'TFlYoTfTd I n c . , 1961) 11. d e n t i a l a r e a s , because even where economic d i f f e r e n t i a l s 20 are d i m i n i s h i n g , r a c i a l r e s i d e n t i a l s e g r e g a t i o n p e r s i s t s . 2." M e g a l o p o l i s The l a r g e s c a l e movement of p o p u l a t i o n i n t o the o u t e r r i n g s of m e t r o p o l i t a n areas i s , a c c o r d i n g to Jean Gottmann, u s h e r i n g i n a new phase of m e t r o p o l i t a n development which he 21 c a l l s M e g a l o p o l i s . I n r e g i o n s such as the n o r t h e a s t e r n seaboard of the U n i t e d S t a t e s the o u t e r r i n g s of m e t r o p o l i t a n areas have expanded to o v e r l a p w i t h o u t e r r i n g s of o t h e r m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s . The r e s u l t i s a c o n t i n u o u s band of urban and suburban development. T h i s phenomenon i s a l s o c a l l e d ""'strip c i t y , " " c i t y region"' and "super-metropolis."'' The words megopolis and m e g a l o p o l i s are b e i n g heard w i t h i n c r e a s i n g f r e q u e n c y , u s u a l l y a p p l i e d to an almost c o n t i n u o u s s t r i n g of c i t i e s r u n n i n g from Washington, D.C. to Boston The p a t t e r n does not c o n s i s t of a s t r i n g of metro-p o l i t a n areas s t a n d i n g s h o u l d e r to s h o u l d e r , f i g h t -i n g f o r space l i k e a crowd i n a subway, but of m e t r o p o l i t a n areas i n a f u n c t i o n i n g group, i n t e r -a c t i n g w i t h each o t h e r . I n the same manner t h a t economic development has made the s i z e of the t y p i c a l n a t i o n i n a d e q u a t e and has c a l l e d f o r s u p e r - n a t i o n s , i t seems t h a t soon - at l e a s t i n h i s t o r i c a l time -urban u n i t s w i l l go beyond the s c a l e of the m e t r o p o l i s to the s c a l e of the m e g a l o p o l i s . And must as the m e t r o p o l i t a n area i s not made up of an accummulation of l i t t l e c i t i e s complete i n themselves but on a system of s p e c i a l i z e d and t h e r e f o r e d i s s i m i l a r 2^K.E. Taeuber '& A.F. Taeuber. Negroes i n C i t i e s , ( C h i c a g o : A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1965) ~ ~ 21 Jean Gottmann, M e g a l o p o l i s , (Cambridge: The M.I.T. P r e s s , 1961), p.16. 12. a r e a s , the v a r i o u s m e t r o p o l i t a n u n i t s of megopolis w i l l s p e c i a l i z e and become more d i f f e r e n t from each o t h e r than they are today.22 There are over a dozen areas i n N o r t h A m e r i c a t h a t c o u l d d evelop the same urban m e g a l o p o l i t a n form as the n o r t h e a s t e r n s eaboard. For example, i n C a l i f o r n i a most of the p o p u l a t i o n i s i n the d e n s e l y p o p u l a t e d San F r a n c i s c o Bay areas and i n s p r a w l i n g Los A n g e l e s . I n d i c i a t i o n s now are t h a t p e o p l e e v e n t u a l l y w i l l f i l l an almost s o l i d p o p u l a t i o n b e l t r u n n i n g between the two areas t h r o u g h the C e n t r a l V a l l e y of C a l i f o r n i a E. URBAN FORM AND STRUCTURE There have been many e f f o r t s to a n a l y s e the form and s t r u c t u r e of c i t i e s . "Form1" means the p h y s i c a l p a t t e r n of l a n d use, p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n and s e r v i c e networks, w h i l e "Structure"' 1 s i g n i f i e s the s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of human 24 a c t i v i t i e s and i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Ideas such as Ebenezer Howard's Garden C i t y movement and Frank L l o y d W r i g h t ' s Broad-a c r e Concept have had c o n s i d e r a b l e i n f l u e n c e i n the d e c e n t r a l -i z a t i o n argument w h i l e opposing views have r e f l e c t e d the ""Save the C e n t r a l C i t i e s " movement. An example of a scheme devel o p e d f o r the r e t e n t i o n of the c e n t r a l c i t y was put f o r w a r d 2 2 \ Y i l l i a m A l o n s o , " ' C i t i e s and C i t y Planners'" i n Taming Mega-lo p p i i s, V o l . 1 1 , H. Wentworth E l d r e d g e ( e d . ) , TWew Yor k 7 ~ Washington and London: F r e d e r i c k A. P r a e g e r , 1967)pp.59o-596, 2 3 C . Abrams, O p . c i t . , p.280. ^ C a t h e r i n e Bauer W u r s t e r , "The Form and S t r u c t u r e of the F u t u r e Urban Complex", C i t i e s and Space, Lovvdon Wingo (ed.) Resources f o r the F u t u r e Inc ~ ( B a 1 1 i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1966), p.75. 13. by L. H i l b e r s e i m e r d u r i n g the e a r l y 1940's, based on a 25 " s e t t l e m e n t u n i t . " Such a u n i t c o n t a i n s a l l the e s s e n t i a l s of a s m a l l community w i t h i n i t s e l f and each u n i t i s i n t u r n c o nnected to o t h e r u n i t s t o c r e a t e an o v e r a l l system of s e l f -c o n t a i n e d c e n t r e s . H i l b e r s e i m e r ' s study a p p l i e s such a system to the C i t y of C h i c a g o . Recent e f f o r t s t o a n a l y z e urban form and s t r u c t u r e have f o c u s e d a t t e n t i o n on b a s i c t h e o r i e s s i m i l a r to H i l b e r s e i m e r ' s approach i n s t e a d of b e i n g l a r g e l y i n t u i t i v e as i n e a r l i e r c o n c e p t s . More s c i e n t i f i c methods of a n a l y s i s u s i n g computer t e c h n i q u e s have been d e v e l o p e d . With the use of models, many a l t e r n a t i v e forms .of growth and change can be examined. Emphasis on t r a n s -p o r t a t i o n a n a l y s i s has l e d to schemes such as the Year 2000 P l a n f o r the N a t i o n a l C a p i t a l R e g i o n ^ and more r e c e n t l y to the P e n n - J e r s e y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d y, where f u t u r e growth p o s s i b i l i t i e s have been p r e s e n t e d w i t h c l e a r a l t e r n a t i v e s . In the Penn-Jersey Study, s i n c e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p o l i c y was the f a c t o r most d i r e c t l y under the i n f l u e n c e of the s t u d y ' s p o l i c y committee, a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n systems were taken as the s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g d i f f e r e n t 27 p o s s i b l e r e g i o n a l growth p a t t e r n s . Many t h e o r e t i c a l s t u d i e s of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and urban form have been made by p l a n n i n g teams, such as the p r o p o s a l 25 L. H i l b e r s e i m e r , The Nature of C i t i e s , ( C h i c a g o : P a u l Theo-b a l d & Co., 1955), pp.192-193. 26 Gruen, O p . c i t . , p.262; and N a t i o n a l C a p i t a l R e g i o n a l Planning C o u n c i l , The R e g i o n a l Development Guide 1966-2000, (Washington, D.C. : .June, T9~66T, pp TSE^TS; and i n t e r v i e w w i t h A l a n Voohrees of A l a n Voohrees & A s s o c i a t e s Inc., Vancouver,B.C nMarch 22,1968. 2 7 P e n n - J e r s e y T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S t u d y, P r o s p e c t u s , Dec.11,1959,p.14 14. 28 f o r N o r t h Buckinghamshire i n E n g l a n d , and by a r c h i t e c t s 29 such as J . Weber i n h i s " L i n e a r C i t y Development" i n 1965, but few of these r a d i c a l i d e a s have been implemented. On a more academic b a s i s t h e r e have been approaches to the t h e o r e t i c a l s t u d i e s of urban form and s t r u c t u r e by use of models as e x e m p l i f i e d by M e l v i n Webber and K e v i n Lynch. 30 Webber suggests t h a t most of the models used c u r r e n t l y are based on " s t a t i c d e s c r i p t i v e " r e l a t i o n s h i p s such as d e n s i t y g r a d i e n t s of p o p u l a t i o n , r a t e s of d e c l i n e of m a n u f a c t u r i n g and o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s o b s e r v e d i n e x i s t i n g s p a t i a l p a t t e r n s . These models c o n c e n t r a t e on the r e s u l t s r a t h e r than on the cause of urban form. He s t r e s s e s the need f o r a n a l y s i s of the "dynamic b e h a v i o u r " a s p e c t s o f urban s t r u c t u r e . Lynch 31 and Rodwin suggest i n t h e i r model, which d e a l s w i t h p h y s i c a l form, t h a t t h i s approach s h o u l d be f o l l o w e d by s t u d i e s of the " a c t i v i t y p a t t e r n " and i t s e f f e c t on urban form. Recent s t u d i e s f o r the New Town of Columbia i n the S t a t e of Maryland ta k e s t h i s approach and o f f e r s a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of 32 models i n i n t e g r a t i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and urban form. M i n i s t r y of Housing and L o c a l Government, E n g l a n d , N o r t h -ampton, B e d f o r d and Bucks S t u d y , (London: Her Maj es t y ' s S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , 196571 ^ B r i a n R i c h a r d s , New Movement i n C i t i e s , (London: S t u d i o V i s t a and New York: R e l n h o f c T - P u b l i s h i n g Corp., 1966), p.47. ^M.V. Webber, " T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g Models", T r a f f i c Q u a r t e r l y , J u l y , 1961, pp.373-390. K. Lynch and L. Rodwin, "A Theory of Urban Form, J o u r n a l of American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , V o l . X X I V , No.4, 1958, pp.201-2T4T : 3° ^ o o h r e e s , Op . c i t . 15. 1„ T h e o r e t i c a l Concepts There are many c h o i c e s f o r f u t u r e urban form and s t r u c t u r e , C a t h e r i n e Bauer W u r s t e r o u t l i n e d f o u r broad a l t e r n a t i v e approaches ( a ) P r e s e n t t r e n d s p r o j e c t e d . Region-wide s p e c i a l -i z a t i o n w i t h most f u n c t i o n s d i s p e r s e d but w i t h a push toward g r e a t e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n of c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s i n the c e n t r a l c i t i e s . Perhaps un-s t a b l e , l i k e l y to s h i f t toward one of the o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e s o • o o o . o ( b ) G e n e r a l d i s p e r s i o n . P r o b a b l y toward r e g i o n -wide s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of c e r t a i n f u n c t i o n s but a c o n s i d e r a b l e degree of s u b - r e g i o n a l i n t e -g r a t i o n might be i n d u c e d , ( c ) C o n c e n t r a t e d s u p e r - c i t y . P r o b a b l y w i t h a s t r o n g tendency toward s p e c i a l i z e d s e c t o r s f o r " d i f f e r e n t f u n c t i o n s , ( d ) C o n s t e l l a t i o n of r e l a t i v e l y d i v e r s i f i e d and i n t e g r a t e d c i t i e s . With c i t i e s of d i f f e r i n g s i z e and c h a r a c t e r , a range from moderate d i s p e r s i o n to moderate c o n c e n t r a t i o n would be f e a s i b l e . -Any one of these f o u r a l t e r n a t i v e s c o u l d p r o b a b l y a p p l y i n North A m e r i c a , depending on d i f f e r i n g l o c a l c onditions. W u r s t e r , O p . c i t . , pp.78-79 16. The c i t y of Los Angeles has r e c e n t l y c a r r i e d out a s t u d y on urban form and s t r u c t u r e and the f o l l o w i n g f o u r a l t e r n a t i v e concepts f o r urban growth w e r e o u t l i n e d : " ^ ( a ) C e n t r e s Concept. T h i s concept e n v i s i o n s l a r g e r e g i o n a l c o n c e n t r a t i o n s of r e s i d e n c e and employ-ment, which would be the f o c a l p o i n t s f o r s o l i d i -f y i n g new growth i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a . I t , proposes a c i t y of a h i g h l y urban c h a r a c t e r , w h i l e p r e s e r v i n g s i n g l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l areas and n a t u r a l a m e n i t i e s . I t attempts to m i n i m i z e t r a v e l d i s t a n c e s between home and p l a c e s of d a i l y o c c u p a t i o n , L O O O O O ( b ) C o r r i d o r s Concept. T h i s concept proposes a h i g h l y u r b a n i z e d m e t r o p o l i s , w i t h c o n c e n t r a t i o n of employment, commercial s e r v i c e s , r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s and h i g h d e n s i t y apartments l o c a t e d i n c o r r i d o r s e x t e n d i n g outward from t h e . . . . . m e t r o p o l i t a n c o r e . T h i s concept would r e q u i r e a mass t r a n s i t system. o • o • ( c ) D i s p e r s i o n Concept. T h i s concept seeks an even d i s t r i b u t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s , which would accommo-date growth w h i l e p r e s e r v i n g the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t make Los Angeles unique among major c i t i e s ; d e c e n t r a l i z a t i o n , owner o c c u p i e d homes, and the a u t o m o b i l e w i t h i t s f l e x i b i l i t y of movement. T h i s concept attempts to keep t r a v e l d i s t a n c e from home to work and o t h e r d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s at a minimum, by h a v i n g j o b s , consumer s e r v i c e s , r e c r e a t i o n and p u b l i c f a c i l i t i e s l o c a t e d c l o s e to the r e s i d e n t p o p u l a t i o n , 34 Los Angeles Department of C i t y P l a n n i n g , Concepts f o r - L o s  A n g e l e s . (Summary Pamphlet, September, 1967). (cl) Low D e n s i t y Concept. T h i s concept seeks t o p r e s e r v e the p r e s e n t r e s i d e n t i a l p a t t e r n s and l i f e s t y l e s of Los A n g e l e s . I t emphasis the s i n g l e - f a m i l y detached house w i t h low r i s e apartments i n about the same p r o p o r t i o n s as now. The a u t o m o b i l e would c o n t i n u e as the predominant means of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n The f o u r a l t e r n a t i v e concepts f o r the urban growth of Los Angeles are not u n l i k e C a t h e r i n e Bauer W u r s t e r ' s f o u r t h e o r e t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e s . 2. The Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept The Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept i s another a l t e r n a -t i v e f o r urban growth and development. T h i s c o n c e p t , which i s the b a s i s of the group s t u d y , i s found to combine elements of the C e n t r e s and C o r r i d o r s Concepts as o u t l i n e d i n the Los 35 A n g e l e s Study. For purposes of c l a r i f i c a t i o n at t h i s stage of the s t u d y , the f o l l o w i n g assumptions are made: ( a ) L o c a t e d i n a l a r g e N o r t h American m e t r o p o l i t a n r e g i o n , c o n t a i n i n g a broad base of v a r i e d l a n d use and w i d e l y d i v e r s i f i e d employment and o f f e r -i n g a range of r e s i d e n t i a l t y p e s . ( b ) A r e g i o n of h i g h l y urban c h a r a c t e r w i t h a con-c e n t r a t e d c e n t r a l c o r e . I b i d „ 18. ( c ) Developed as a c o n c e n t r a t i o n of growth nodes at i n t e r v a l s along major t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o r r i d o r s . These nodes become c e n t r e s f o r mixed usage or s i n g l e uses of l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n s . ( d ) P r e s e r v a t i o n of o u t e r s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l areas and e x i s t i n g n a t u r a l a m e n i t i e s . ( e ) Development of l a r g e areas between nodes as p u b l i c - r e c r e a t i o n and open space. ( f ) Development through a comprehensive p l a n which c o - o r d i n a t e s the t o o l s of c a p i t a l b u d g e t i n g , p r o p e r e n a b l i n g l e g i s l a t i o n and programmed p h a s i n g . I t i s e n v i s a g e d t h a t t h i s system w i l l b r i n g about a h i g h e r standard- of l i v i n g , c r e a t e more o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r the enjoyment of the c i t y and p r o v i d e an environment which w i l l s t i m u l a t e and s u p p o r t p r e s e n t and f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s . To a c h i e v e t h i s d e s i r a b l e urban c o n d i t i o n f o r the c i t y , the need f o r i n c r e a s e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n by p u b l i c and 3 6 p r i v a t e s e c t o r s has been acknowledged. I t i s l i k e l y that.' t o t a l l y new means of l a n d use c o n t r o l and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n would be needed. The enormous problem of r e b u i l d i n g our c i t i e s w i l l most c e r t a i n l y r e q u i r e the most advanced t e c h -n o l o g y , e s p e c i a l l y i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and b u i l d i n g . N a t i o n s C i t i e s , O p . c i t . , p.19 1 9 . 3. T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Technology i There have been i n r e c e n t y e a r s many i n n o v a t i o n s and r e s e a r c h i n t o modes of t r a v e l t h a t , i f implemented, c o u l d p o s s i b l y p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n making our c i t i e s more -l i v a b l e . Three r e c e n t i n n o v a t i o n s a r e : ( a ) Conveyors or moving s i d e w a l k s • ( b ) Automated e l e c t r i c roads ( c ) M i n i - c a r s ( a ) C onveyors. The f i r s t p r o p o s a l f o r implementing the moving s i d e w a l k was i n 1893 f o r the Columbia E x p o s i t i o n at Chica g o and l a t e r at the B e r l i n 37 E x p o s i t i o n i n 1896 and P a r i s E x p o s i t i o n i n 1900. Because of the problem of low speed and o t h e r p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s i n i t s day to day use, the moving s i d e w a l k has not come i n t o e x t e n s i v e use as an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the urban t r a n s p o r t a t i o n system. I t s a p p l i c a t i o n seems p a r t i c u l a r l y s u i t a b l e where l a r g e numbers of people have to move between two l e v e l s or along c o r r i d o r s , e.g. at b i g a i r p o r t s (Los A n g e l e s , San F r a n c i s c o , M o n t r e a l ) to save the passengers from a l o n g walk, and i n department s t o r e s where i t can be used c o n v e n i e n t l y by t r o l l i e s and prams. A l o n g w i t h e s c a l a t o r s , the conveyor has p o t e n t i a l f o r use i n h i g h d e n s i t y n o d u l a r developments. B r i a n R i c h a r d s , O p . c i t . , pp.57-62 20, ( b ) Automated Roads. The G e n e r a l Motors L a b o r a t o r i e s and Radio C o r p o r a t i o n of Ameri c a have been e x p e r i -menting w i t h automated roads w i t h c o n s i d e r a b l e s u c c e s s , A s i n g l e c a b l e i s b u r i e d i n a s h a l l o w t r e n c h j u s t beneath the s u r f a c e of the road and t h i s c a b l e , when e n e r g i z e d , g i v e s guidance through an e l e c t r o n i c apparatus connected to the v e h i c l e s s t e e r i n g system. Secondary c a b l e s and d e t e c t i o n l o o p s a d j u s t the speed of c a r s , k e e p i n g them at s a f e d i s t a n c e b e h i n d the one i n f r o n t . G e n e r a l Motors e s t i m a t e t h a t v e h i c l e s . c o u l d c r u i s e i n groups s a f e l y at a c o n t r o l l e d speed of 70 m.p.h., g i v i n g a c a p a c i t y of 9,000 v e h i c l e s per l a n e , per hour, the e q u i v a l e n t of b u i l d i n g f i v e a d d i t i o n a l l a n e s of 38 motorway. The c o s t of c o n s t r u c t i o n of such a system, would c o m p e t e • f a v o u r a b l y w i t h contemporary 39 highway c o n s t r u c t i o n . ( c ) M i n i - c a r s . M i n i - c a r s have come to the f o r e f r o n t o n l y i n r e c e n t y e a r s . T h e i r sudden importance can be a t t r i b u t e d to : i . A c r i t i c a l s h o r t a g e of p a r k i n g space i n the c e n t r a l c o r e , i i . The e x t r e m e l y h i g h c o s t s i n v o l v e d f o r p r o v i d i n g a d d i t i o n a l p a r k i n g , i i i . An i n c r e a s i n g c o n c e r n f o r a i r p o l l u t i o n i n our c i t i e s . 3 8 B r i a n R i c h a r d s , Op_ 1c_it, p.77 5 9 B r i a n R i c h a r d s , O p . c i t . , p.78 21. A l t h o u g h no "on the road"model has y e t been d e v e l o p e d , many companies have produced p r o t o t y p e s . The most w i d e l y known m i n i - c a r i s the StaRRcar ( f o r s e l f t r a n s i t r a i l and r o a d ) i n v e n t e d by W i l l i a m A l d e n . The StaRRcar can be d r i v e n along s t r e e t s u n t i l the d r i v e r r e q u i r e s a f a s t e r speed i n which case he merely d r i v e s up a ramp to an e l e v a t e d t r a c k j o i n i n g , say, a 60 m.p.h. t r a i n of v e h i c l e s . On p r e s s i n g a dashboard b u t t o n the v e h i c l e i s a u t o m a t i c a l l y e j e c t e d at i t s p r e - s e l e c t e d e x i t , A mass s h i f t to the use of StaRRcars would h e l p a l l e v i a t e the c o n g e s t i o n on the road network and would a l s o decrease the problem of i n a d e q u a t e p a r k i n g spaces i n the c e n t r a l core of the c i t i e s as t h r e e S t aRRcars can f i t i n t o the space p r e v i o u s l y o c c u p i e d by one con-40 v e n t i o n a l c a r . Other modes of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i n c l u d e the r n o n o - r a i l , c u s h i o n c r a f t , v e r t i c a l t a k e o f f and l a n d i n g , and h e l i c o p t e r s . In r e c e n t years m i l l i o n s of d o l l a r s have been spent on d e v e l -opment but t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n has been l i m i t e d to s p e c i a l p u r -poses l i k e the m i n i m o n o - r a i l s f o r secondary t r a n s p o r t a t i o n at Expo '67 and the h e l i c o p t e r s e r v i c e between Kennedy A i r p o r t and downtown Manhattan, For mass passenger t r a n s p o r t they a p p a r e n t l y s t i l l l a c k the economies n e c e s s a r y to p r o v i d e a t r u l y c o s t c o m p e t i t i v e c o r r i d o r s e r v i c e . ^ 40 '• ' ' ' ' : ~ ~ B r i a n R i c h a r d s , O p , c i t . , p,73; and A.R. Wolf, Elements of a F u t u r e I n t e g r a t e d "Highway Concept, p r e s e n t e d at the T r a n s -B o r t a t i o n R e s e a r c h Seminar, March 17-18, 1965 (Washington, . C : U.S. Department of Commerce), 4*A.R. R i c e , P o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r F a s t S u r f a c e T r a n s p o r t : The Case For F a s t R a i l ~ ~ 5 " e r v i c e , PIannin"g~T966. S~eTectecl~papers "from A.S.P.O. N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g C o n f e r e n c e , P h i l a d e l p h i a , Pa,, ( A p r i l 17-21, 1966),pp.240. 4. B u i l d i n g Systems There are numerous i l l u s t r a t i o n s of advanced i d e a s i n b u i l d i n g systems t h a t c o u l d p o s s i b l y p r o v i d e f o r h i g h d e n s i t y core l i v i n g f o r the f u t u r e c i t y d w e l l e r . Three r e c e n t i l l u s t r a t i o n s a r e : ( a ) H a b i t a t . With the advent of Canada's Expo '67, the development of H a b i t a t became a p o s s i b i l i t y . Moshe S a f d i e , the d e s i g n e r of the p r o j e c t , has used a b a s i c b u i l d i n g u n i t i n v a r i o u s c o m b i n a t i o n s to d e v e l o p a number of h o u s i n g t y p e s . H a b i t a t has d eveloped v e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a l c i r c u l a t i o n systems 42 c r e a t i n g t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e s . ( b ) I n t r o p o l i s . A. Watty, the d e s i g n e r , has developed I n t r o p o l i s as a system of m u l t i - u s e b l o c k s t h a t can be connected i n v a r i o u s ways to c r e a t e h i g h e r or lower d e n s i t y of l i v i n g spaces w h i c i i are o r g a n i z e d on a r a t i o n a l b a s i s to g i v e maximum f l e x i b i l i t y and i n t e r a c t i o n . T h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l spaces and c i r c u -43 l a t i o n systems are e v i d e n t as i n H a b i t a t . ( c ) Ubanisme V o l u m e t r i q u e . T h i s system i s based- on expanding s t r u c t u r e s l e a v i n g the ground f r e e . A t h r e e d i m e n s i o n a l t u b u l a r s t r u c t u r e w i t h a s e r i e s of s l a b s p r o v i d e s t e r r a c e s f o r v a r i o u s b u i l d e r s to e r e c t b u i l d i n g s , or to l a y out roads and open spaces to 44 c r e a t e a r t i f i c i a l l a n d s c a p e s , 4 2 M o s h e S a f d i e and D a v i d B a r o t t , " H a b i t a t " 6 7 , A r c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n , March 1967, pp.111-119. 4 3 W o l f q a n g Gerson. " R e s i d e n t i a l E n v i r o n s i n the Urban A r e a , " A r c h i t e c t u r e Canada, ( V o l . 4 4 No.11, Nov., 1967)pp.39-41. 4 4 R . A n q e r and M. Heymann, "Urbanisme Volumetrique''' L ' A r c h i t e c t -d ! A u j o u r d ' h u i No.132 ( J u n e - J u l y , 1967), p p . 3 6 - 3 7 . — 2 3 , The d e t a i l d e s c r i p t i o n of any s i n g l e l a n d use and r e l a t e d b u i l d i n g t e c h n i q u e as i t c o u l d be a p p l i e d to the n o d u l a r m e t r o p o l i t a n concept of urban growth i s beyond the scope of t h i s s t u d y (see m a t r i x ^ F i g u r e 1)„ 5 . Urban P a t t e r n W i t h few e x c e p t i o n s 2 the form of N o r t h American c i t i e s 45 i s based on the g r i d p a t t e r n , C h i c a g o ^ New Y o r k t San F r a n -c i s c O j M o n t r e a l and Vancouver are a l l examples of g r i d layout used to s u b d i v i d e l a n d and i n p r o v i d i n g s e r v i c e s . I t has been a q u i c k s o l u t i o n to r a p i d development i n any d i r e c t i o n and a d i r e c t r e s u l t of l a r g e s c a l e s u r v e y i n g e m phasis 0 Depending on l o c a l p h y s i o g r a p h i c f e a t u r e s ? the access to a l l p r o p e r t i e s i s n e a r l y e q u a l * and t h e o r e t i c a l l y the o n l y f a c t o r t h a t a f f e c t s a p r o p e r t y ' s l o c a t i o n a l v a l u e i s i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p to the central c o r e 0 The g r i d has been a p p l i e d to such v a r i e d t e r r a i n s as f l a t p r a i r i e and steep h i l l s i d e e San F r a n c i s c o i s a good example of the l a t t e r . F. SOCIAL AND SPATIAL SYSTEM 4 6 I t appears t h a t the changing urban form and s t r u c t u r e i s a p r o c e s s of c o n t i n u o u s urban growth and d e v e l o p m e n t T h i s growth and development i s an e x p r e s s i o n of the e x i s t i n g s o c i o -^ P a u l D 0 S p r e i g r e g e n t The A r c h i t e c t u r e of Towns and C i t i e s t (New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l Boo{r"Co«™L9"65;x pp.174-1761 4 6 E r n e s t L a n d a u e r 0 From h i s Seminar and Research i n t o Urban S o c i a l A r e a s c Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a s 1965-1968. 24. 47 c u l t u r a l system. There are c e r t a i n s o c i a l i n d i c a t o r s which are not o n l y demographic i n n a t u r e , but a l s o of a s o c i a l be-h a v i o u r a l n a t u r e . Demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are g e n e r a l l y an e x p r e s s i o n of the growth, s i z e and age c o m p o s i t i o n of a p o p u l a t i o n . But u n d e r l y i n g t h i s are s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , namely the p r a c t i c e s of a s o c i e t y , which are e x p r e s s e d i n a c t i v i t i e s and responses of the p o p u l a t i o n . These p r a c t i c e s of a s o c i e t y to some e x t e n t determine the s p a t i a l ' 48 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the l a n d . Thus, a r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l and s p a t i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s e x i s t s . When changes are i n t r o d u c e d i n the urban growth and development p r o c e s s , they u s u a l l y have an impact on the i n t e r n a l -49 s o c i a l and s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of the urban system. These i n c r e m e n t a l changes of the i n t e r n a l s t a t e of the urban system may range from " f i x e d " . t o " v a r i a b l e " s t a t e s . Any s h i f t s of the i n t e r n a l system from one s t a t e to another o c c u r over t i m e . These s h i f t s r e p r e s e n t i n c r e m e n t a l changes, depending on s o c i a l r e f e r -ence s t r u c t u r e s and e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n i p u l a t i o n . W h i l e t h e r e may be a number of e x t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n s which a f f e c t the urban system, t h e r e are at l e a s t two which s h o u l d r e c e i v e c l o s e a t t e n t i o n i n urban growth and development a n a l y s i s ; namely those as a r e s u l t of p l a n n e d change and those as a r e s u l t of chance, where change i s due to aggregate i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n . 4 7 ' W, F i r e y . Man, Mind and Land: A Theory of Resource Use. ( I l l i n o i s : HFTee~Press of Glencoe -, I960) , pp . 207-24H 4 8 I b i d . , pp.207-245. 4^W. B u c k l e y . S o c i o l o g y & Modern Systems Theory. (Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , "1967); and L. B e r t a l a n f f y , " G e n e r a l Systems Theory: A C r i t i c a l Review." G e n e r a l Svstems^ V o l . 7 , 1962, p.3 25. G. GROUP HYPOTHESIS A r e v i e w of the p r e c e d i n g urban growth concepts i n d i c a t e s t h a t the n o d u l a r concept s h o u l d be s t u d i e d . T h e r e f o r e the f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s i s f o r m u l a t e d : That the Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept p r o v i d e s a u s e f u l b a s i s to i n i t i a t e a s t u d y of urban l i v i n g and p l a n n i n g . z TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT NODE OPEN SPACE S c a l e Approx. Ira . F i g u r e 2 Nodular Metropolitan Concept 26. H. INDIVIDUAL THESIS TOPICS The t o p i c s chosen f o r i n d i v i d u a l r e s e a r c h are as f o l l o w s : 1. Ian VV. Chang - "The Problem of P r i v a t e Investment i n Urban Redevelopment." 2. Ashok G. Shahani - "The Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n C o n c e p t : Some T r a n s p o r t a t i o n A s p e c t s . " 3. Monica H. Lindeman - "The Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n C o n c e p t : Some S o c i a l and S p a t i a l A s p e c t s . 4. R o n a l d E. Mann - "The R o l e of the Time Element i n the Urban Renewal P r o c e s s . " 5. A r t h u r R. Cowie - "The P r o v i s i o n and D i s t r i b u t i o n of L o c a l Open Space i n Urban R e s i d e n t i a l A r e a s . " ^ The author chose t h i s a s p e c t f o r r e s e a r c h w i t h i n the group s t u d y because of h i s background as a la n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t and h i s p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t i n urban open s p a c e s . SECTION I I - 5 INDIVIDUAL THESIS THE PROVISION AND DISTRIBUTION OF LOCAL OPEN SPACE IN URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS 5 . 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. GENERAL W i t h i n the c o n t e x t of the group s t u d y t h i s e n q u i r y examines some a s p e c t s of the p r o v i s i o n and d i s t r i b u t i o n of urban open space. The need f o r urban open space and r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s i s w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d . Few peop l e today are a g a i n s t c i t y p a r k s , p e d e s t r i a n shopping m a l l s or p l a y g r o u n d s f o r c h i l d r e n . But do we und e r s t a n d enough about p e o p l e s ' needs f o r open space i n c i t y areas or are we s t i l l t h i n k i n g of concepts l a r g e l y i n terms of r u r a l v a l u e s . I t may be a l r e a d y too l a t e i n N o r t h A m e r i c a , w i t h f o u r out of f i v e persons l i v i n g i n urban a r e a s , t o i n d u l g e i n memories of the a g r a r i a n p a s t and a f r e e range of ample open s p a c e d Are we making open space a v a i l a b l e to a l l people of the c i t y ? Many low income f a m i l i e s are s i m p l y not m o b i l e enough to r e a c h o t h e r than nearby p a r k s . I n the l a r g e r c i t i e s i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e r e i s a p r e s s i n g need by the p o o r e r f a m i l i e s l i v i n g amid c o n g e s t i o n , n o i s e , drabness and unbroken monotony of a s p h a l t , f o r green open space and 2 r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s . R a d i c a l new means of redevelopment w i t h i n an urban c o n t e x t , and on a m e t r o p o l i t a n wide b a s i s , may be n e c e s s a r y "'"Edward Higbee, The Squeeze: C i t i e s W i t h o u t Space, ( W i l l i a m Morrow & Co., 1965), p.29. o R o b e r t C. Weaver, " R e c r e a t i o n Needs i n Urban A r e a s " , N a t i o n a l Parks Magazine^ V o l . 4 1 , No.253, Dec. 1967, p . i O . 5.2 to p r o v i d e f o r t h e i r needs. How we s o l v e these and o t h e r problems r e f e r r e d to i n S e c t i o n I , i n terms of form and i s t r u c t u r e , w i l l have much to do w i t h the v e r y making of us; f o r man i s l a r g e l y c o n d i t i o n e d by the environment which he 3 i n t u r n c r e a t e s . I f the problem and o p p o r t u n i t i e s of c i t y open space and r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s as p a r t of t h i s e n v i r o n -ment are to be p r o p e r l y u n d e r s t o o d , they must be seen i n the terms of the whole s o c i e t y and whole economy. 4 B. BACKGROUND 1. Open Space and Urban Development In S e c t i o n I i t was suggested t h a t the f u t u r e urban scene may need to c o n s i d e r a l t e r n a t i v e p a t t e r n s of form and s t r u c t u r e . The group concept c o n s i d e r s a c o n c e n t r a t e d n o d u l a r m e t r o p o l i t a n c o r e area w i t h open space b e i n g an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the urban development. There are many con-temporary views t h a t s u p p o r t such a s p a t i a l p a t t e r n i n c l u d i n g the f o l l o w i n g by S t a n l e y T a n k e l : The f u t u r e use of urban space w i l l tend toward a more dense, more n u c l e a t e d , more c l u s t e r e d p a t t e r n t h a n we are now b u i l d i n g i n our urban a r e a s . Accom-p a n y i n g the t i g h t e r development and s t r o n g e r c e n t e r s , t h e r e w i l l be l e s s p r i v a t e open space ( t h a t i s , we w i l l have s m a l l e r l o t s ) and at e v e r y s c a l e of d e v e l -opment, s u b s t a n t i a l c o n t i n u o u s open space, commonly enjoyed and p u b l i c l y or commonly owned.5 Higbee, O p . c i t . M a r i o n Clawson and Jack L. K n e t s c h , Economics of Outdoor Recre a t i o n , ( B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1966), p.3 'Stanley B. T e n k e l , "The Importance of Open Space i n the Urban P a t t e r n " i n C i t i e s and Space, Lowdon Wingo, J r . ( e d . ) , Resources f o r t h e . F u t u r e I n c . ( B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1963),p.58 5.3 The q u e s t i o n t h a t a r i s e s when examining t h i s n o d u l a r m e t r o p o l i t a n core o f urban development, as i n o t h e r a l t e r n -a t i v i e s , i s not m e r e l y the q u a n t i t y of open space but the l o c a t i o n , deployment and use of open space as an e s s e n t i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of urban s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . * ^ 2. F u n c t i o n s of Open Space U n d e r s t a n d i n g the n a t u r e and f u n c t i o n of urban open space i s a major i s s u e , Mr. T a n k e l r e f e r s to C h a r l e s E l i o t ' s d i s t i n c t i o n between open space f o r s e r v i c e and open space f o r s t r u c t u r e and to Tunnard - Pushkarev's f o u r f u n c t i o n s s e r v e d by open s p a c e : p r o d u c t i v e , p r o t e c t i v e , ornamental and r e c r e a t i o n a l . He o f f e r s h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of what k i n d of open space p e o p l e are aware o f : .... i t i s used - f o r the wide range of a c t i v e and p a s s i v e r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s , f o r c i r c u l a t i o n ; i t i s vie-wed - from the home, the road or o t h e r vantage p o i n t s and i t i s f e l t - i t g i v e s p r i v a c y i n s u l a t i o n , or sense of s p a c i o u s n e s s and s c a l e . . . He f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e s urban open space t h a t p e o p l e are not n e c e s s a r i l y aware o f : Open space t h a t does urban work - p r o t e c t s water s u p p l y and p r e v e n t s f l o o d s by s o a k i n g up r u n o f f , a c t s as a s a f e t y zone i n the p a t h of a i r c r a f t t a k e o f f s and l a n d i n g s ; and open space which h e l p s shape the development p a t t e r n - as space between b u i l d i n g s or communities, as space which channels development, as a l a n d r e s e r v e f o r the f u t u r e , 7 S„B. Zisman, "Open Spaces i n Urban Growth" i n Taming Mega-l o p o l i s V o . I , H. Wentworth E l d r i d g e ( e d 0 ) , (New York, Washington and London: F r e d e r i c k A. Praege r by arrangement w i t h Doubleday & Co. I n c . , 1967), pp.287-288. T a n k e l , O p . c i t . , p.58 M a r i o n Clavvson r e f e r s to f i v e major urban open space f u n c t i o n s : • Open space s u r r o u n d i n g p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s , Open space f o r r e c r e a t i o n , Open space f o r e c o l o g i c a l p r o t e c t i o n or f o r the p r e s e r v a t i o n of c e r t a i n d e s i r a b l e n a t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , Open space f o r urban s t r u c t u r a l and a e s t h e t i c p u r p o s e s , and Space p r o v i s i o n f o r f u t u r e urban growth, Both statements by T a n k e l and Clawson i l l u s t r a t e the i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n s open space has to p l a y i n the urban scene, A c a t a l o g of open space and the a n a l y s i s of types of f u n c t i o n s can h e l p toward a b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the ro]e of open space i n urban development. Zisman has d i v i d e d urban open space i n t o t h r e e major f u n c t i o n a l types : ( a ) Open u t i l i t y s p a c e s : These are the s u r f a c e spaces needed f o r water s u p p l y , f o r d r a i n a g e and f l o o d c o n t r o l , the a i r spaces f o r a i r c r a f t movement, and the space f o r p r o d u c t i o n , ( b ) Open green s p a c e s : Lands and areas used f o r parks and r e c r e a t i o n , green b e l t s and green ways, b u i l d i n g e n t o u r a g e , and n a t u r a l and s c e n i c p r o t e c t i o n , ( c ) C o r r i d o r s p a c e s : R i g h t s - o f - w a y s f o r movement, t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and passage. ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) M a r i o n Clawson, "A P o s i t i v e Approach to Open Space P r e s e r -v a t i o n " , A . l t P . J o u r n a l , V o l , 2 8 (May, 1962) Zisman, O p , c i t , , p,289 These broad c a t e g o r i e s can be broken down i n t o a m u l t i t u d e of open space forms and uses from the broader r e g i o n a l p a r k s , water r e s e r v i o r s and waterways through to the s m a l l e r l o c a l p a r k s , p l a z a s and p l a y g r o u n d s , Appendices A and B are a sample of c u r r e n t attempts at c a t e g o r i z i n g f o r park use f u n c t i o n a l open space types w i t h i n m e t r o p o l i t a n areas,, 3„ " G i v e n " and "Made" Form On a broad s c a l e i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t where n a t u r e has p r o v i d e d a dominant n a t u r a l l a n d s c a p e , t h e r e i s a u n i v e r s a l response to i t , San F r a n c i s c o - b e l o v e d by d w e l l e r and v i s i t o r a l i k e - i n g r e a t p a r t i s d e f i n e d by a m a g n i f i c a n t open space system - the s u r r o u n d i n g ocean and bay. R e g a r d l e s s of m i s t a k e s made i n b u i l d i n g , the c i t y i t s e l f i s a m a g n i f i c a n t urban form,10 New York m e t r o p o l i t a n area i n i t s own n a t u r a l i d e n t i t y has another open space system - more than 30 per cent of the r e g i o n a l area i s taken up by r i v e r , sound, harbour and ocean. The same can be s a i d f o r the m e t r o p o l i t a n area of Vancouver w i t h i t s harbour and mountains, San F r a n c i s c o , New York, Vancouver and o t h e r c i t i e s t h a t are memorable, u s u a l l y have a d i s t i n c t i v e i d e n t i t y t h a t depends on the e x p l o i t a t i o n r a t h e r than the o b l i t e r a t i o n of n a t u r a l e l e m e n t s . The "made form", e s p e c i a l l y when con-cerned w i t h open space, s h o u l d take account of any unique Zisman, O p , c i t , , p,292 5.6 " g i v e n form", the "genius l o c i " , the c h a r a c t e r of the p l a c e . " G i v e n f o r m " i s d e f i n e d b r i e f l y here as the n a t u r a l l a n d scape • phenomenon and "made form" i s d e f i n e d as the h i s t o r i c a l a d a p t i o n s by man." T h i s s t u d y does not d w e l l on the "given form" but i t i s " r e c o g n i z e d t h a t any a p p l i c a t i o n of the g e n e r a l concept f o r development must f i r s t t a k e t h i s i n t o account. A comprehen-s i v e e c o l o g i c a l s t u d y would be r e q u i r e d such as t h a t c a r r i e d 12 out by W a l l a c e , McHarg, R o b e r t s and Todd f o r Washington, D.C. 4. C i t y Park as P a r t of Development C i t y p l a n n e r s over the l a s t decades have been p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h a v a r i e t y of i s o l a t e d open space s , r a t h e r than r e l a t i n g these open spaces to the s u r r o u n d i n g development. There e x i s t s today i n our c i t i e s , p arks marked on maps which a c t u a l l y are no more than p l a i n v o i d s , or empty areas u n r e l a t e d f u n c t i o n a l l y or v i s u a l l y to nearby open spaces and s u r r o u n d i n g development. They d i f f e r from o t h e r p a r k s i n t h a t they have no g i v e n or made i d e n t i t y except perhaps t h a t they are o u t -l i n e d by a g r i d road system and o c c a s i o n a l l y are used f o r group s p o r t . More s u c c e s s f u l p a r k s form i d e n t i f i a b l e spaces r e l a t e d to the form and s t r u c t u r e of the s u r r o u n d i n g d e v e l o p -ment and change f u n c t i o n a l l y and v i s u a l l y a l o n g w i t h i t over . t i m e . For example, a l o c a l park near the core of a c i t y •'•-'-Wallace, McHarg, R o b e r t s and Todd, Toward a Comprehensive Landscape P l a n f o r Washington, D.C., A Report p r e p a r e d f o r the N a t i o n a l C a p i t a l P l a n n i n g Commission.(U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1967). 12 I b i d , p.2 may have g r a d u a l l y t aken on a d e f i n i t e s p a t i a l form t h r o u g h o u t the p a s t c e n t u r y o n l y to change i n f u n c t i o n a l and v i s u a l i d e n t i t y by s u c c e s s i v e e r e c t i o n of t a l l e r b u i l d -i n g s around i t . B e i n g p a r t of the ever changing s o c i o - e c o n o m i c and t e c h n i c a l c o n d i t i o n s of the c i t y , p a r k s are never completed. L i v i n g organisms w i t h i n the park such as t r e e s , shrubs and f l o w e r s not o n l y change v i s u a l l y throughout the year but grow, d i e and e v e n t u a l l y may be r e p l a c e d . Elements such as i n d i -v i d u a l monuments, f o u n t a i n s and k i o s k s are a l s o s u b j e c t to the f l u x of t i m e , some may d i s a p p e a r , o t h e r s are d e s t r o y e d , o t h e r s may be r e p l a c e d and s t i l l new ones may be added. Thus the park as one form of open space may undergo fundamental changes as p a r t of i t s own i d e n t i t y , as w e l l as p a r t of the s u r r o u n d i n g development, 5„ L e i s u r e Time and Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n 13 Mass l e i s u r e has appeared w i t h i n the p a s t few years 14 i n the i n d u s t r i a l urban s o c i e t y as a r e s u l t of an economical and t e c h n i c a l r e v o l u t i o n . At one t i m e , s i x and even seven day work weeks were common; today, few work weeks are over f i v e days. Once work days were t e n and even t w e l v e h o u r s ; t o d a y , they are o n l y r a r e l y over e i g h t hours. Today the 40 1 3 N.P. M i l l e r and D.M. R o b i n s o n , The L e i s u r e Age: I t s Challenge to R e c r e a t i o n , (Belmont, C a l . : Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g C o . I n c , 1963) , p.4. ^ 4N. Anderson, Dimensions of Work. (New Y o r k : D a v i d McKay Co., 1964) , p.96. 5.8 hour work week i s normal and most workers have p a i d v a c a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , the l e n g t h of a t y p i c a l p a i d v a c a t i o n has been i n c r e a s i n g from two, to t h r e e , and even to f o u r , weeks. Man i n i n d u s t r y t h e o r e t i c a l l y has g a i n e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1,500 f r e e hours per year s i n c e the t u r n of the c e n t u r y . What e f f e c t has t h i s i n c r e a s e d l e i s u r e time had on outdoor r e c r e -a t i o n and c o n s e q u e n t l y the need f o r open space and r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s i n urban a r e a s ? How much of t h i s g a i n e d f r e e time i s a c t u a l l y l e i s u r e time f o r the i n d i v i d u a l and how much of t h i s i s r e g u l a t e d to .a p a r t i c u l a r l e n g t h of time or hour of the day? Most urban workers r i s e at a p r e d e t e r m i n e d t i m e , brought to a t t e n t i o n by the alarm c l o c k ; e a t , r i d e to work, b e g i n the day's work, take a c o f f e e break, eat l u n c h , q u i t work, r i d e home, eat 16 d i n n e r , l o o k at T.V. and r e t i r e , a l l a c c o r d i n g to the c l o c k . The t i m e - o r i e n t e d modern worker i s l e f t l i t t l e freedom i n d e c i d i n g w o r k i n g hours i n our i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y , L i k e w i s e , l e i s u r e time i s r e g u l a t e d to a l i t t l e each day, some over the weekend, and some d u r i n g v a c a t i o n i n a p a t t e r n t h a t i s l a r g e l y d e t e r m i n e d by employers, f e l l o w workers and s o c i e t y i n g e n e r a l . The worker i s not the o n l y p a r t of our s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . t h a t i s time o r i e n t e d ; s e l f - e m p l o y e d p e r s o n s , housewives, c h i l d r e n and r e t i r e d persons a l l have i n v a r y i n g d e g r e e s , t h e i r l e i s u r e time r e g u l a t e d . I f , as seems p r o b a b l e , most p e o p l e w i l l have more l e i s u r e time i n the f u t u r e than M a r i o n Clawson, Land and Water tor R e c r e a t i o n , f o r Resources f o r the F u t u r e I n c l CChTcago; RancTMclSTaTIy <§TCo„, 1963), p.5 1 6 I b i d . , p.6 5.9 we have today, i t s form and t i m i n g w i l l a l s o be l a r g e l y 17 s o c i a l l y , r a t h e r than i n d i v i d u a l l y determined,, I t f o l l o w s t h a t i f o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n , as p a r t of l e i s u r e t i m e , i s to a d e q u a t e l y meet the needs of our p r e d o m i n a t e l y t i m e - o r i e n t e d s o c i e t y , i t seems the p r o v i s i o n of open space and o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s must be o r i e n t e d i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n . 6 0 Need f o r U r b a n - O r i e n t e d R e c r e a t i o n Four out of f i v e N o r t h Americans l i v e today i n urban a r e a s , y e t we s t i l l t h i n k of r e c r e a t i o n a l o u t l e t s l a r g e l y i n terms of r u r a l v a l u e s . Most of our r e c r e a t i o n budgets have been d i r e c t e d to r u r a l o r i e n t e d programs such as the N a t i o n a l P a r k s , t h a t do not n e c e s s a r i l y s e r v e the needs of a l l c e n t r a l c i t y p e o p l e . E x c e l l e n t as the programs m a y b e , Rob e r t Weaver c o n s i d e r s they omit c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f the f o l l o w i n g f a c t s C o n v e n t i o n a l r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s are not a v a i l -a b l e to a l l the p e o p l e of the c i t y . Many low income f a m i l i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those i n i s o l a t e d and impacted urban g h e t t o s , are s i m p l y not m o b i l e enough to r e a c h them. Many peopl e i n c i t i e s are not i n t e r e s t e d i n o u t l y i n g r e c r e a t i o n areas or the t r a d i t i o n a l r u r a l concepts of r e c r e a t i o n . Thus, we cannot r e s t r i c t the development of r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s to o u t l y i n g a r e a s . We must t h i n k of a p a t t e r n of l i v i n g i n which o p p o r t u n i t y , r e s t , and r e l a x a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e to a l l c i t i z e n s i n e v e r y walk of l i f e . We must c o n s i d e r the urban c i t i z e n who by c h o i c e wants h i s r e c r e a t i o n w i t h i n the c i t y . I b i d . , p . 7 Weaver, O p . c i t . 5.10 In a d d i t i o n to low income p e o p l e b e i n g r e s t r i c t e d from u s i n g o u t l y i n g p a r k s and r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s , a f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of our urban p o p u l a t i o n at the ends of the age s c a l e may be e q u a l l y r e s t r i c t e d . S m a l l c h i l d r e n and s e n i o r c i t i z e n s need open space s , e s p e c i a l l y p a r k s and p l a y -19 grounds w i t h i n v e r y s h o r t w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e s of t h e i r homes. For v e r y s m a l l c h i l d r e n the q u e s t i o n o f p l a y space must f i r s t be s o l v e d i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h the home, but as c h i l d r e n b e g i n 20 to w a l k , open space a d j a c e n t to the home becomes e s s e n t i a l . P a r t s of our c i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y the o l d e r h i g h d e n s i t y a r e a s , l a c k the number of p a s s i v e . a n d r e c r e a t i o n a l open s p a c e s , no ma t t e r how s m a l l , to p r o v i d e f o r these age groups. R e g a r d l e s s of income or age, a l l people need open space f o r b a s i c a c t i v i t y . D o c t o r s , a g a i n and a g a i n , recommend e x e r c i s e and deep b r e a t h i n g of f r e s h a i r as a remedy f o r many 21 a i l m e n t s as a p r o p h y l a c t i c measure, M e l v i n M„ Webber i s quoted i n the summary of the Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission Conf e r e n c e on L e i s u r e - O u t d o o r Recreavtion and M e n t a l and P h y s i c a l H e a l t h : I t has lon g been und e r s t o o d t h a t h e a l t h , and p a r t i c u l a r l y mental h e a l t h , i s not s o l e l y a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the i n d i v i d u a l ' s i n t e r n a l c o n d i t i o n and makeup. But i t i s now becoming 19 F i n a l R eport of the Pa r k , R e c r e a t i o n and Open Space P r o j e c t by the R e g i o n a l P l a n A s s o c i a t i o n I n c , , The Race f o r Open Space (New Y ork: September, 1960), p,2T, ^ A l f r e d Ledermann and A l f r e d T r a c h s e l , Playgrounds and R e c r e -a t i o n Spaces, t r a n s , by E r n s t P r i e f e r t (London: The A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r e s s , 1960), p„10 o 21 P a u l . R i t t e r , P l a n n i n g f o r Man and Motor, (New York: Pergamon P r e s s I n c . , 19M1, p , 3 8 l 5.11 c l e a r e r t h a t h e a l t h can b e s t be u n d e r s t o o d as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the i n t e r a c t i o n between an i n d i v i d u a l and the t o t a l p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l environment i n w h i c h he develops and lives„ Approaches of p u b l i c h e a l t h programs d e s i g n e d to promote h e a l t h r a t h e r than to p r e v e n t i l l n e s s are t h e r e f o r e s e e k i n g to i d e n t i f y those c o n d i t i o n s i n the l a r g e r environment t h a t would f o s t e r the w e l l - b e i n g of i n d i v i d u a l s who w i l l occupy i t . 7. Open Space S t a n d a r d s W i t h i n c r e a s e d c o n c e r n i n r e c e n t years f o r the v i s u a l and p h y s i c a l q u a l i t y of p u b l i c open space, p l a n n e r s , l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t s , e c o l o g i s t s , r e c r e a t i o n a u t h o r i t i e s , a g e n c i e s and o r g a n i z a t i o n s throughout N o r t h A m e r i c a have attempted to s e t s t a n d a r d s . P r e s e n t s t a n d a r d s are p r i m a r i l y based on acreage per c a p i t a and d i s t a n c e f a c t o r s . Most of t h e s e s t a n d a r d s have deve l o p e d as a " r u l e of thumb" w i t h l i t t l e c o n s i d e r a t i o n g i v e n to s o c i a l need and user b e h a v i o u r f a c t o r s . On a broad s c a l e , l o n g term p r o c e d u r e s and s t a n d a r d s , based on an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the t o t a l environment, are n e c e s s a r y f o r p r e s e r v a t i o n of open space. However, the m a j o r i t y of l o c a l open space as an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the urban f a b r i c , must c o n t i n u o u s l y change. As the b u i l d i n g systems and l a n d uses change w i t h i n the c i t y so must the r e l a t e d l o c a l open spaces. Because of change, r i g i d s t a n d a r d s f o r l o c a l open space s e t y e a r s ago are u n l i k e l y to be a p p l i c a b l e today. L i k e w i s e , t h e r e i s almost no way of knowing what e x a c t s t a n d a r d s would be needed s e v e r a l gener-22 a t i o n s hence. A sample.of p r e s e n t s t a n d a r d s i s l i s t e d i n Appendices A and B. 2 2 A Procedure f o r Open Space P l a n n i n g i n an Urban County, (Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , C o l l e g e of F i n e and A p p l i e d Arts' Department of C i t y P l a n n i n g and Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e , 1962), p.5 5.12 C. THE STUDY PROBLEM -23 Clavvson and Knetch c l a s s i f y l o c a l p a r k s as p a r t of t h e i r " u s e r - o r i e n t e d " c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of urban open space. I t i s g e n e r a l l y agreed t h a t the '.'user-oriented" c l a s s i f i -c a t i o n means the whole of the open space system w i t h i n the c i t y . T h i s meaning c o r r e s p o n d s c l o s e l y to the Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission's c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ( C l a s s 1 H i g h - D e n s i t y R e c r e a t i o n A r e a s : areas i n t e n s i v e l y d e v e l o p e d and managed f o r mass u s e ) , ^ L o c a l p a r k s of v a r i o u s types make up a major p a r t of t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . What i s meant s p e c i f i c a l l y as a l o c a l p ark i s d e s c r i b e d l a t e r f o r each s t u d y area s e p a r a t e l y . T h i s i s because t h e r e i s no c l e a r agreement from c i t y to c i t y as to what c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s make up a l o c a l p a r k . V a r i o u s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s of l o c a l p a r k s i n Appendices A and B i l l u s t r a t e the c o n f u s i o n t h a t e x i s t s . I f t h e r e was some agreement on a range of t e r m i n o l o g y and d a t a r e c o r d i n g , s y s t e m a t i c comparisons between areas w i t h i n c i t i e s and between c i t i e s c o u l d be made more e a s i l y . I t i s becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y i m p o r t a n t to be able to do t h i s so t h a t accummulated e x p e r i e n c e can be of s e r v i c e to those d e a l i n g w i t h i n c r e a s i n g complex s c a l e s of development. G e n e r a l l y the most i m p o r t a n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c l o c a l p a r k s have i s t h e i r ready a c c e s s i b i l i t y to l o c a l u s e r s . T h e i r c h i e f , J M a r i o n Claws on, Op . c i t „ , p. 36 2 4 I b i d . 5,13 time of use i s a f t e r s c h o o l f o r c h i l d r e n , a f t e r work f o r a d u l t s , and d u r i n g the day by r e t i r e d p e o p l e and mothers w i t h s m a l l c h i l d r e n . F or these p u r p o s e s , i t i s e s s e n t i a l t h a t such p a r k s be c l o s e to u s e r s , both i n o r d e r to reduce the t r a v e l time and to p e r m i t some us e r s to go from the home to the park unaccompanied by a d u l t s . The use of l o c a l parks i s c l o s e l y c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the amount of f r e e time a v a i l a b l e 25 each day. Such areas (as i n the case of the s t u d y areas Vancouver and M o n t r e a l ) are o f t e n s m a l l , f r e q u e n t l y r a n g i n g from l e s s than one acre to s l i g h t l y over 30 acres (see Appendix C f o r V a n c o u v e r ) , A r e v i e w of park l i t e r a t u r e p o i n t s out t h a t the p r e s e n t p r a c t i c e i n c i t i e s i s to base l o c a l p a r k p r o v i s i o n p r i m a r i l y on s t a n d a r d s r e l a t i n g to acres per 1000 p o p u l a t i o n . To many, i t has appeared t h a t t h e r e are gross i n e q u a l i t i e s between v a r i o u s s o c i o - e c o n o m i c groups of persons when l o c a l p a r k s are p r o v i d e d on t h i s s t a n d a r d . I n p a r t i c u l a r , p o o r e r areas w i t h i n the c i t y appear to have l e s s acreage and p o o r e r q u a l i t y parks t h a n more w e a l t h y a r e a s . A l t h o u g h we cannot be sure t h a t t h e r e i s a p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e c a u s i n g t h i s i n e q u a l i t y , d i f f e r e n c e s i n f a m i l y incomes seem to be a p r i m a r y v a r i a b l e . Age s t r u c t u r e , e d u c a t i o n , o c c u p a t i o n , l e i s u r e time,' m o b i l i t y and c u l t u r a l background o f f e r a d d i t i o n a l f a c t o r s of comparison. 2 5 I b i d , , p.38 5 014 I t a l s o seems from the r e v i e w t h a t t h e r e has been a change i n the need f o r some types of p a r k s . F o r example, the t r e n d toward g r e a t e r m o b i l i t y has suggested t h a t the community park (see Appendix B) i s an o u t d a t e d c l a s s i f i -c a t i o n . I t s acreage and f u n c t i o n s c o u l d perhaps be more e f f i c i e n t l y used i f a l l o c a t e d to o t h e r types of open space. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t when c o n s i d e r i n g the Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept. D. STUDY APPROACH Ch a p t e r I I f i r s t l o o k s at park q u a l i t y a n a l y s i n g e x i s t -i n l o c a l p a r k s i n the c i t i e s of Vancouver and M o n t r e a l to deter m i n e i f t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between f a m i l y income and park q u a l i t y and i f , i n f a c t , p e o p l e l i v i n g i n areas of low f a m i l y income have l e s s l o c a l park acreage and p o o r e r q u a l i t y p a r k s than p e o p l e l i v i n g i n areas of h i g h e r f a m i l y income. C h a p t e r I I I l o o k s at the open space system w i t h i n the No d u l a r M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept to determine i f t h i s system o f f e r s a more e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of l o c a l p u b l i c open space than the p r e s e n t g r i d system examined i n Ch a p t e r I I . A t h e o r e t i c a l open space model i s f o r m u l a t e d based on i m p l i c i t t h e o r y of b a s i c human needs. The model i s then p a r t l y t e s t e d by use of a s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r a c t i v i t y s u r v e y . O b s e r v a t i o n s and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are then made. 5.15 F i n a l l y , C h a p t e r TV summarizes the r e s u l t s of f i n d -i n g s i n C h a p t e r s I I and I I I and r e l a t e s these to the g e n e r a l t h e o r y of open space needs as o u t l i n e d i n C h a p t e r I . Con-c l u s i o n s are drawn r e g a r d i n g the need f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . 5.16 CHAPTER I I ANALYSIS OF EXISTING QUALITY OF LOCAL PARKS IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS A. FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESIS A r e v i e w of park s t a n d a r d s would seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t a l l groups of persons l i v i n g i n N o r t h American c i t i e s have s u p p o s e d l y e q u a l access to l o c a l p a r k s . But a v a i l a b l e l i t e r -a t u r e on a c t u a l a l l o c a t i o n of open space p o i n t s out t h a t there are major i n e q u a l i t i e s . The f o l l o w i n g w o r k i n g h y p o t h e s i s i s f o r m u l a t e d a f t e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n of some of the s e i n e q u a l i t i e s . H 1 R e s i d e n t i a l areas w i t h h i g h f a m i l y income • have h i g h e r q u a l i t y l o c a l park acreage than  r e s i d e n t i a l areas of lower f a m i l y income. B, CHOICE OF RESEARCH AREAS The c i t i e s of Vancouver and M o n t r e a l were chosen as r e s e a r c h a r e a s , ^ I n both c i t i e s , the a v a i l a b l e d ata f o r q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s p e r t a i n i n g to l o c a l p a r k s has been m i n i m a l and has t h e r e f o r e l i m i t e d the e x t e n t and q u a l i t y of t h i s r e s e a r c h . The author was p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t e d i n the l a r g e r Canadian urban c e n t r e s and these two c i t i e s were chosen to r e p r e s e n t t h i s type of c e n t r e . 5.17 C DEFINITIONS L o c a l Parks For s t u d y p u r p o s e s , l o c a l p a r k s i n Van-couver are d e f i n e d as a l l p a r k s admin-i s t e r e d by the Vancouver Board of Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n w i t h i n the c i t y b o u n d a r i e s , except S t a n l e y Park and. Queen E l i z a b e t h P a r k . G o l f c o u r s e s are a l s o e x c l u d e d , For M o n t r e a l l o c a l p a r k s are d e f i n e d as . a l l p a r k s a d m i n i s t e r e d by the M o n t r e a l P a r k s Department w i t h i n the c i t y boundaries, except those d e s i g n a t e d as M e t r o p o l i t a n and R e g i o n a l p a r k s . G o l f c o u r s e s and b o t a n i c a l gardens are a l s o e x c l u d e d . F a c t o r s T e s t e d : Average F e m i l y Wage and S a l a r y Income From census t r a c t data.' Park A c r e s per 1000 Persons For Vancouver, p a r k acreages were t a k e n from the Board o f Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n Annual R e p o r t f o r 1961. The l o c a t i o n of each p a r k w i t h i n census t r a c t s 3 was c a l c u l a t e d from a l a n d use map. "Census of Canada, B u l l e t i n CT-22 f o r Vancouver and B u l l e t i n CT-4 f o r M o n t r e a l (Ottawa: Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , 1 9 6 1 ) V a n c o u v e r Land Use Map, e d i t i o n ASE-416-M-3 (Ottawa: Map D i v i s i o n of F e d e r a l Department of Mines and T e c h n i c a l S u r v e y s , 1960). Park Ac res per 1000 Persons ( c o n t 1 d ) 5.18 For M o n t r e a l , park acreages were t a k e n from a p u b l i c a t i o n by V i l l e de M o n t r e a l . ^ The l o c a t i o n of each park w i t h i n census t r a c t s was c a l c u l a t e d from a map dated 1966 s u p p l i e d by Mr. W.S. Goshorn, c h i e f l a n d s c a p e a r c h i t e c t f o r the c i t y of M o n t r e a l . An emphasis i s put on t h i s f a c t o r i n t h i s s t u d y because p r e s e n t park s t a n d a r d s are p r i m a r i l y based on i t . Number of Types of F a c i l i t i e s per 1000 Persons C a l c u l a t e d f o r Vancouver o n l y , from Board of P a r k s and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n Annual R.eport f o r 1966 and checked w i t h Park Board o f f i c i a l s t o r e l a t e to 1961. S e c l u s i o n F a c t o r C a l c u l a t e d f o r Vancouver o n l y , from t r a n s -5 p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s map. S e c l u s i o n f a c t o r s were c a l c u l a t e d by measuring on the map to the n e a r e s t 100 f e e t , the d i s t a n c e to each park from the n e a r e s t major t r a f f i c a r t e r i a l . Major t r a f f i c a r t e r i a l s i n t h i s s t u d y are d e f i n e d as a l l roads of our or more l a n e s . 6 ^ V i l l e de M o n t r e a l , Amenagement des Pares (Des Travaux P u b l i c s , D i v i s i o n T echnique, 1965~)„ ^Vancouver T r a n s p o r t a t i o n F a c i l i t i e s Map, e d i t i o n ASE-416-M-18, (Ottawa: D i v i s i o n of the F e d e r a l Department of Mines and T e c h n i c a l S u r v e y s , 1964). 6 B a r r y W. Mayhew, A R e g i o n a l A t l a s of Vancouver, U n i t e d S e r v i c e s of the G r e a t e r Vancouver A r e a , 1967T, F i g . 1 4 ~ 5.19 Park E x p e n d i t u r e - Annual e x p e n d i t u r e f o r p a r k s d u r i n g p e r 1000 Persons 1961, from .Vancouver Board of Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n Annual R e p o r t . D. LIMITATIONS Measurement of park q u a l i t y , e x cept f o r the s e c l u s i o n f a c t o r , have been l i m i t e d to f a c t o r s where q u a n t i f i a b l e d ata were a v a i l a b l e from Vancouver and M o n t r e a l c i t y p u b l i c a t i o n s , The w r i t e r r e c o g n i z e s the need to c o n s i d e r many o t h e r f a c t o r s i n d e t e r m i n i n g the l e v e l of q u a l i t y of open space, f o r example, v i s u a l f a c t o r s ; however these were not r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e w i t h i n the r e s t r a i n t s of t h i s s t u d y . E. DESCRIPTION OF METHOD AND PROCEDURE FOR TESTING STUDY HYPOTHESIS For purposes of t e s t i n g the h y p o t h e s i s f i v e income g r o u p i n g s were a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d f o r comparison (see T a b l e I ) . Census t r a c t s i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n area were then ranked a c c o r d i n g to average f a m i l y wage and s a l a r y income and d i v i d e d i n t o the f o l l o w i n g p e r c e n t a g e s : h i g h e s t 16.66%, above average 16.66%, average 33.33%, below average 16.66% and 7 l o w e s t 16.66%. Only those census t r a c t s t h a t f e l l w i t h i n the b o u n d a r i e s of the c i t y were used f o r c a l c u l a t i o n s . n L . I , B e l l , An Overview f o r S o c i a l P l a n n e r s , (Vancouver: Community Chest and C o u n c i l of the G r e a t e r Vancouver a r e a , 1965), p.47; and p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w w i t h L . I , B e l l , A p r i l , 1967. 5.20 Measurement of park q u a l i t y ( p a r k acreage per 1000 p e r s o n s , types of f a c i l i t i e s per 1000 p e r s o n s , average s e c l u s i o n f a c t o r and e x p e n d i t u r e per 1000 p e r s o n s ) were t a b u l a t e d f o r each park and census t r a c t (Appendix C) and then arranged i n a p p r o p r i a t e income' g r o u p i n g s (Appendix D)„ Averages were c a l c u l a t e d and summary t a b l e s c o m p i l e d f o r comparison (see T a b l e s I I and I I I ) . The spearman rank c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t t e s t was used to i n d i c a t e degree of c o r r e l a t i o n , TABLE I CENSUS TRACT INCOME GROUPINGS 8 No. of Census P e r c e n t a g e Group T r a c t s of Metro Area Vancouver M o n t r e a l Highes t 20 58 16.66 Above Average 20 58 16.66 Average 40 119 33.33 Below Average 20 58 16.66 Lowes t 20 58 16.66 120 351 100.00 8 l b i d . 5.21 9 F. SUMMARY OF FACTORS TESTED TABLE I I - VANCOUVER Average F a m i l y Wage & S a l a r y Income Park Acreage per 1000 Persons No.of Types of F a c i l i t i e s per 1000, Persons Average Seclusion F a c t o r Park E x p e n d i -t u r e per 1000 Persons A B C D E Highes t 7,500 3.60 1.29 2.9 1,628 Above Average 5,711 2.73 1.50 2.4 1,068 Average 5,210 2.15 1.00 0.8 1,350 Below Average 4,753 2.22 1.22 1.2' 874 Lowest 3,940 1.40 0.70 0.4 526 Highes t 1 d i ' 1 P d i 3 +2 d i 1 0 0 Above Average - o 2 0 1 -1 2 0 3 +1 Average 3 4 +1 4 +1 4 +1 2 -1 Below Average 4 3 -1 2 -2 3 -1 4 0 Lowes t 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 Fo r m u l a : ^ r s = 1 - 6 £ N^ -d i 2 = 1 - N r s = .90 r s = .50 r s = .90 r s = .90 I See Appendix D. 5.22 Highes t Above Average Average Below Average Lowes t H i g h e s t Above Averag*e Aver age Below Average Lowes t F o r m u l a : TABLE I I I - MONTREAL Average F a m i l y Park Acreage Wage & S a l a r y per 1000 Income $ Persons A B 7,530 2„07 5,669 2.53 4,610 1.07 4,303 .73 3,678 .48 d i 1 2 + 1 2 1 -1 3 3 0 4 4 0 5 5 0 6£N d i 1 = 1 N a - N r s = .90 5.23 Fo r Vancouver, the dependent v a r i a b l e s of average f a m i l y wage and s a l a r y income c o r r e l a t e w i t h park acreage per 1000 p e r s o n s ; average s e c l u s i o n f a c t o r ; and park e x p e n d i t u r e per 1000 p e r s o n s ; taken s e p a r a t e l y r s = .90. T h i s i s at the 5% l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . For number of types of f a c i l i t i e s per 1000 p e r s o n s , r s = .50 which i s not at a s i g n i f i c a n t l e v e l of p r o b a b i l i t y . However, i t i s noted t h a t the l o w e s t income group has fewer types of f a c i l i t i e s . For Vancouver, t h i s i n d i c a t e s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between l o c a l park q u a l i t y and f a m i l y income, thus s u b s t a n t i a t i n g the w o r k i n g h y p o t h e s i s . For M o n t r e a l , the dependent v a r i a b l e s of average f a m i l y wage and s a l a r y income c o r r e l a t e w i t h park acreage per 1000 persons ( r s = .90) whi c h i s at the 5% l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . T h i s f u r t h e r s u b s t a n t i a t e s the w o r k i n g h y p o t h e s i s . G. OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS The cases of Vancouver and M o n t r e a l i l l u s t r a t e t h a t t h e r e are i n e q u a l i t i e s i n p r o v i s i o n of l o c a l p u b l i c open spaces w i t h i n c i t i e s . P r e s e n t acreage s t a n d a r d s f o r l o c a l p a r k s range from 2.0 acres per 1000 persons to over 10 acres per 1000 persons (see Appendices A and B ) . 5.24 For purposes of comparison 3,0 acres per 1000 persons i s c o n s i d e r e d an average f i g u r e , .For Vancouver o n l y areas w i t h f a m i l i e s e a r n i n g the h i g h e s t incomes meet t h i s s t a n d a r d . The more w e a l t h y ears of Vancouver have n e a r l y t h r e e times the l o c a l park acreage per 1000 persons than the p o o r e r areas w h i c h have o n l y one h a l f the 3.0 acre f i g u r e . For M o n t r e a l , not o n l y are the w e a l t h y areas below the 3.0 acre f i g u r e but the p o o r e r areas have l e s s than one s i x t h t h i s s t a n d a r d . For Vancouver, o t h e r measures of park q u a l i t y , i n c l u d i n g types of f a c i l i t i e s , s e c l u s i o n and park e x p e n d i t u r e s u b s t a n t i a t e the acreage f i n d i n g s . The p o o r e r areas, w i t h i n the c i t y have the •fewest types of f a c i l i t i e s , the l e a s t s e c l u s i o n and the l o w e s t amount of money spent on p a r k s . I f p r e s e n t p u b l i c open space s t a n d a r d s , which are t h e o r e t i c a l l y a p p l i c a b l e to a l l persons r e g a r d l e s s of income, age, e d u c a t i o n and o c c u p a t i o n , are s e t and not adhered to throughout the c i t y then t h e i r u s e l e s s n e s s i s e v i d e n t . I t i s i m p l i c i t i n c o n s i d e r i n g the Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept t h a t access to p u b l i c open space be e q u a l l y p r o v i d e d to a l l persons a c c o r d i n g to need. Any d i f f e r e n c e s i n q u a l i t y of open space s h o u l d take p l a c e w i t h i n the p r i v a t e s e c t o r which would be above the agreed p u b l i c s t a n d a r d . I t i s beyond the scope of t h i s s t u d y to determine i n d e t a i l the reasons why p r e s e n t s t a n d a r d s are not met or why l i n k a g e s between income and park q u a l i t y e x i s t . CHAPTER I I I ANALYSIS OF THE OPEN SPACE SYSTEM WITHIN THE NODULAR METROPOLITAN CONCEPT A. -FORMULATION OF OPEN SPACE MODEL lo The Study Model Approach The l a c k of any agreement on a range of t e r m i n o l o g y to d e f i n e l o c a l open space w i t h i n N o r t h American c i t i e s i s e v i d e n t from background r e a d i n g and e x a m i n a t i o n of s t a n d a r d s , (ss Appendix A ) . However, some common u n d e r l y i n g i m p l i c i t t h e o r y about urban l o c a l open space needs can be i n f e r r e d , , P o s t u l a t e s (see below) were f o r m u l a t e d and from these a t h e o r e t i c a l open space model was drawn up t h a t c o r r e s p o n d s w i t h the i d e a s a l r e a d y put f o r w a r d i n the N o d u l a r M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept f o r urban redevelopment. The model i s i n t e n d e d as a p l a n n i n g t o o l i n h e l p i n g to make more l o g i c a l d e c i s i o n s i n d i s t r i b u t i o n of open space. The model i l l u s t r a t e s o n l y one c o m b i n a t i o n of many p o s s i b l e arrangements of l a y o u t and l o c a t i o n of f a c i l i t i e s . For i l l u s t r a t i v e purposes o n l y , the model c o u l d r e p r e s e n t a r e s i d e n t i a l p o p u l a t i o n o f , say, 30,000 p e r s o n s . A „ R . C . M a r c h 1 9 : 6 A„RoC. March,1968 A . R. C . March 19$8 5.26 2. P o s t u l a t e s f o r Urban L o c a l Open Space The f o l l o w i n g p o s t u l a t e s were f o r m u l a t e d as a gu i d e to c o n s t r u c t i n g the t h e o r e t i c a l open space model. Because of time l i m i t a t i o n s no attempt has been made at t e s t i n g them. ( a ) I n c r e a s i n g amounts of l e i s u r e and income w i l l i n c r e a s e the need f o r open space and r e l a t e d a c t i v i t y . ( b ) The m a j o r i t y of p e o p l e need p a s s i v e open space i n w h i c h to s i t , walk and observe l i f e around them. ( c ) There i s the need f o r a v a r i e t y of s m a l l open spaces d i f f u s e d t h r o u g h o u t the urban s t r u c t u r e and c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o p e d e s t r i a n movement. ( d ) The d i s p o s i t i o n of open space toward a more l i n e a r or r i b b o n - l i k e form would b e s t s e r v e the f u n c t i o n of improved l i n k a g e s and g e n e r a l a c c e s s -i b i l i t y . ( e ) R e s i d e n t i a l areas d e s i g n e d w i t h few or no p r i v a t e gardens needs a h i g h l e v e l of s m a l l p u b l i c open space w i t h i n c o n v e n i e n t range. ( f ) P a r t i c u l a r groups of persons w i t h i n s o c i e t y , i n c l u d i n g s m a l l c h i l d r e n , mothers of s m a l l c h i l d r e n , i n v a l i d s and s e n i o r c i t i z e n s need open spaces w i t h i n v e r y s h o r t w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e s of t h e i r homes. 5.27 ( g ) The m a j o r i t y of s m a l l open spaces w i t h i n the urban s t r u c t u r e should.be c a p a b l e of change i n use. ( h ) S h e l t e r and c o m f o r t , i n o r d e r t h a t persons are a b l e to d a l l y and enjoy d i v e r s i o n a r y a c t i v i t y , are i m p o r t a n t r e q u i r e m e n t s of urban open s p a c e s . ( i ) S c e n i c q u a l i t i e s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r a sequence of a c t i v i t y of an i n c i d e n t a l n a t u r e are i m p o r t a n t urban open space c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . ( j ) The i n c r e a s e d need f o r p u b l i c open space, p a r a l l e l e d w i t h the growing need f o r s c h o o l open space, i n d i c a t e s t h a t where p o s s i b l e , f o r optimum use of space, the two s h o u l d be i n t e g r a t e d . ( k ) There i s the need f o r l a r g e open spaces w i t h i n the c i t y , a c c e s s i b l e w i t h o u t t r a f f i c danger or p r o h i b i t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s . 3. A T h e o r e t i c a l Open Space Model A model ( F i g u r e 5.2) i s f o r m u l a t e d to r e p r e s e n t g r a p h i c a l l y the urban l o c a l open space p o s t u l a t e s and some of the i d e a s a l r e a d y put f o r w a r d i n S e c t i o n I f o r the Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept (see page 1 7 ) . • • •• . 5.28 4. Open Space C a t e g o r i e s The p r e s e n t c a t e g o r i e s of recommended p u b l i c open space f o r the Lower M a i n l a n d can be seen i n Appendix B. The Vancouver Board of Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n p r o f e s s to use these c a t e g o r i e s as a guide."'' I n the t h e o r e t i c a l open space model, the f o l l o w i n g t h r e e broad forms of p u b l i c open space c a t e g o r i e s are d i s t i n g u i s h e d . ( a ) I n t e n s i v e A c t i v i t y T y p i c a l use: For o r g a n i z e d r e c r e -Open Space a t i o n such as t e n n i s , swimming and outdoor bowls; open shopping m a l l s , outdoor c a f e s and s h e l t e r e d s i t t i n g a r e a s . L i k e l y l o c a t i o n : Near neighbourhood shopping c e n t r e , secondary s c h o o l and p u b l i c t r a n s i t s t o p . Would be w i t h i n easy w a l k i n g range of every h o u sehold ( s a y li m i l e ) . ( b ) P e d e s t r i a n ' T y p i c a l use : p r o v i d e s p e d e s t r i a n C o r r i d o r Open Space l i n k a g e throughout the urban s t r u c t u r e ; i n c o r p o r a t e s s m a l l s p e c i a l i z e d p l a y and s i t t i n g areas a l o n g i t s r o u t e ; such s p e c i a l i z e d areas would be l o c a t e d w i t h i n easy w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e of every household (say 200 f e e t ) . •^Personal i n t e r v i e w w i t h S.S. L e f e a u x , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of .Board of Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n , Vancouver, F e b r u a r y 7, 1968. 5,28 4. Open Space C a t e g o r i e s The p r e s e n t c a t e g o r i e s of recommended p u b l i c open space f o r the Lower M a i n l a n d can be seen i n Appendix B, The Vancouver Board of Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n p r o f e s s to use these c a t e g o r i e s as a guide,"'' I n the t h e o r e t i c a l open space model, the f o l l o w i n g t h r e e broad forms of p u b l i c open space c a t e g o r i e s are d i s t i n g u i s h e d , ( a ) I n t e n s i v e A c t i v i t y T y p i c a l use : For o r g a n i z e d r e c r e -Open Space a t i o n such as t e n n i s , swimming and outdoor bowls; open shopping m a l l s , outdoor c a f e s and s h e l t e r e d s i t t i n g a r e a s . L i k e l y l o c a t i o n : Near neighbourhood s h o p p i n g c e n t r e , secondary s c h o o l and p u b l i c t r a n s i t s t o p . Would be w i t h i n easy w a l k i n g range of every h o u s e h o l d ( s a y '4 m i l e ) , ( b ) P e d e s t r i a n T y p i c a l use : p r o v i d e s p e d e s t r i a n C o r r i d o r Open Space l i n k a g e t h r o u g h o u t the urban s t r u c t u r e ; i n c o r p o r a t e s s m a l l s p e c i a l i z e d p l a y and s i t t i n g areas a l o n g i t s r o u t e ; such s p e c i a l i z e d areas would be l o c a t e d w i t h i n easy w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e of every h o u s e h o l d ( s a y 200 f e e t ) , ^ -^Personal i n t e r v i e w w i t h S.S. L e f e a u x , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of Board of Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n , Vancouver, F e b r u a r y 7, 1968. 5.29 ( c ) P a r k l a n d Open T y p i c a l use: P r o v i d e s l o c a l n a t u r a l Space areas f o r c a s u a l and n o n - o r g a n i z e d group s p o r t ; c o u l d c o n t a i n n e i g h -bourhood swimming areas and s p e c i a l -i z e d c i t y - w i d e f a c i l i t i e s such as a zoo or b o t a n i c garden. L i k e l y l o c a t i o n : Between dense r e s i d e n t i a l and employment nodes. Would be l o c a t e d w i t h i n c o n v e n i e n t w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e of eve r y h o usehold ( s a y ^ m i l e ) . The acreage s h o u l d p r o b a b l y be not l e s s than 150 acres and p r e f e r a b l y around 300 a c r e s . These t h r e e forms of urban open space are i n t e n d e d to g i v e each p e r s o n l i v i n g w i t h i n the Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n core the o p p o r t u n i t y of easy l o c a l access to a range of open spaces a r r a n g e d so t h a t both s p e c i a l i z e d and c a s u a l needs are adequate-l y met. No d e t a i l e d attempt at t h i s s t a g e of the s t u d y has been made to d e f i n e the s i z e of the v a r i o u s open spaces or the f a c i l i t i e s p r o v i d e d . I t i s not p o s s i b l e e i t h e r at t h i s s t a g e to d e f i n e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between r e s i d e n t i a l d e n s i t y and the i n t e n s i t y of use of open space or l o o k i n t o e f f e c t i v e c a p a c i t i e s of d i f f e r e n t types of open s p a c e s . F u t u r e r e s e a r c h i n t o these a s p e c t s of open space c o u l d perhaps s e t more d e t a i l e d g u i d e l i n e s f o r urban development. NMC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR RESIDENTIAL AND EMPLOYMENT NODE OPEN SPACE FIGURE 5..1 A P P r ° X - 1 m-THEORETICAL OPEN SPACE MODEL PARKLAND OPEN SPACE '.«Tn',i _ (3 S c a l e : 1/4 m PEDESTRIAN CORRIDOR INTENSIVE ACTIVITY OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL SECONDARY SCHOOL PRIMARY SCHOOL INFANT CENTRE COMMUNITY CENTRE LOCAL SHOPS NODULAR CENTRE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR NODULAR PUBLIC TRANSIT ROAD SYSTEM NODULAR ROAD SYSTEM i FIGURE 5.2 A.R.C. March, }968 5.30 B. DESCRIPTION OF METHODS AND PROCEDURES FOR TESTING THE THEORETICAL OPEN SPACE MODEL 1. C h o i c e of R e s e a r c h A n a l y s i s One as p e c t of the model ( t h e p a r k l a n d c a t e g o r y of open s p a c e ) i s a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c t e d f o r a n a l y s i s , , 2 o T e s t Used i n A n a l y s i s The t e s t c o n s i s t s s i m p l y of c o r r e l a t i n g r e s u l t s of p q u e s t i o n s from a s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r a c t i v i t y s u r v e y w i t h the d e s c r i p t i o n of the P a r k l a n d C a t e g o r y of Open Space as d e s c r i b e d i n P a r t A of t h i s C h a p t e r , 3, C h o i c e of Qu e s t i o n s Used f o r A n a l y s i s From the e x p l o r a t o r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e used f o r the s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r a c t i v i t y survey,, a number of q u e s t i o n s have been s e l e c t e d which appear to r e l a t e g e n e r a l b e h a v i o u r a c t i v i t y w i t h need f o r open space. The r e s u l t s (see Appendices F and G) from the cases s u r v e y e d have been s u b m i t t e d to computer f r e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n t a b u l a t i o n u t i l i z i n g the M u l t i v a r i a t e C o n t i n g e n c y T a b u l a t i o n Program system a v a i l a b l e at U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia computer c e n t r e . The r e s u l t s have been e v a l u a t e d and i n f e r e n c e s have been drawn. 5.31 4. L i m i t a t i o n s of S u r v e y Data ( a ) S i z e of sample a v a i l a b l e to date (24 c a s e s ) , ( b ) L i m i t e d area of the c i t y . ( c ) L i m i t e d v a r i e t y of age, e d u c a t i o n , income and o c c u p a t i o n . ( d ) L i m i t e d to households of secondary s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . ( e ) S e l e c t i o n of respondents r e s t r i c t e d to head of h o u s e h o l d or spouse. C. SURVEY 1. B r i e f D e s c r i p t i o n of Respondents' S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s The e x p l o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n has been l i m i t e d to households of secondary s c h o o l s t u d e n t s . The ages of r e -spondents range from 25 to 64 y e a r s w i t h 67% over 45 y e a r s . The predominate o c c u p a t i o n of head of household was tradesman. Of the r e s p o n d e n t s , 75% were born i n Canada and the remainder born i n Europe. A p p r o x i m a t e l y 30% of the respondents f i n i s h e d f i v e to e i g h t y e a r s of s c h o o l , 42% f i n i s h e d n i n e to e l e v e n y e a r s and 2 1 % f i n i s h e d t w e l v e and more y e a r s . Of the sample, 83% of the f a m i l i e s owned t h e i r homes. F a m i l y incomes f o r 1960 were a p p r o x i m a t e l y 13% e a r n i n g $1,000 to $4,000, 25% e a r n i n g %4,000 to $4,999, 39% e a r n i n g %5,000 to $6,999 and 8% e a r n i n g $7,000 and over (see A p p e n d i x F ) . 5.32 2„ Summary of Survey R e s u l t s For p l a c e s f r e q u e n t l y v i s i t e d , 3 3 % of the respondents mentioned p a r k s o t h e r than l o c a l , and f o r p l a c e s r e g u l a r l y v i s i t e d o n l y 1 2 ^ mentioned p a r k s o t h e r than l o c a l . For i n f r e q u e n t v i s i t s 50% of the r e s p o n d e n t s mentioned p a r k s o t h e r than l o c a l . No respondents mentioned v i s i t i n g l o c a l p a r k s f r e q u e n t l y , r e g u l a r l y or i n f r e q u e n t l y , (Note on Appendix C t h a t except f o r John Hendry Park, t h e r e are no l a r g e p a r k s i n the s t u d y a r e a , ) For a c t i v i t i e s t h a t respondents l i k e to engage i n t h a t do not c o s t a n y t h i n g , 33% mentioned w a l k i n g and 12'^% mentioned n a t u r e s t u d y . When asked s p e c i f i c a l l y about g o i n g to the p a r k , 83% of the respondents s t a t e d t h a t they v i s i t e d p a r k s . A l s o f o r the s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n about the beach, 75% responded p o s i t i v e l y . There i s no beach l o c a l l y so t h i s must be i n t e r p r e t e d as e q u i v -a l e n t to g o i n g to a park o t h e r than l o c a l . For r e g u l a r and i n f r e q u e n t v i s i t s , the 45-65 age group mentioned v i s i t i n g p a r k s o t h e r than l o c a l , more than the 25-44 age group. The o l d e r age group mentioned w a l k i n g more than the younger age group. O n l y the o l d e r age group mentioned n a t u r e s t u d y as an a c t i v i t y . Of the 12'&> of respondents t h a t r e g u l a r l y v i s i t e d p a r k s o t h e r than l o c a l , a l l were making incomes i n the $6,000 and more c a t e g o r i e s (see Appendix G)„ 5.33 D. OBSERVATIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS 1. Open Space A c t i v i t y R e s u l t s from the s u r v e y (see Appendices F and G) i n d i c a t e t h a t the age group 25-65 ye a r s i s not i n t e r e s t e d i n s m a l l l o c a l p a r k s but p r e f e r s the l a r g e r m e t r o p o l i t a n and r e g i o n a l type o f p a r k . A l t h o u g h 83% of respondents mentioned the park as a p l a c e to v i s i t when s p e c i f i c a l l y asked, o n l y 33% r e c o g n i z e d the park as a p l a c e f r e q u e n t l y v i s i t e d and o n l y 12^3% r e c o g n i z e d i t as a p l a c e to v i s i t r e g u l a r l y when not r e p l y i n g to a l e a d i n g q u e s t i o n . I t c o u l d be i n f e r r e d t h a t the park i s not r e c o g n i z e d as an a c t i v i t y p l a c e f o r the m a j o r i t y of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l economic group. The l a c k of i n t e r e s t i n l o c a l parks i n t h i s group c o u l d be due to the p a r t i c u l a r age, e d u c a t i o n and income c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . I t i s s u s p e c t e d t h a t the 45-65 age group have, among o t h e r t h i n g s , no young c h i l d r e n to l o o k a f t e r and have t h e r e f o r e more f r e e time to t r a v e l t o l a r g e r p a r k s or i n d u l g e i n o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s , r a t h e r than use the e x i s t i n g l o c a l p a r k s which e v i d e n t l y do not s a t i s f y t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r needs. The low p a r t i c i p a t i o n of r e g u l a r v i s i t s t o p a r k s c o u l d perhaps be e x p l a i n e d by the r e l a t i v e l y l i m i t e d y ears of s c h o o l i n g of the m a j o r i t y of the r e s p o n d e n t s . L o c k i n g at e d u c a t i o n , i t was the respondents i w i t h the greater' 7 number of ye a r s of s c h o o l t h a t mentioned r e g u l a r v i s i t s to p a r k s . A g a i n f o r income, i t was those r espondents i n the h i g h e s t c a t e g o r i e s t h a t r e g u l a r l y v i s i t e d parks„ 5.34 More d e t a i l o b s e r v a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g open space a c t i v i t y would be p o s s i b l e w i t h more da t a r e l a t e d to a broader popu-l a t i o n w i t h i n the sample area and w i t h i n the c i t y . A l s o i f a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s from the s u r v e y were i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s , i t would be perhaps p o s s i b l e to get a s t r o n g e r measure of a c t i v i t i e s r e l a t e d to open space. The responses to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n d i c a t e d t h a t p e o p l e d i d not g e n e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e p a r k s , as they p r e s e n t l y e x i s t , as a p l a c e of a c t i v i t y . More s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g to l o c a l spaces and f u n c t i o n s c o u l d r e s u l t i n more c o n c l u s i v e e v i d e n c e than has been p o s s i b l e to d a t e . The use of g e n e r a l b e h a v i o u r a c t i v i t y q u e s t i o n s as i n t h i s approach i s f a v o u r e d r a t h e r than s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s on p a r k s . The danger of q u e s t i o n s b e i n g too s p e c i f i c or r e f e r -i n g to e x i s t i n g l o c a l p a r k s , as i n o t h e r types of s u r v e y s , has been t h a t the r e s u l t s would r e f l e c t the p a s t p a t t e r n of g r i d development and open space v a l u e s , whereas t h i s s t u d y i s p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d i n a f u t u r e development p a t t e r n . The s u r v e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e s i g n e d w i t h the aim of g e t t i n g at the respondent's c a t e g o r i e s r a t h e r than p r e s e n t i n g the respondents i n p r e d e t e r m i n e d s e t of c a t e g o r i e s of s i t u a t i o n s . I n the absence of an a c t u a l development f o r s t u d y t h a t e x p r e s s e s the i d e a s of the Nodular M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept, the g e n e r a l s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r approach of i n d i c a t i n g open space needs i s p r e f e r e d . In the absence of more da t a to d a t e , t h i s e x p l o r a t o r y s u r v e y s e r v e s as an i l l u s t r a t i o n of how to proceed w i t h a comprehensive a n a l y s i s . 5.35 2. Open Space Model The s u r v e y i l l u s t r a t e s t h a t the p r e s e n t system of s c a t t e r e d l o c a l p a r k s i s not b e i n g used by t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l economic group. I t i s s u s p e c t e d t h a t c o n t i n u e d s t u d y would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s e parks are outmoded f o r the m a j o r i t y of persons l o c a l needs. The respondents t h a t mentioned u s i n g p a r k s a l l f a v o u r e d p a r k s o t h e r than l o c a l , such as S t a n l e y P a r k , w h i c h o f f e r s a wide range of a c t i v i t i e s . The p a r k l a n d c a t e g o r y of open space as p a r t of the open space model o f f e r s most of these wide range of a c t i v i t i e s w i t h more c o n v e n i e n t access ( w i t h i n m i l e ) . The open space model i n d i c a t e s , say, 100 acres of p a r k l a n d c a t e g o r y of l o c a l open space at ground l e v e l . With a r e s i d e n t i a l p o p u l a t i o n of 30,000 persons (about 100 persons per g r o s s a c r e ) t h i s c a t e g o r y p r o v i d e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 3.3 acres per 1,000 p e r s o n s . Because of the l a y o u t , i t i s noted t h a t t h i s p a r k l a n d open space would t h e o r e t i c a l l y be a c c e s s i b l e to the m a j o r i t y of persons w i t h i n the N o d u l a r M e t r o p o l i t a n core r e g a r d l e s s of age, e d u c a t i o n , o c c u p a t i o n , income or c u l t u r a l background. .5.36 CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Ch a p t e r I o u t l i n e d the need f o r open space w i t h i n N o r t h American c i t i e s . I t appears t h a t the f u t u r e form and d i s t r i b u t i o n of open space w i t h i n c i t i e s w i l l l a r g e l y depend on the concepts chosen f o r development and growth. As b u i l d i n g systems change and l a n d uses change, so must the r e l a t e d open spaces change. I n f l e x i b l e open space s t a n d a r d s , which are l a r g e l y i n t u i t i v e , must be r e c o n s i d e r e d on a more s c i e n t i f i c b a s i s , to meet the needs of a l l persons i n an e v e r - c h a n g i n g c i t y environment. I t was p o s t u l a t e d t h a t not a l l persons i n the c i t y have access to the same q u a l i t y of p u b l i c open space and e s p e c i a l l y t h a t ' the p o o r e r r e s i d e n t i a l areas are i n a d e q u a t e l y p r o v i d e d w i t h l o c a l open s p a c e s . C h a p t e r I I examined some a s p e c t s of d i s t r i b u t i o n and q u a l i t y of l o c a l p a r k s , as p a r t of the e x i s t i n g open space p a t t e r n , i n the c i t i e s of Vancouver and M o n t r e a l , An h y p o t h e s i s was f o r m u l a t e d and s u b s t a n t i a t e d to the e f f e c t t h a t w e a l t h y r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n the c i t y have h i g h e r q u a l i t y l o c a l p a r k s than p o o r e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s . In Vancouver, the more w e a l t h y r e s i d e n t i a l areas had i n 1961 n e a r l y t h r e e times J the amount of l o c a l park acreage than the p o o r e r areas w i t h i n 5.37 the c i t y . I n M o n t r e a l the gap was even g r e a t e r ( f o u r t i m e s ) . P o o r e r areas had fewer types of r e c r e a t i o n f a c i l -i t i e s , l e s s s e c l u s i o n ( p a r k s were l o c a t e d near major t r a f f i c a r t e r i a l s ) and had the l e a s t amount of money spent a n n u a l l y on l o c a l p a r k s . I t was found t h a t o n l y the w e a l t h y areas came anywhere near meeting today's r e c o g n i z e d l o c a l open space acreage s t a n d a r d s . C h a p t e r I I I examined a t h e o r e t i c a l l o c a l open space model as one p o s s i b l e p a t t e r n of p u b l i c open space as su g g e s t e d i n the group N o d u l a r M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept ( S e c t i o n I ) . Three broad forms of l o c a l open space were p o s t u l a t e d . O n l y one of t h e s e , the p a r k l a n d c a t e g o r y , was p a r t l y t e s t e d by means of a s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r a c t i v i t y s u r v e y q u e s t i o n n a i r e , R e s u l t s of the s u r v e y i n d i c a t e t h a t i n the study area examined, r e s p o n d e n t s were not u s i n g the p r e s e n t s c a t t e r e d l o c a l park system. Respondents p r e f e r r e d the l a r g e r p a r k s , such as S t a n l e y P a r k , w h i c h g e n e r a l l y f i t i n t o the p a r k l a n d c a t e g o r y proposed i n the model. Because of time and, as y e t , l i m i t e d s u r v e y d a t a , i t was not p o s s i b l e to t e s t the model f u r t h e r . The model t h e o r e t i c a l l y a l l o w s f o r a h i e r a c h y of d i f f e r e n t s i z e d p u b l i c open spaces f o r a wide range of uses, from s m a l l s i t t i n g spaces to the l a r g e p a r k l a n d c a t e g o r y . The p u b l i c open space system as i n d i c a t e d . i n the model would p r o v i d e an e q u i t a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of p u b l i c open space f o r a l l 5.38 s o c i a l economic groups of p e r s o n s . The more m o b i l e groups c o u l d s t i l l use the d i s t a n t r e g i o n a l p a r k s but the l e s s m o b i l e ones ( t h e poor, young c h i l d r e n , mothers, i n v a l i d s and the e l d e r l y ) would be p r o v i d e d f o r l o c a l l y . A l l persons w i t h i n the community would have g r e a t e r c h o i c e than i s p o s s i b l e p r e s e n t l y w i t h i n the c i t y . Any d i f f e r e n c e s i n q u a l i t y between r e s i d e n t i a l areas because of v a r y i n g w e a l t h or o t h e r s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , would take p l a c e w i t h i n the p r i v a t e spaces a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l or group h o u s i n g . From t h i s b r i e f a n a l y s i s i t was p o s s i b l e to i n d i c a t e t h a t s t u d y of s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r a l a c t i v i t i e s would p r o v i d e a s a t i s f a c t o r y b a s i s f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n of open space. The p r e s e n t l a r g e l y i n t u i t i v e open space s t a n d a r d s are not adequate to meet the emerging complex problems of the c i t y . A whole new h i e r a r c h i a l concept of p u b l i c l o c a l open space i s needed. There i s the need f o r c r i t e r i a to d e f i n e the r o l e s of d i f f e r e n t types of space; then one open space c o u l d be f u n c t i o n a l l y r e l a t e d to a n o t h e r . F u r t h e r study c o u l d p e r -haps e s t a b l i s h a s t a n d a r d code to d e f i n e the f u n c t i o n of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l l forms of open s p a c e s . This would p e r m i t comparisons to be made w i t h i n d i f f e r e n t areas i n the c i t y and between c i t i e s . 5.39 I f a n a l y s i s of b a s i c human open space needs as suggested i n t h i s s t u d y , can l e a d to more adequate open space s t a n d a r d s , then i t i s perhaps p o s s i b l e to make b e t t e r use of such economic t o o l s as c o s t - b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s , t o f u r t h e r determine the optimum d i s t r i b u t i o n of open spaces i n r e l a t i o n to a s s o c i a t e d l a n d uses. I f i t i s a community's p o l i c y , as i t has been suggested f o r Vancouver,"'" t h a t adequate p u b l i c open space be p r o v i d e d on an e q u i t a b l e b a s i s r e g a r d l e s s of persons income, r a c e , age or o t h e r s o c i a l economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , then t h i s p o l i c y s h o u l d be r e f l e c t e d i n the community's comprehensive p l a n . A n a l y s i s of e x i s t i n g open space, as o u t l i n e d i n Ch a p t e r IT, would p o i n t out i n e q u a l i t i e s w i t h i n a c i t y ' s open space system and s e r v e as a guide to s e t t i n g up an open space a c q u i s i t i o n program to c o r r e c t any d e v i a t i o n w i t h the community's p o l i c y . In o r d e r t o ensure adequate f u t u r e p r o v i s i o n of open space w i t h i n a c i t y , s t u d i e s of l a n d use r e g u l a t i o n s and l a n d t a x a t i o n p o l i c i e s t o g e t h e r w i t h o t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p l a n n i n g a s p e c t s would have to be un d e r t a k e n . I n or d e r to p r o v i d e the c a t e g o r i e s of open space as o u t l i n e d i n Chapter TIT, i t i s sug g e s t e d t h a t new methods w i l l have to be found i n p r e s e r v i n g , r e d e s i g n i n g and r e d i s t r i b u t i n g e x i s t i n g open spaces i n s p i t e of economic p r e s s u r e s f o r o t h e r forms of development. P e r s o n a l I n t e r v i e w w i t h S.S. L e f e a u x , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of Board of Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n , Vancouver, F e b r u a r y 7, 1968. 5.40 F i n a l l y , i t i s noted t h a t the N o d u l a r M e t r o p o l i t a n Concept of urban redevelopment o f f e r s o n l y one of many p o s s i b l e open space systems. As p a r t of the t o t a l p l a n -n i n g p r o c e s s , w i t h i n a community, a p l a n n e r would be i n v o l v e d i n l o o k i n g at a s e r i e s of such a l t e r n a t i v e s . Other a s p e c t s of p l a n n i n g as s u g g e s t e d by the group approach (see F i g u r e 1) would be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g any p r o p o s a l s . .5.41 APPENDIX A U.S. LOCAL AND METROPOLITAN PARK STANDARDS 1 R e f e r e n c e F a c i l i t y S t a n d a r d R e c r e a t i o n and open space i n the Onondaga S y r a c u s e g M e t r o p o l i t a n area Park development f o r l o c a l areas Kentucky Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n P l a n 3 Large urban r e c r e a t i o n area Park development i n c l u d e s : a„ 5-6 acres p e r 1,000 pe o p l e i n m u l t i - f a m i l y communities; b, 8-9 acres per i p 0 0 people i n o n e - f a m i l y communities . where l o t s i z e s range from 5 t000 to 50,000sq.ft.; c, over 10 acres per 1,000 people i n low d e n s i t y o n e - f a m i l y a r e a s j and d, 12 acres of county park per 1,000 p e o p l e . A county park has a s e r -v i c e r a d i u s of 15-30 minutes from u s e r s ' homes. 15 acres f o r each 1,000 p e o p l e . S e r v e s a l a r g e segment of the urban area. Minimum s i z e of 100 a c r e s . G.D. B u t l e r , I n t r o d u c t i o n Community ^ R e c r e a t i o n to L arge p a r k s 2_ to 4 acres f o r each 1,000 p e o p l e , or 40,000 to 50,000 people f o r each p a r k . Park s i z e of 100 to 300 a c r e s . S e r v i c e r a d i u s of 30 to 60 m i n u t e s . R e s e r v a t i o n s A r e s e r v a t i o n i s a l a r g e t r a c t of l a n d kept p r i m a r i l y i n i t s n a t u r a l s t a t e , w i t h s e c t i o n s made a v a i l a b l e f o r a c t i v i t i e s such as h i k i n g , camping p i c n i c k i n g e t c . S e r v e s p o p u l a t i o n of whole urban area and beyond. S i z e of 100 a c r e s or more U s u a l l y l o c a t e d near b o u n d a r i e s of the c i t y or o u t s i d e c i t y l i m i t s . 5.42 R e f e r e n c e F a c i l i t y S t a n d a r d G.D. B u t l e r ( c o n t ' d ) D a l l a s j Texas s P a r k s and Open Sp a c e s ^ Neighbourhood Park Recommended s t a n d a r d s f o r a park system: P I a y g r o unds w i t h i n urban developments P l a y f i e l d s w i t h i n urban developments Large p a r k s w i t h i n urban developments S p e c i a l p a r k s and parkways w i t h i n urban developments R e s e r v a t i o n s i n o u t l y i n g areas 2 acres of park f o r each ljOOO pe o p l e i n n e i g h -bourhoods w i t h m u l t i p l e -f a m i l y development,, 10 a c r e s f o r each 1,000 pe o p l e i n neighbourhoods w i t h one.or t w o - f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s , , A neighbourhood park i s p r i m a r i l y a l a n d s c a p e park p r o v i d i n g a r e s t f u l b r e a t h i n g spot,. Each park s e r v e s a p o p u l a t i o n of 4.000 to 7 j 000 £ 1 to 2 acres f o r each ljOOO p o p u l a t i o n 1 to 2 a c r e s f o r each 1,000 p o p u l a t i o n 5 acres f o r each 1,000 p o p u l a t i o n 2 acres f o r each l s 0 0 0 p o p u l a t i o n 10 s e r e s f o r each ljOOO p o p u l a t i o n New M e x i c o j Comprehensive P l a n f o r Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n ^ I n - c i t y r e c r e a t i o n p a r k s Minimum of 16 acres f o r 1,000 peop l e 5.43 R e f e r e n c e F a c i l i t y S t a n d a r d A t h l e t i c I n s t i t u t e Neighbourhood p a r k - s c h o o l Large c i t y p a r k s Minimum of 15 acres and i n c l u d e s 5 acres f o r e d u c a t i o n a l purposes such as a s c h o o l b u i l d i n g , and 10 acres f o r community r e c r e a t i o n , , 100 acres or more to s e r v e 5 j 0 0 0 people l i v i n g w i t h i n w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e or h a v i n g access to p u b l i c , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n and Park A s s o c i a t i o n , Outdoor R e c r e -a t i o n Space S t a n d a r d s , 8 Urban r e c r e a t i o n areas Minimun of 10 acres per 1,000 pe o p l e l o c a t e d w i t h i n an urban a r e a . I n c l u d e s neighbourhood r e c r e a t i o n p a r k s , d i s t r i c t r e c r e a t i o n p a r k s , and l a r g e urban parks„ Not more than h a l f of n e i g h -bourhood and d i s t r i c t p ark area s h o u l d be f o r a c t i v e r e c r e a t i o n , . The o t h e r h a l f s h o u l d be i n shade t r e e s and lawn. P„H, L e w i s , R e c r e a t i o n and Open Space i n I l l i n o i s " Urban r e c r e a t i o n areas a„ urban r e c r e a t i o n area of 7 acres w i t h i n w a l k i n g d i s t a n c e b. c i t y - w i d e r e c r e a t i o n area of 13 acres w i t h , s e r v i c e r a d i u s of '4 to hour P l a n n i n g Commis s i o n of LaCrigwana County, P a« Community r e c r e a t i o n areas 7 acres per 1,000 people i n c l u d e s : a. t o t l o t s : ,50 acres per 1,000 p e o p l e ; minimum area .13 a c r e s ; maxi-mum of 2,000 persons per f a c i l i t y ; s e r v i c e r a d i u s 4 m i l e . b. p l a y g r o u n d s : 1.25 acres per 1,000 p e o p l e ; m i n i -mum area 3-6 a c r e s ; maximum of 4,000 persons per f a c i l i t y ; s e r v i c e r a d i u s 4 to ^ m i l e . c. p l a y f i e l d s : 1.25 acres ..44 R e f e r e n c e F a c i l i t y S t a n d a r d M e t r o p o l i tan r e c r e a t i o n areas Lackawana c„ ( c o n t ' d ) County ( c o n t ' d ) per 1,000 p e o p l e ; m i n i -mum area 6-15 a c r e s ; maximum of 10,000 persons per f a c i l i t y ; s e r v i c e r a d i u s ^ to 1 m i l e . d. neighbourhood p a r k s : 1.25 a c r e s per 1,000 p e o p l e ; minimum area 3-6 a c r e s ; maximum of 4,000 persons per f a c i l i t y ; s e r v i c e radius x4 to '/_ m i l e e. community-wide p a r k s : 2.75 a c r e s per 1,000 acres ; maximum of 20,000 persons per f a c i l i t y ; s e r v i c e radius 1 t o 2 m i l e s 15 acres per 1,000 p e o p l e . I n c l u d e s : a. s p e c i a l use a r e a s : 3 acres per 1,000 p e o p l e ; s e r v i c e r a d i u s 10 m i l e s . b„ county p a r k s : 12 acres per 1,000 p e o p l e ; m i n i -mum area 200 a c r e s ; maximum of 50,000 persons per f a c i l i t y ; s e r v i c e r a d i u s 10 miles„ 1U.S. Department of the I n t e r i o r , Bureau of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n , Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n and Space S t a n d a r d s , P a r i l , 1967, pp.2-11 o Onondaga County Department of P l a n n i n g and New York S t a t e Department of Commerce, R e c r e a t i o n and Open Space i n the  Onondaga-Syracuse M e t r o p o l i t a n A r e a , (New Y o r k , March, 1962), p.19. "^Kentucky Department of F i n a n c e , P r e l i m i n a r y Kentucky Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n P l a n . ( F r a n k f o r t , Ky. November, 1965), p.58. ^George D. B u t l e r , I n t r o d u c t i o n t o Community R e c r e a t i o n . P r e p a r e d f o r the N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n and Park A s s o c i a t i o n . (New Y ork: M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co., 1959). 5 D a l l a s Department of C i t y P l a n n i n g and Department of Parks and R e c r e a t i o n , Parks and Open Spaces, ( D a l l a s , Texas, A p r i l , 1959), p.62. . 5.45 'New Mexico S t a t e P l a n n i n g O f f i c e , New Mexico Comprehensive P l a n f o r Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n , (Sante Fe, New Mex,, August, 1965). p.66. A t h l e t i c I n s t i t u t e , P l a n n i n g F a c i l i t i e s f o r H e a l t h , P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n and R e c r e a t i o n , ( C h i c a g o . I l l , R e v i s e d e d i t i o n 1965), pp,8-12, i ' N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n and P a r k A s s o c i a t i o n . Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Space S t a n d a r d s t (Washington, D,C,, 1965), pp,20 and 24-25, P h i l i p - H , L e w i s , R e c r e a t i o n and Open Space i n I l l i n o i s ( Urbana, 111,: U n i v e r s i t y - o f I l l i n o i s , September, 1961), p.108, Lackawana County P l a n n i n g Commission. R e c r e a t i o n and Open  Space P l a n , Candeub, Cabot & A s s o c i a t e s ^ (Lackawana County, Pa., 1963), p.20, APPENDIX B 5.46 LOWER MAINLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD , RECOMMENDED LOCAL AND METROPOLITAN PARK SYSTEM AND STANDARDS Park Type Park F u n c t i o n Park F e a t u r e s P l a y L o t s To p r o v i d e p r e - s c h o o l c h i l d r e n i n a garden apartment, h o u s i n g p r o j e c t , or o t h e r h i g h e r d e n s i t y r e s i -d e n t i a l area w i t h a s u b s t i t u t e f o r the "b a c k y a r d " ; day use. L o c a t i o n : at the f o c u s . of a " b l o c k " , or ho u s i n g development a s s u r i n g access w i t h o u t s t r e e t c r o s s i n g o S i z e : one or two l o t s , as needed. Development: s i m p l e , s a f e apparatus at c h i l d ' s s c a l e to i n s t a l a sense of s e l f - d i s c o v e r y ; paved area f o r wheeled t o y s . Neighbourhood Park s M a i n l y to a c t i v i t y areas p r o v i d e f o r p r e - s c h o o l and ele m e n t a r y s c h o o l c h i l d r e n i n the r e s i d e n t i a l " n e i g h -bourhood" (3,000-6,000 p e o p l e ) s e r v e d by an e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l ; day use. May i n c l u d e p l a y l o t , L o c a t i o n : at the c e n t r e of a "neighbourhood", p r e f e r a b l y next to the elem e n t a r y s c h o o l grounds, f a c i l i t a t i n g access on f o o t a v o i d i n g major s t r e e t c r o s s i n g s . S e r v i c e r a d i u s : '4 to !_ m i l e depending on d e n s i t y . C u r r e n t s t a n d a r d : 1.25 acres per 1,000 persons e x c l u d i n g s c h o o l grounds, 2.5 acres per 1,000 i n c l u d i n g s c h o o l groungs. S i z e : 4 acre minimum. Development: apparatus and f i e l d s f o r p l a y and a c t i v e games; may have s e a s o n a l s u p e r -v i s i o n . 5,47 Park Type Park F u n c t i o n Park F e a t u r e s Communi t y P a r k s M a i n l y to p r o v i d e a c t i v i t y areas f o r h i g h s c h o o l a d u l t s i n the "community" (15.000 - 40,000 p e o p l e ) s e r v e d by a h i g h s c h o o l ; day use, May i n c l u d e n e i g h -bourhood p a r k . L o c a t i o n ; at the centre o f a "community"j p r e f e r -a b l y next to the h i g h s c h o o l grounds, f a c i l -i t a t i n g access on f o o t and by b i c y c l e . S e r v i c e r a d i u s : ^ to 1'^  m i l e s , depending on d e n s i t y . C u r r e n t s t a n d a r d : 1,25 acres per 1000 p e r s o n s . S i z e : 20 acre minimum. Development: h e a v i e r a p p a r a t u s ; f i e l d s f o r team s p o r t s ; s p e c i a l i z e d f a c i l i t i e s f o r t e n n i s , l a c r o s s e , or swimming; i n d o o r f a c i l i t i e s ; season-a l or y e a r - r o u n d s u p e r -v i s i o n f o r a l l age groups. Urban Parks Town Parks To p r o v i d e areas of s p e c i a l t r e a t m e n t or l a n d s c a p i n g as a con-t r a s t to a s s u r e v a r i e t y i n a h i g h l y u r b a n i z e d area such as a c i t y or town c e n t r e , shopping a r e a , o f f i c e a r e a , or i n d u s t r i a l a r e a ; f o r w o r k i n g or shopping a d u l t s ; day use. To p r o v i d e c e n t r a l n a t u r a l areas and a c t i v i t y areas f o r r e s i d e n t s i n a " r e g i o n a l " town (over 50,000 p e o p l e ) ; f o r both a c t i v e and casual use, a l s o p r o v i d i n g a L o c a t i o n : at the h e a r t of a commercial c o r e , an area of' heavy p e d e s t r i a n t r a f f i c , a parkway or b o u l e v a r d , a l o c a l i z e d f o c u s a r e a . i n an i n d u s t r i a l S i z e : s m a l l enough to f i t i n t o the urban t e x t u r e ; numerous enough t o f u l f i l l the f u n c t i o n . Development: a s.mall l a n d s c a p e d node at a key i n t e r s e c t i o n , a s p e c i a l vantage p o i n t , a busy passageway f o r pedestrians between b u i l d i n g s to i n t e r c o n n e c t key a r e a s . L o c a t i o n : one or more w i t h i n each " r e g i o n a l " town, p e r m i t t i n g access by t r a n s i t and c a r . S e r v i c e r a d i u s : 3 to 5 m i l e s 0 5.48 Park Type Park F u n c t i o n Park F e a t u r e s Town Park s ( c o n t * d ) f o c u s f o r major c i v i c f a c i l i t i e s and c i v i c p r i d e ; day use on an i n c i d e n t a l s t o p or s p e c i a l t r i p b a s i s B May i n c l u d e community p a r k 0 C u r r e n t s t a n d a r d : 4„5 acr e s p e r 1000 p e r s o n s . S i z e : 40 acres minimum. Development: n a t u r a l areas and a c t i v i t y a r e a s , as a s i n g l e f u n c t i o n or i n c o m b i n a t i o n ; n a t u r a l areas c o n s i s t i n g of n a t u r a l or developed open lawns j wooded a r e a s , water a r e a s , and vantage p o i n t s ; a c t i v i t y areas c o n s i s t i n g of a unique s p o r t s a r e a , f a i r g r o u n d s , or b u i l d i n g complex. Lower M a i n l a n d R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g Board, A R e g i o n a l Parks P l a n  f o r the Lower M a i n l a n d R e g i o n , A Repo r t to the R e g i o n a l Parks Committee of the Lower M a i n l a n d M u n i c i p a l A s s o c i a t i o n (New W e s t m i n i s t e r : L.M.R.P.B., 1966). ( F o r a l l g e n e r a l purposes t h i s park system, w i t h s t a n d a r d s , i s the same as used by the Vancouver Board of Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n . ) ' A c t i v i t y areas mean areas w i t h n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s s u i t e d to one or s e v e r a l a c t i v e o u t d o o r s p o r t s a c t i v i t i e s on an i n t e n s i v e or e x t e n s i v e b a s i s , which may i n c l u d e i n c i d e n t a l or o f f -season c a s u a l a c t i v i t y . : A P P E N D I X C , VANCOUVER PARKS ACCORDING TO CENSUS TRACTS I i is Tract lbour-Acreage L Park age in )£ Persons ,T. of Facilities jrk Types of ties for Park .T. ;ion Factor irks in C.T. ie. Seclusion Fac tor • Parks in C.T. iditures L Park iditure • T. CO D O J : a o • o o3o = 0- ie. Seclusion Fac tor • Parks in C.T. j ; O H a xo •» o. • >0 o « CON H U ' H H 4) O •H O 0 £ o Z 0. . a o o • H <0 o s • o _ 2S-5 t% CO'H > o A B C D E F G H I J K 1 Stanley (not considered) 1000.00 6,191 $ $ 2 Alexander & English Bay 35.00 6,867 2 1.9 21,117,451 3 Sunset Beach, Community Park & Pool 6.00 6r940 6 .5 21,733.97? 4 — 5,361 [ 5 — 8,218 1" 6 Oppenheimer 2.40 3.963 4 .2 3,352.55* 7 Woodland Grandview Victoria Cine, square; 3.91 2.20 2.14 8.25 7,380 3 3 1 7 .7 .0 .0 .2 682.81 3,015.61 5,232.99 i | 8,931.411 8 Pandora TempJe ton 4.10 4.20 8.30 6,523 3 5 8 .0 .3 .15 1,656.70 2,422.46 4,079.16; 9 Burrard View New Brighton 4.14 8.25 12.39 8,616 3 5 8 1.1 1.1 1.1 2,742.00 9,312.28 10 Adanac Sunrise 10.73 7.80 18.53 7,846 4 5 9 .0 .0 .0 1,620.83 2,113.76 12,054.28 j. 3,734.591^  11 Clinton 7.53 8,382 6 1.1 3,473.84i 12 Garden 2.40 6,379 2 .4 1,277.67! 13 2/3 China Creek C18.73) 12.48 7,001 3 .7 3,632.82• 14 Jonathan Rocprs 3.47 4,823 4 .3 1,699.68; 15 Seaforth Kitsilano Res. Foreshore 1.83 14.46 16,29 5,122 -.0 .5 .25 1,230.73 f 1,230.73' 16 Kitsilano 31.14 9,725 6 1.4 50,521.57? 17 Tatlow McBride 3.48 4.80 8.28 9.309 2 5 7 .3 .0 1.5 4,671.94 2,965.53 1 7,637.47-; 18 Jericho Beach Spanish Banks Locarno West Point Grey Westmount Pioneer 18.86 14.83 29.76 9.26 1.03 2.57 76.31 4,853 3 2 4 7 1 17 1.2 2.6 2.0 2.2 1.0 1.5 1.7 12,236.16 25,498.58 17,370.56 3,417.20 493.95 2,005.57 61,027.02 I r r \ 5 „ 50 i A B C D E F G H I J K 19 — . 7,309 I 20 Almond 3.43- 5,383 2 .0 6,090.09 21 22 Connaugh t Granville 14.80 4.54 19.34 6,632 6,770 11 3 14 .4 1.2 .8 10,407.92 2,657.04 13,064.96 | 23 Robson 1/3 China Creek Clark 3.90 (6.33) 10.19 20o33 10,033 6 1. 6 13 .0 .7 .0 .2 3,046.64 1,816.40 2,560,57 7,423.61 •j i £• «• 24 1/2 John Hendry Beaconsfield 66.98) 28.49 10.00 33.49 6,996 7 6 13 1.5 1.8 1.65 (15s.517.78; 7,758.89 2,206.45 ' 9,965.34 i 'I 25 Renfrew Com-munity Falaise 12.38 18.28 30.66 9,103 10 5 15 2,7 1.6 2.15 4,069.20 2,924.28 6,993.48 1 26 Carle ton Collingwood 2.00 3.16 5.16 7,961 4 4 1.1 .5 .8 394.92 1,464.77 1,859.69 27 Slocan Norquay 10.09 5.50 15.59 8,019 7 5 12 1.5 .0 .75 1,996.30 3,764.42 5,760.72 * i 28 Kensing ton Jones 15.80 4.00 19.80 9,416 6 5 11 1.5 .8 1.15 2,487.74 1,523.53 4,016.27 29 1/^John Hendry Brewers 28.49 3.60 32.09 7,890 7 5 12 1.5 .3 .9 7,758.89 2,485.90 10,264.79 i 30 Sunnys ide Glen 2.40 2.30 4.70 5,535 1 1 .5 .5 .5 1,011.60 948.96 1,960.56 31 Prince Edward 3.60 9,340 4 1.0 1,647.14 32 Hillcrest Riley 17.05 6.67 23.72 5,688 7 3 _ 1.1 • 5 .8 4,553.63 4,467.09 9,020.72 1 • 33 Queen Elizabeth (.not consider Cartier ed) .91 5,145. •o 701.70 4 34 — 1,924 35 Shaughnessy Douglas Heather Braemar Devonshire 3.50 13.16 2.40 3.12 3.92 26.13 9,489 6 1 5 12 .6 .7 1.3 .7 1.1 .9 3,734.81 7,942.69 748.79 1,447.38 4,143.13 18,016.80 M 36 Trafalgar Ravine 12.02 2.32 14.34 6,810 9 9 1.8 1.5 1.65 .2,387.86 1,148.98 3,536.84 37 Camosun Chaldecolt 11.00 8.50 19.50 6,620 1. 6 7 .0 1.5 212.92 2,015.21 2,228.13 -1 38 U.E.L. (not ccnsiderec ) ! ! "S % 1 39 Memorial West 18.53 5,996 7 .5J0 7,601.78 40 Musqueam 42.12 3,492 9.3 1,348.00 • i ! A B C D E F G H I J K 41 Elm 3.80 4 .0 1,499.87 Kerrisdale Com' munity & Pool 2.13 5.93 6,031 3 7 1.0 .5 11,100.39 12,600„26 42 Maple Grove Shannon Riverview Arbutus 11.29 2.30 5.90 1,72 21.19 7,554 5 3 8 4.0 .5 1.8 3.5 2-2 6,949.55 811.59 1,130.78 851.88 9,743.80 43 Oak & Pool Eburne Marpole 12.60 2.22 .66 15.48 10,390-12 1 13 .0 .0 1.4 .5 13,123.49 1,093.09 648.55 14,865.13 44 Montgomery 9.94 5,247 7 .2 2,002.06 45 Columbia MacDonald 7.01 2.60 9.61 6,795 4 1 5 .8 1.2 1.0 1,344,80 658,28 2,003.08 46 Sunset Communit & Pool Winona r 8.64 11.15 19.79 9,800 8 5 13 .0 1.6 .8 12,146.47 '2,977,84 15,124.31 47 Memorial South 33.60 8,648 16 .0 12,740.46 48 Gordon Nanaimo 15.00 7.43: 22.43 5,720 9 8 17 .8 1.6 .8 2,363.68 2,168.91 4,532.59 49 Fraserview Humm Bobolink 2.43 1.17 9.45 13.05 7,395 3 7 10 .0 .3 1.8 c.7 667.97 587.90 3,668.04 4,923.91 50 MacLean False Creek 3.03 22.01 25.04 8,493 2 7 9 .6 1.4 1*0 1,354.09 4,463.87 5,817.96 51 7,593 52 Grays 5.00 5,566 2 2.8 1,267.63 53 Angus Kenisdale Quilchena 2.20 7.41 19.25 28.86 4,938 5 2 7 1.0 .5 1.8 1.1 1,524.05 3,098.26 317.77 4,940.08 54 Valdez Carnarvon 1.90 9.30 11.20 4,596 6 6 4.2 2.4 3.3 274.71 1,623.54 1,898.25 55 Balaclava 10.41 4,135 7 7.0 3,783.21 56 Ross Moberly 3.76 8.80 12.56 5,110 5 6 11 2.0 1.3 lj55 1,230.73 2,454.51 3,685.24 57 Killarney 33.10 7,461 14 4.2 4,126.18 APPENDIX D 5.52 VANCOUVER PARK QUALITY FACTORS ACCORDING TO CENSUS TRACT INCOME GROUPINGS HIGHEST Avg.Family Census Wage & Sa l a r y T r a c t I n c o m e $ P o p u l a t i o n Park Average No, of Types of F a c i l i t i e s Average Seclusion F a c t o r for Parks Park Expen-d i t u r e s A B C D E F G 18 19 34 35 36 37 39 40 41 42 44 53 54 55 7,185 6,621 8,735 6,342 . 7,310 6,266 6,940 7,701 7,351 7,976 9,361 9,756 6,555 6,865 5,853 7,309 1^924 9,489 6,810 6 s 620 5,996 3,492 6,031 7.554 7,247 4,938 4,596 4,135 76.31 26„13 14.34 19-. 50 18.53 42.12 5.93 21.19 9,94 28.86 11.20 10.41 17 12 9 7 7 7 8 7 7 6 7 1.7 0.9 1.7 1.5 5,0 9.3 0.5 2.2 0,2 1.1 3.3 7,0 61,027 13,017 3,537 2,228 7,602 1,348 12,600 9,744 2,002 4,940 1,898 3,783 T o t a l 104,964 78,994 284.46 94 34.4 128,726 Average 7,500 2.9 Per 1000 Persons • 3,60 1.2 1,623 ABOVE AVERAGE A B C D E F G 43 57 5,771 5,651 10,390 7,461 15,48 33,10 13 14 0.5 4.2 14,865 4,126 T o t a l 11,422 17,851 48.58 27 4.7 18,991 Average 5,711 2,4 Per 1000 Persons 2.73 1,5 1,068 5 „ 53 AVERAGE A B C D E F G 1 5,316 6,191 2 5,621 6,867 35.00 2 1.9 21,127 3 4,977 6,940 • 6 o00 •6 ,5 21,734 10 4,991 7,846 18.53 9 0.0 3,735 16 5 . 006 9,725 31.14 6 1.4 50,522 20 5,453 5,383 . 3*43 2 0.0 6,090 21 5 , 354 6,632 19 034 14 0.8 13,065 22 5,559 6,770 - - — — 24 5 j 048 6,996 38.49 13 1.7 9,965 26 5,043 7,961 5.16 4 .8 1,860 27 4,980 8,019 15.59 12 0.8 5,761 23 4,987 9,416 19.80 11 1.2 4,016 33 5,181 5,145 0.91 - 0 0 0 702 45 5,389 6,795 9.61 5 1,0 2,003 46 5,236 9,800 19.79 13 0,8 15 4124 47 5,082 8,648 33.60 16 0.0 12,740 49 5 1 3 0 1 7,395 13 o05 10 0.7 4,924 56 5,373 5,110 12.56 11 1.7 3,685 T o t a l 93j897 131,339 232.00 134 13.3 176,953 Average 5,210 0.8 Per 1000 2.15 1.0 1,350 Persons BELOW AVERAGE A B C D E F G 4 4,798 5,361 _ — _ w m 9 4,836 8,616 12.39 8 1,1 12,054 11 4,697 8,382 7.54 6 1.1 3,474 12 4,866 6,379 2,40 2 0.4 1,278 17 4,936 9,309 8.28 7 1,5 6,993 25 4 1936 '9,103 3 0 o 6 6 15 2.2 6,993 29 3,776 7,890 32.09 12 0.9 10,165 30 4,719 5,535 4,70 1 0.5 1,961 31 4,895 9,340 3.60 4 1.0 1,647 32 4,785 5,688 23.72 10 0.8 9,021 43 2,921 5,720 22.43 17 0.8 4,533 52 4,866 5,566 5.00 2 2.8 1,268 T o t a l 57,031 68,889 152.81 84 13.1 60,131 Average 4,753 1.2 Per 1 000 2,22 1.22 874 Persons 5 054 LOWEST A B C 5 3,376 8,218 6 3 j 0 5 2 3,963 7 4 S034 7,380 8 4,282 6,523 13 4,270 7,001 14 3,682 4,823 15 4,597 5,122 23 4,378 10,033 50 3,024 8,493 51 4 ,67 5 7,593 T o t a l 39,370 69,149 Average 3,940 Per 1000 Persons D E F G 2.40 4 0,2 3,353 8.25 7 0.2 8,931 8.30 8 0.2 4,079 12.48 3 0,7 3,633 3.47 4 0,3 1,700 16,29 - 0,3 1,231 20,33 13 0,2 7,424 25,04 9 1.0 5,818 96,56 48 3.1 36,169 0,4 1.40 0,7 526 • 5 . 5 5 APPENDIX E SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ACTIVITY SURVEY The s u r v e y u n d e r t a k e n f o r t h i s open space s t u d y was p a r t of a l a r g e r r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t underway i n m e t r o p o l i t a n V ancouver. The p r o j e c t was i n i t i a t e d more than t h r e e y e a r s ago by P r o f e s s o r E r n e s t Landauer.and s e v e r a l g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s of the S o c i o l o g y Department of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . It' e n q u i r e s i n t o i n d i c a t o r s of a s o c i a l r e f e r e n c e s t r u c t u r e which are e x p r e s s e d i n s o c i a l b e h a v i o u r a c t i v i t i e s . The i n s t r u m e n t of e n q u i r y , an i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n -n a i r e , was f o r m u l a t e d over a two year p e r i o d . T h i s was f o l l o w e d by a p i l o t t e s t i n g of the i n s t r u m e n t p r i o r to e x p l o r -a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The sample area f o r t h i s e x p l o r a t o r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s the Templeton S c h o o l D i s t r i c t of Vancouver which i s w i t h i n D.B.S. census t r a c t s , 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 (see Map. 5.1). The author j o i n e d t h i s p r o j e c t i n December, 1967 and,along w i t h Miss Monica Lindeman,took p a r t i n the m a j o r i t y of the i n t e r v i e w s used i n t h i s open space a n a l y s i s . 5.56 APPENDIX F SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ACTIVITY SURVEY RESULTS Sample Number Q u e s t i o n Code f % 24 100.00 Sample number of households Sex of Respondent 11 45.83 1 Male 13 54.17 2 Female Age of Respondent 1 4.17 0 No response 7 29.17 1 2 5 - 4 4 years 16 66.67 2 45 - 64 years 0 .00 3 65 over O c c u p a t i o n 2 8.33 1 C l e r i c a l '9 37.50 2 Housewife 4 16.67 3 L a b o r e r 9 - 3 7 . 5 0 4 Trades 0 .00 5 Other ( r e t i r e d , unemployed, on s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e ) Years i n S c h o o l (Respondent) 2 8.33 0 No response 0 .00 . 1 1 - 4 y e a r s 7 29.17 2 5 - 8 years 10 41.67 3 9 - 1 1 y e a r s 5 20.83 4 12 and more P l a c e of B i r t h (Respondent) 0 .00 0 No response 18 75.00 1 Canada 6 25.00 ' 2 Europe 0 .00 3 Japan and C h i n a Home owned or r e n t e d 1 4.17 0 No response 20 83.33 1 Owned 3 12.50 2 Rented 5.5.7. Sample fNumber Q u e s t i o n Code What p l a c e s ,do you f r e q u e n t l y v i s i t when you go out i n t h e evenin g f o r e n t e r t a i n -ment, f o r example, movies, s p o r t s e v e n t s , c o n c e r t s and so on? 8 33.33 1 P a r k s , o t h e r than l o c a l 2 8.33 2 L o c a l parks 14 58.33 3 Other p l a c e s What p l a c e s do you r e g u l a r l y go to o t h e r than e n t e r t a i n m e n t and sh o p p i n g , f o r example, v i s i t i n g , work, b u s i n e s s t r i p s w i t h i n the c i t y , and so on? 1 4.17 0 No response 3 12.50 1 P a r k s , o t h e r than l o c a l 20 83.33 2 Other p l a c e s What p l a c e s do you v i s i t f r e q u e n t l y or on s p e c i a l o c c a s i o n s , or o n l y at c e r t a i n t imes of the y e a r ? 4 16.67 0 Response 12 50.00 1 P a r k s , o t h e r than l o c a l 8 33.33 2 Other p l a c e s What k i n d s of t h i n g s do you l i k e to do  t h a t don't c o s t a n y t h i n g ? 11 45.83 1 Other 8 33.33 . 2 Wa l k i n g 3 12.50 3 Nature s t u d y 1 4.17 4 F i s h i n g 1 .4.17 5 Swimming What k i n d s of t h i n g s do you l i k e to do t h a t do c o s t something? 22 91.67 . 1 Other 2 8.33 2 , F i s h i n g Go to the Park 4 16.67 0 Don't 20 83.33 1 Do Go to the Beach 6 25.00 0 Don't 18 75.00 1 Do Sample f % Q u e s t i o n Code 5.58 How much was the income of the household  i n which you l i v e d i n I960? 2 8.33 0 No response 4 4.17 1 Don't know 1 4.17 2 $1,000-1,999 2 8.33 3 3,000-3,999 6 35.00 4 4,000-4,999 3 12.50 5 5,000-5,999 4 16.67 6 6,000-6,999 2 8.33 7 7,000 and over 5.59 APPENDIX G SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ACTIVITY SURVEY . BIVARlATE TABLES IN PERCENTAGES REGULAR VISITS No Park Response Not L o c a l Not Park No response - - 4.17 4.17 Age 25-44 y e a r s 4.17 4.17 20.83 29.17 45-65 y e a r s - 8.33 58.33 66.67 4.17 12.50 83.33 100.00 INFREQUENT VISITS No Park Response Not L o c a l Not Park No response 4.17 - - 4.17 Age 25-44 years 4.17. 16.67 8.33 29.17 45-64 y e a r s 8.33 33.33 25.00 66.67 16.67 58.00 33.33 100.00 INCOME 1960 N.R. or 1,000- 3,000- 4,000- 5,000- 6,000- 7,000 D.K. 1,999 3,999 4,999 5,999 6,99 9 + No Response 4.17 - - . - ' - - 4.17 Regular P a r k o t h e r V l s i t s than l o c a l - - - - - 4.17 8.33 12.50 Not Parks 20.84 4.17 8.33 25.00 12.50 12.50 - 83.33 25.01 4.17 8.33 25.00 12.50 16.67 8.33 100.00 5.60 ACTIVITIES THAT DON'T COST ANYTHING Nature Other W a l k i n g Study F i s h i n g Swimming No Response - ~ 4.17 - 4,17 Ag e '. 25-44 y e a r s 16,67 12.50 - - - 29.17 45-64 y e a r s 29.17 16.67 12.58 4.17 4,17 66,67 45.83 33.33 12.58 4.17 4.17 100.00 5. 61 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Abrams, C. The C i t y i s the F r o n t i e r , , New Y o r k : Harper & Row, 1965o A l o n s o , W i l l i a m , " C i t i e s and C i t y P l a n n e r s " i n Taming Megalopolis„ V o l , I I , H, Wentworth E l d r e d g e ( e d a ) New Y o r k | Washington and London: F r e d e r i c k A, P r a e g e r , 1967. Anderson, N, Dimensions of Work, New Y o r k : D a v i d McKay C., 1964, B e s h e r s , J.„M0 Urban S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e , New Y o r k : Free P r e s s of G l e n c o e , 1962, B r i g h t b i l l , C h a r l e s K. The C h a l l e n g e of L e i s u r e , Englewood C l i f f s , N.H.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l - I n c . , 1960, Buckingham, W a l t e r . A u t o m a t i o n : I t s Impact on B u s i n e s s and P e o p l e , New Y o r k : The New American L i b r a r y , 1961, B u c k l e y , W, S o c i o l o g y & Modern Systems Theory. Englewood C l i f f s , N o J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l I n c . , 1967. Chermayeff, Serge and A l e x a n d e r , C h r i s t o p h e r . Community and P r i v a c y , New Y o r k : Doubleday, 1963, Clawson, M a r i o n , Land and Water f o r R e c r e a t i o n : O p p o r t u n i t i e s , Problems and P o l i c i e s , (Resources f o r the F u t u r e P o l i c y Background S e r i e s ) , C h i c a g o : Rand M c N a l l y , 1963. , and K n e t s c h , J a c k , Economics of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1966. , H e l d , B u r n e t t and S t o d d a r d , C h a r l e s . Land f o r the F u t u r e . B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1960. C l i n a r d , M.B. " C o n t r i b u t i o n s of S o c i o l o g y to U n d e r s t a n d i n g D e v i a n t B e h a v i o r " i n Contemporary S o c i a l Problems. Merton & N i s b e t ( e d , ) . New Y o r k : H a r c o u r t , Brace & World I n c . , 1961, C r o s b y , Theo, A r c h i t e c t u r e : C i t y Sense, London: S t u d i o V i s t a , 1965. de G r a z i a , S e b a s t i a n . Of Time, Work and L e i s u r e . New York: T w e n t i e t h C e n t u r y Fund, 1962, D o x i a d i s , C o n s t a n t i n o s A. D y n a p o l i s : The C i t y of the F u t u r e . A t h e n s : D o x i a d i s A s s o c i a t e s , I960. 5.62 F i r e y , W. Man, Mind and Land: A Theory of Resource Use. I l l i n o i s : Free P r e s s of G l e n c o e , I960,, Gottmann, Jean. Megalopolis„ Cambridge: The M.I.T. P r e s s , 1961. Gruen, V i c t o r . The H e a r t of Our C i t i e s . New.York: Simon and S c h u s t e r , 1964. H a l l , Edward. The Hidden D i m e n s i o n . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1966. H a l l , P e t e r . The World C i t i e s . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1967. Hig.bee, Edward. The Squeeze: C i t i e s W i t h o u t Space. New Y o r k : W i l l i a m Morrow & Co., I960. H i l b e r s e i m e r , L„ The Nature of C i t i e s . C h i c a g o : P a u l Theobald & Co., 1955. Lederman, A l f r e d and T r a c h s e l , A l f r e d . P l a y g r o u n d s and . R e c r e a t i o n Spaces, t r a n s , by Er.ns t , P r i e f er t „ London: The A r c h i t e c t u r a l P r e s s , 1960. Madow, P a u l i n e (ed.) R e c r e a t i o n i n A m e r i c a . The R e f e r e n c e S h e l f , V o l . 37, New Y o r k : H.W. W i l s o n Co., 1965. M e i e r , R.L. M e g a l o p o l i s F o r m a t i o n i n the Midwest. Ann A r b o r : U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , 1965. M i l l e r , Norman and R o b i n s o n , Duane. The L e i s u r e Age. Belmont, C a l i f o r n i a : Wadsworth P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1963. Owen, W i l f r e d . The M e t r o p o l i t a n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Problem. New Y o r k : Doubleday & Co,, 1966. R e i n e r , Thomas A. "The P l a n n e r as'Value T e c h n i c i a n : Two Classes of U t o p i a n C o n s t r u c t s and T h e i r Impacts on P l a n n i n g " i n Taming M e g a l o p o l i s , V o l . I . H. Wentworth E l d r i d g e ( e d . ) New Y o r k ; Washington and London: F r e d e r i c k A. P r a e g e r , 1967. R i c h a r d s , B r i a n . New Movement i n C i t i e s . London: S t u d i o V i s t a and New YorTi: ReinhoTcTTublTsTYing Corp., 1966. R i t t e r , P a u l . P l a n n i n g f o r Man and Motor. New Y'ork: Pergamon P r e s s I n c . , 1964. S e l y e , Hans. The S t r e s s of L i f e . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1965. S m i g e l , E r i v i n 0. (ed.) Work £ L e i s u r e : A Contemporary S o c i a l Problem. New Haven: C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963. S p r e i r e g e n , P a u l D. The A r c h i t e c t u r e of Towns and C i t i e s . New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l , 1965. Taeuber, K.E'. and Taeuber A.F. Negroes i n C i t i e s . C h i c a g o : A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1965. 5.63 T a n k e l , S t a n l e y B, "The Importance of Open Space i n the Urban P a t t e r n " i n C i t i e s and Space. Resources f o r the F u t u r e I n c . , . B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1963. T a t l o w , John and Goss, Anthony. Homes. Towns and T r a f f i c . London. Faber & F a b e r , 1965, T a y l o r , L o r d and Chave, Sydney. M e n t a l H e a l t h and Environment. London. Longmans Green, 1964. Thompson, W.R. A P r e f a c e to Urban Economics. B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1965. Tunnard, C h r i s t o p h e r and P u s h k a r e v , B o r i s . Man-Made Americas Chaos or C o n t r o l ? New Haven": Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1963. Tupper, Margo. No P l a c e to P l a y . New Y o r k : C h i l t o n , 1966. Vernon, R 0 M e t r o p o l i s 1985 a Cambridge: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , I960. Webber, M.M. e t . a l a ( e d s . ) E x p l o r a t i o n s i n t o Urban S t r u c t u r e . P h i l a d e l p h i a : U n i v e r s i t y of P e n n s y l v a n i a P r e s s , 1964. Wingo, Lowdon, J r . "Urban Space i n a P o l i c y P e r s p e c t i v e : An I n t r o d u c t i o n " i n C i t i e s and Space. B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1963. W u r s t e r , C a t h e r i n e Bauer. "The Form and S t r u c t u r e of the F u t u r e Urban Complex" i n C i t i e s and Space, Lowdon Wingo (ed„). B a l t i m o r e : The Johns Hopkins P r e s s , 1966. Zisman, S.B. "Open Space i n Urban Growth" i n Taming M e g a l o p o l i s V o l . 1, H. Wentworth E l d r i d g e ( e d 0 ) . New Y o r k : F r e d e r i c k A. P r a e g e r by arrangement w i t h Doubleday & Co. I n c . , 1967. 5,64 P u b l i c a t i o n s of Government, Learned S o c i e t i e s and Other  Org a n i z a t i o n s A merican A s s o c a t i o n f o r H e a l t h , P h y s i c a l E d u c a t i o n and R e c r e a t i o n D i v i s i o n , Commission on Goals f o r American R e c r e a t i o n . Goals f o r American R e c r e a t i o n . New York: 1964. . "The C o n t r i b u t i o n s of P h y s i c a l A c t i v i t y to Human W e l l - b e i n g " R e s e a r c h Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 3 1 , No.2 P a r t I I . May, 1960. B e l l , L . I . An Overview f o r S o c i a l P l a n n e r s . Community Chest and C o u n c i l of the G r e a t e r Vancouver A r e a , 1965. Census of Canada. B u l l e t i n CT-22 f o r Vancouver, B u l l e t i n CT-4 f o r M o n t r e a l . Ottawa: Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , 1961. C i v i c T r u s t . A Lea V a l l e y R e g i o n a l P a r k : An Essay i n the Use of N e g l e c t e d Land f o r R e c r e a t i o n and L e i s u r e . London: J u l y , 1964. Clawson, M a r i o n . Dynamics of Park Demand. Pa r k , R e c r e a t i o n and Open Space P r o j e c t of the T r i - S t a t e , New York M e t r o p o l i t a n R e g i o n , 1960, No.94. . How Much L e i s u r e Now and In the Future„ Resources f o r the F u t u r e I n c . , R e p r i n t No.45, May, 1964. Eckbo, G a r r e t t . "Nature and the U r b a n - M e t r o p o l i t a n Region."'' I n t e r n a t i o n a l Seminar on E k i s t i c s , A t h e n s : J u l y 14, 1966. Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada. Toward a S u s t a i n e d and B a l a n c e d Economic Growth: 2nd Annual Review. Ottawa: Queen - 1 s P r i n t e r , 1965. E n g l a n d , M i n i s t r y of Housing and L o c a l Government. Northampton B e d f o r d and Bucks S t u d y . London: Her M a j e s t 7 ^ S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , 1965. G l i k s o n , A r t h u r . " R e c r e a t i o n a l Land Use", Man's Role i n Changing the Face of the E a r t h . W.L. Thomas (ed.) C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o P r e s s , 1956. G r e a t e r London C o u n c i l . Surveys of the Use of Open Space  1964. P l a n n i n g Department, V o l . I . August, 1967. Los Angeles Department of C i t y P l a n n i n g , "'Major I s s u e s f o r Lose A n g e l e s , " May 2, 1966. . Concepts f o r Los A n g e l e s . Summary Pamphlet, September, 1967. 5.65 Lower M a i n l a n d R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g Board,, P l a n f o r the Lower M a i n l a n d Region, May, 1966. Mayhew, B a r r y W. S e r v i c e s of A R e g i o n a l Parks New W e s t m i n i s t e r A R e g i o n a l A t l a s of Vancouver. U n i t e d the G r e a t e r Vancouver A r e a . 1967. N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n . Free Time: A C h a l l e n g e to Free Men. A c o l l e c t i o n of s e l e c t e d papers p r e s e n t e d at the 44th N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n C o n g r e s s , P h i l a d e l p h i a , P a . s 1962. New Y o r k : 1962. " P r o c e e d i n g s of the I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on A u t o m a t i o n , F u l l Employment and B a l a n c e d Economy. Rome, I t a l y : B r i t i s h and American F o u n d a t i o n s of A u t o m a t i o n and Employment, 1967, R i c e , A.R. Case P o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r F a s t S u r f a c e T r a n s p o r t , The f o r F a s t R a i l S e r v i c e , P l a n n i n g 1966, papers from the A.S.P.O. P h i l a d e l p h i a , P a . , A p r i l N a t i o n a l P l a n n i n g 17-21, 1966. S e l e c t e d C o n f e r e n c e P r o f i l e U n i t e d Community S e r v i c e s of M e t r o p o l i t a n B o s t o n . f o r Planning_:j_An Approach to Measuring the Need f o r L e i s u r e Time S e r v i c e s i n M e t r o p o l i t a n B o s t o n . Boston 1962. U n i t e d S t a t e s Department of Housing and Urban Development. Open Space f o r A m e r i c a . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1965. _. Department of the I n t e r i o r , Bureau of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n . Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Space S t a n d a r d s . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , A p r i l , 1967. N a t i o n a l C a p i t a l R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g C o u n c i l . The R e g i o n a l Development Guide 1966-2000. Washington, D.C, June, 1966. . Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission. Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n f o r A m e r i c a : A Report to the Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n Resources Review Commission. No„l-27 Washington, 1962. D.C U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n f o r A m e r i c a : A R e p o r t P r e s i d e n t and the C o n g r e s s . Washington, D Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , J a n u a r y , 1962, to the U.S. P r e s i d e n t ' s C o u n c i l on Youth F i t n e s s . P h y s i c a l F i t n e s s Elements i n R e c r e a t i o n . U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington, D.C, O c t o b e r , 1962. 5.66 Vancouver Board of Parks and P u b l i c . R e c r e a t i o n . Annual R e p o r t s 1956 to 1967. V i l l e de M o n t r e a l . Amenagement Pes P a r e s . S e r v i c e Des Travaux P u b l i c s , D i v i s i o n T e c h n i q u e , 1966. Voorh e e s , A l a n M. and A s s o c i a t e s I n c . A Model Framework f o r R e c r e a t i o n P l a n n i n g i n C o n n e c t i c u t : Summary R e p o r t . P r e p a r e d f o r t h e C o n n e c t i c u t I n t e r r e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g Program, O c t o b e r , 1966. W a l l a c e , Mcharg, R o b e r t s and Todd, Toward aComprehensive Landscape P l a n f o r Washington, D.C. A Rep o r t p r e p a r e d f o r the N a t i o n a l C a p i t a l P l a n n i n g Commission, U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1967. W o l f , A.'R. "Elements of a F u t u r e I n t e g r a t e d Highway Concept". P r e s e n t e d at the T r a n s p o r t a t i o n R e s e a r c h Seminar. Washington, D.C.; U.S. Department of Commerce, March, 1965. 5.67 A r t i c l e s and P e r i o d i c a l s Anger R. and M. Heymann, "Urbanisme V o l u m e t r i q u e " . L ' A r c h i t e c t u r e d ' A u j o u r d ' h u i No. 132 J u n e - J u l y , 1967 0 B e r t a l a u f f y , L.V. " G e n e r a l Systems Theory: A C r i t i c a l Review" G e n e r a l Systems. V o l . 7 , 1962. "The C i t y : Outdoor Rooms". Time, June 3, 1966. Buchanan, C o l i n and P a r t n e r s . "South Hampshire S t u d y " , E k i s t i c s , V o l . 23, No.139. June, 1967. C l a r k e , A.C. "The Use of L e i s u r e and I t s R e l a t i o n to L e v e l s of O c c u p a t i o n a l P r e s t i g e . " American S o c i o -l o g i c a l Review. v o l . X X I , June, 1956. Clawson, M a r i o n . "A P o s i t i v e Approach to Open Space P r e s e r v a t i o n " i n V o l . 28, A.I.P. J o u r n a l , May, 1962. D a i u t e , R o b e r t . "Methods f o r D e t e r m i n a t i o n of Demand f o r Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n " Land Economics, V o l . X L V I I I , No. 3, August, 1966. "Environment and Behaviour',' American B e h a v i o u r a l S c i e n t i s t , V o l . 10, No. 1, September, 1966. C u l l i n g w o t h , J.B. " P l a n n i n g f o r L e i s u r e , " Urban S t u d i e s . V o l . 1, No. 1, May, 1964. F o s t e r , John. "The R e c r e a t i o n a l Use of Water; Town and C o u n t r y P l a n n i n g , V o l . XXXIV, No. 6, June, 1966. Friedman, Georges. " L e i s u r e and T e c h n o l o g i c a l C i v i l i z a t i o n " UNESCO I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i a l S c i e n c e J o u r n a l . V o l . X I I , No. 41, 1960. "The F u t u r i s t s : L o o k i n g Toward A.D. 2000" , Time, V o l . 87 No. 8, F e b r u a r y 25, 1966. . G e r s o n , Wolfgang. " R e s i d e n t i a l E n v i r o n s i n the Urban A r e a " A r c h i t e c t u r e Canada, V o l . 44 No. I I , November, 1967. "Get a B i k e " American F o r e s t s , V o l . 71, No. 8, August, 1965. Hardwick'j W a l t e r The Vancouver Sun. J u l y , 8, 1967 Heron, Woodburn. " P a t h o l o g y of Boredom," S c i e n t i f i c A m e r i c a n , V o l . 196, No. 1, J a n u a r y , 1957. Holman, Mary. "A N a t i o n a l Time Budget f o r the Year 2000" S o c i o l o g y and S o c i a l R e s e a r c h , V o l . 46, O c t o b e r , 1961. 5.68 Kales,'R.W. and W o h l w i l l , J.R. (ed.) "Man's Response to the P h y s i c a l E n v i r o n m e n t " J o u r n a l of S o c i a l I s s u e s , V o l . X X I I , No. 41, O c t o b e r , 1966 L e w i s , P h i l i p H. " Q u a l i t y C o r r i d o r s f o r W i s c o n s i n , " Landscape A r c h i t e c t u r e . , V o l . 54, No. 2, J a n u a r y , 1964. Lynch K. and Rodwin L. "A Theory of Urban Form", J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s , Vo1. XXIV, No. 4, 1958. M a t t y a s o v s z k y , E. "Some P l a n n i n g A s p e c t s of Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n " P l a n Canada, V o l . 4, No. 3, 1963. Mayntz, Renate. " L e i s u r e , S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n and P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t y " UNESCO I n t e r n a t i o n a l S o c i a l S c i e n c e J o u r n a l , v o l . X I I , No. 4, 1960. M i l l e r , Derek. " L e i s u r e and the A d o l e s c e n t : New S o c i e t y , No. 193, June 9, 1966. Mumford, L e w i s . "The S o c i a l F u n c t i o n of Open Spaces" L ^ n ^ c a p ^ V o l . 10, No. 2. W i n t e r , 1960-61. S a f d i e , Moshe and B a r o t t , D a v i d . " H a b i t a t '67", A r c h i t e c t u r a l D e s i g n , March, 1967. Si m a r d , J a c q u e s . " L 1 a l i e n a t i o n dans l a C i t e " H a b i t a t , V o l . X No. 1. J a n u a r y - F e b r u a r y , 1967. Smart, C h a r l e s and C o l e , M.J. "Wanted -A B r i e f f o r Urban Open Space", J o u r n a l of the I n s t i t u t e of Landscape A r c h i t e c t s , B r i t a i n . No. 81, F e b r u a r y , 1968. "Toward the T h i r d M i l l e n i u m " P r o g r e s s i v e A r c h i t e c t u r e . No. 12, December, 1966. Webber, M. " T r a n s p o r t a t i o n P l a n n i n g Models'.', T r a f f i c Q u a r t e r l y , J u l y , 1961. Weaver, R o b e r t C. " R e c r e a t i o n Needs i n Urban A r e a s " , N a t i o n a l P a r k s Magazine, V o l . 41, No.243, Dec. 1967. "What K i n d of C i t i e s Do We Want" N a t i o n s C i t i e s , V o l . 5 , No.4 A p r i l , 1967. W i l l i a m s , N. " I n f l u e n c e of Automation on H e a l t h " , O c c u p a t i o n a l H e a l t h B u l l e t i n , V o l . 20,' No. 61, 1965. Wlngo, Lowdon. " R e c r e a t i o n and Urban Development: A P o l i c y P e r s p e c t i v e " The Annals of the American Academy of P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l S c i e n c e , V o l . 352, March, 1964. W o l f e , R . I . " P e r s p e c t i v e on Outdoor R e c r e a t i o n : A B i b l i o -g r a p h i c a l S u r v e y " The G e o g r a p h i c a l Review, V o l . L I V , No. 2, A p r i l , 1964. 5.69 Other Sources P e r s o n a l I n t e r v i e w w i t h Dr. W a l t e r Hardwick, Vancouver, B.C. A p r i l , 1967. P e r s o n a l I n t e r v i e w w i t h Dr. Edward Higbee, Vancouver, B.C. November, 1967. P e r s o n a l I n t e r v i e w w i t h P r o f e s s o r R„ I s a a c s , P r o f e s s o r of Graduate Studies at H a r v a r d ; Vancouver, B.C., J a n u a r y , 1968. P e r s o n a l I n t e r v i e w w i t h S.S, L e f e a u x , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t of Board of Parks and P u b l i c R e c r e a t i o n , Vancouver, F e b r u a r y 7, 1968. P e r s o n a l I n t e r v i e w w i t h A l a n -Voohrees of A l a n M. Voohrees & A s s o c i a t e s I n c . ; Vancouver, B.C., March 22, 1968. Landauer, E r n e s t , From h i s Seminars and R e s e a r c h i n t o Urban S o c i a l A r e a s , U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C olumbia, Vancouver, B.C., 1965 to 1968. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104272/manifest

Comment

Related Items