University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative
Exchange
Masters Theses
Graduate School
3-1975
The Provision of Inner-City Recreational Facilities:
A Look at Tennessee's Four Largest Cities
William L. Murrah
University of Tennessee - Knoxville
Recommended Citation
Murrah, William L., "The Provision of Inner-City Recreational Facilities: A Look at Tennessee's Four Largest Cities. " Master's Thesis,
University of Tennessee, 1975.
http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3047
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
To the Graduate Council:
I am submitting herewith a thesis written by William L. Murrah entitled "The Provision of Inner-City
Recreational Facilities: A Look at Tennessee's Four Largest Cities." I have examined the final electronic
copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science, with a major in Architecture.
Walter L. Shouse, Major Professor
We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance:
Robert L. Miles, Janice A. Spencer
Accepted for the Council:
Dixie L. Thompson
Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School
(Original signatures are on file with official student records.)
To the Graduat e Council:
I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Wi l liam L . Murrah
enti tied "Th e Provision of Inner-City Recreational Faci lities : A Look
at Tennessee ' s Four Largest Cities . " I recommend that it be accepted
in partial fu lfi l lment of the requirements for the degree of Mas ter of
Science in Pl anning.
Walter L . Shouse , Major Professor
We have read this thesis and
recommend its acceptance :
Accepted for the Council :
Vice Chanc el lor
Graduate Studies and Research
THE PROV I S I ON OF INNER-C I TY RE CREATI ONAL FAC I L I T I ES :
A LOOK AT TENNESSEE' S FOUR LARGEST C I T I ES
A Thes i s
Presented for the
Master of Science in P l anning
Degree
The Univers ity of Tennessee
Wi l l i am L. Murrah
March · 1 9 7 5
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author woul d like to thank Walter L . Shouse of the Graduat e
School of Pl anning for the guidance and encouragement he provided whi l e
serving as Advis or for this proj ect .
Appreciation is extended to the
Tennessee Department of Conservation for funding this proj ect , for
without their financial aid this proj ect would have been impos sible .
To Michae l P . Baums tark of the Department of Cons ervation , becaus e of
his ama zing patience , encouragement , and support , the author wishes to
express a special word of thanks .
The author is also indebted to his
mother for the aid and support she has given him not on ly on this proj ect ,
but throughout his whole educational experience .
And final l y , a word of
gratitude to Susan for all her unders tanding and patience during the
preparation of this proj ect .
ii
ABSTRACT
Recreational fac i l ities and ac tivities have an increas ing importance
in the way Americans l ive today .
Contrary to the·past , recreation can
no l onger be cons id ered a fril l or a l uxury .
Today recreat ion is
considered to b e an essential part o f man' s l i fe , an out l et for the
pursuit o f act ivities enj oyed durin g l eisure t ime.
The United States · is b ecoming more and more an urbaniz ed nation .
As more and more peop l e l i ve in metropo l itan areas , the demand for open
space and recreational fac i l ities wi l l increas e in these areas .
special interest is the inner-city are a .
Of
The peop l e l iving in inner­
city areas are oft en the poorer peop l e , the ones who cannot afford to
trave l great distances or pay much money to participate in recreational
activities .
However , becaus e of high l and values and ext ens ive deve lop­
ment , l and for pub l ic recreational fac i l ities and activi ties is often
l acking . in the inner- ci ty areas .
Al though once a rural stat e , Tennes see is now b ecoming more and
more an urb aniz ed s t ate.
The ques tion arises as to how Tennessee is
attacking the prob l em o f providing recreati onal faci l it ies in inner- city
areas .
This research . l ooks at Tennes see ' s four l arges t cities.
By
interviewing the pub l i c officials and citiz ens invo lved in recreation
and by inspecting the recreational s i tes , the res earcher has att empted
to identi fy the prob l ems connected with inner- city recreation and the
methods us ed to comb at these prob l ems .
Each area is then eva luated
according to five factors and comparisons among the areas are drawn .
iii
iv
At present , each of·Tenness ee' s four l argest cities is aware of the
special need for inner-c ity recreat i onal faci l it ies .
varies in the extent to which it is meet ing this need .
However , each area
To one degre e or
another , each area has certain prob l ems or inadequacies as s oci ated with
the provision of·inner-city recreat ional facil it ies.
By knowing what the
prob l ems are and where inadequacies · exist, planners can b et t er d irect
their efforts toward e l iminating these prob lems and supp lying the inner­
citi e s with the recreational faci l ities these areas need .
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I.
PAGE
INTRODUCT ION
1
What is Recreation? .
II.
1
Stat ement of the Prob l em
11
Purpose .
17
Definitions
20
Limitat ions and Assumptions
22
Methodo logy
24
Study area sel ection
24
Data col l ection .
25
Evaluation
28
CHATTANOOGA .
36
.
36
The Study Area
The Admini stration
.
.
. .
.
.
.
38
Perteived Prob lems
39
Inventory
41
Cost
41
Evaluation
44
Accessibi l i ty
44
Variety
47
Quality of maintenance
49
Effect ive use of land
51
Cos ts· . . . .
53
v
vi
PAGE
CHAPTER
III .
Summary .
53
KNOXV I LLE .
55
The Study Area
55
The Administration
58
Perceived Prob lems
59
Inventory
61
•
Cost
64
Evaluation
67
Acces sibi l i ty .
67
Variety
70
Quality of maint enance
.
73
.
Effective us e of l and
75
Costs . .
78
78
Summary .
IV.
80
MEMPHI S .
The Study Area
80
The Administration
82
.
Perceived Prob l ems
.
84
Inventory .
85
Cost
88
Evaluation
89
89
Acces sibi lity .
Variety . . . .
Quality of maintenance
.
. .
92
93
vii
CHAPTER
V.
PAGE
Effective use of land
95
Costs .
97
Summary .
97
99
NASHVILLE
99
The Study Area
The Administration
101
Perceived Problems
104
Inventory
lOS
Cost
107
Evaluation
1 09
Accessibility
Variety .
.
.
.
.
109
.
112
.
1 14
Quality of maintenance
Effective use of land
.
.
1 15
·,
1 18
Costs .
Summary
VI.
118
•
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
120
Accessibility .
120
Variety .
122
.
.
Quality of Maintenance
123
Effective Use of Land .
123
Costs .
124
.
Recommendations .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
126
viii
PAGE
CHAPTER
B I BLI OGRAPHY .
133
APPENDI X . .
1 39
Appendix A
.
.
.
140
14 2
Appendix B
Appendix C
.
·
.
VITA . . . . .
.
.
144
147
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
2-l.
Chattanooga Site Inventory
•
2-2.
Chattanooga�Accessibility
•
2-3.
Chattanooga---Quality of Maintenance
2-4.
Chattanooga---Effective Use of Land
3-1.
Knoxville Site Inventory
65
3-2.
Knoxville---Accessibility
68
3-3.
Knoxville---Quality of Maintenance
74
3-4.
Knoxville--- Effective Use of Land
4-1.
Memphis Site Inventory .
87
4-2.
Memphis---Accessibility
91
4-3.
Memphis---Quality of Maintenance
94
4-4.
Memphis---Effective Use of Land
96
5-1.
Nashville Site Inventory
S-2.
Nashville--Accessibility
S-3.
Nashville---Quality of Maintenance
S-4.
N ashville--- Effective Use of Land
6-1.
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
43
46
.
•
.
•
.
•
•
so
52
77
108
.
111
•
.
.
.
ix
.
.
115
•
117
121
LIST OF F I GURES
F I GURE
PAGE
2-1 .
Chattanooga Inner- City Area
37
2-2 .
Locat ion of-Chattanooga Inner-City Recreational Sites
42
3-1 .
Knoxvi l l e Inner-City Area
56
3-2.
Locat ion of Knoxvi l l e Inner-City Recreation S ites
63
4-1 .
Memphis Inner-City Area
81
4 -2 .
Locat ion of Memphis Inner-City Recreation Sites
5- 1 .
Nashvi l l e Inner-City Area
1 00
S-2 .
Locat ion of Nashvi l l e Inner-City Recreational S i tes
1 06
.
.
.
X
•
.
.
.
.
.
.
•
.
86
CHAPTER I
I NTRODUCTI ON
I.
W HAT I S RECREATI ON?
" Recreation" is a word that is ·O ften heard and used in America
today .
But what is recreation an d what does it include?
recreat i on connotes having fun or enj oying a pas time .
Usual ly
Recreation a l s o
mean s the various pas t imes o r divers ions-- the forms o r types of recre­
ation--thems e l ves .
Traditi onal l y , the purpose of recreation has b een to
refresh , or recreate , an individual after a hard day at work .
nature and the funct ions of recreation are changing .
But the
S ince automat ion
and modern industrial methods have b rought about the shorter workweek
and the shorter workday , there is more l e isure t ime for the maj ority of
people than there was a generation ago .
Therefore there i s more time
for recreat ion , which has b ecome increas ingly not j ust a means of
re freshment and rel axation at the end of the day , but a l s o an act ivity
to be exp l o re d , enj oyed, and even worked at for its own s ake .
Basi ca l l y , Ameri cans have three s ources of recreation from wh i ch
to choo se--pub l ic , voluntary , or private sources .
Pub l i c recreation i s
that recreation that i s provided b y governmental , tax- supported d epart­
ments , commis s ion , or boards that operate with in towns , cit ies , counties ,
states , or the country .
Idea l l y , programs provided b y such agencies
cover a wide range of activities , serving peop l e o f al l age groups , al l
socioeconomic c l as s e s , and al l recreat ional interest s.
1
Of special
2
importance is the fact that faci lities operated by such agencies are
open to the pub lic .
1
The vo luntary source of recre ation comes from vo luntary recreation
agencies .
Such recreation is supported primari ly by the vo luntary efforts
of nongovernmental groups or private citi zens repres enting a wide range
of social organizations and agencies .
The Boy and Girl Scouts , the
Young Men ' s (and Women ' s) Christian Association , and .the Four-H Club are
j ust a few exampl es of such organi zations .
Such agencies also cover a
wide range of recreational interest , but often put more emphasis on
outdoor activities such as camping and water oriented activities .
Generally, voluntary recreation agencies charge user fe es and/or member­
ship dues to cover the co sts of the s ervices they provide .
2
The private source of recreation comes from privat ely owned and
operated programs .
Such programs may provide recreation by offering
amus ement and entertainment to the public for a price , or by providing
recreation opportunities to privat e , dues -paying memb ers .
Various
example s of private re creation include golf, tennis , or yacht clubs;
ski centers; game pres erves; amusement parks; bowling centers; vacation
resorts; night clubs; and theaters .
Privat e recreat ion also covers a
wide range (perhaps the widest range) or recreational interest .
The one
important aspect of privat e recreation that separate s it from public and
1
Richard Kraus , Recreation Today: Program Planning and Leadership
(New York: Appleton-Century- Croft s , Meredith Corp . , 1 966) , p . 84 .
2
Ibid.
3
vo lunt ary recreat ion is the fact that private recreation i s provided for
the purpose of making a profit , not j ust providing a service .
Un l ike
pub l ic and vo luntary recreation agencies , the primary reason for privat e
.
3
.
recreat1on
1s to rnak e money .
Even within these three sources of recreat ion , the actual recreation
activities may tak e one of two forms --active or pass ive recreation .
Genera l ly , the term active recreat ion app lies to those activi ties that
cal l for actual physical part icipation .
Some examp l es of active recre-
ation are hiking , swimmin g , paint ing , and playing games .
In other words ,
active recreation is recreation in whi ch an individual direct ly part icipates in the act ivity .
On the other hand , the term passive recreation
applies to those act ivities in which an individual does not actual ly
participate , but rather watches or l i s t ens.
Pass ive recreat ion inc ludes
such-activities as going to the theater, listening to concerts , and b eing
a spectator at sport ing events .
Opportunities to part ic ipate in both
act ive and pas s ive recreation are avai l ab l e from al l three s ources of
recreation .
However , it must be recogni zed that even within the sources and
forms·stated above , the actual recreational needs and activities of
di fferent peop l e vary to a great extent .
Of prime importance is the
fact that wh at is recreat ion for one individual may not b e recreat ion
for another .
For examp le , al though both are participating in playing
the same game , the Little League basebal l player is part icipating in
3
Ib id. , p . 85 .
4
recreat ion , whi l e the professional bas eb a l l player is participating in
Recreation should be enj oyed .
work .
The part i cipant mus t receive some
s atisfaction from taking part in an activity.
Recreation must be
attractive and enj oyab l e if participants are to continue to participate .
In order for recreation to be fun , the participants should perceive the
recreat ional act ivities as enj oyable .
S ince what i s fun or enj oyab le can be di fferent things for different
peopl e , recreat ion its e l f , therefore , is ·a complex activity which , out
of ne cessity, should · cover a wide range.of interest .
The extent to which
recreational interest and needs differ is cl early shown by looking at the
general recreat ional needs and int erest of various age groups .
As a group , chi l dren--usual ly considered those persons from pres chool
age through age twe lve--are the peop l e most heavi ly served by recreat ion
departments .
The time a chi l d spends in p l ay serves a very important
ro l e in the growing up proces s for chi l dren .
Recreational experiences
not on ly aid a chi l d ' s phys ical growth and deve lopment , but a l s o provide
a chi ld with opportunit ies for creative expres s ion , emot ional release ,
and soci�l iz at i on .
I n addition recreation al lows a chi ld to l e arn about
his environment , and offers him a chance to find out more about his own
capab i l ities .
Of special importance is the fact that it i s during one ' s
chi ldhood recreational · experiences that an individual often learns a
variety of ski l l s that wi l l s erve h im in l ater years as recreational
interest s .
Recreation , as Richard Kraus has stated, i s "one o f the mos t
compe l l ing drives i n a chi ld ' s l i fe . "
4
Ibid . , p . 270.
4
5
For the above reasons , it is import ant that chi l dhood should be a
t ime for expo sure to a wide range of diverse recreat ional interests .
Childhood recre ational act ivities should include phys ical activities ,
such as games, sports; and dancing; outdoor and nature act ivities , such
as camping and hiking; creative pastimes , such as arts and crafts ;
individual · hobbies , and club or group as sociations .
The center of focus
for such chi ldhood act ivities shoul d , ideal ly, be on the neighborhood
leve l , i . e. , neighborhood parks .
5
Teenagers , or those pers ons from thirteen to ninet een years of age ,
seek recreat ional activit ies in order to break away from organi zed and
regiment al dai ly educational and social pressures .
In many ways s imi lar
to the relationship between an adult and his work , the teenager needs
refreshment from the daily pressures created by the educational system .
I n addit ion , the teenager needs some avenue t o exert energy and to
re l ieve the social pres sure of no longer being a chi l d , but not being an
I t i s in this age group that properly supervised avenues for
adul t .
releasing energy are especial ly import ant .
A properly supervised
recreation program can go a long way in helping reduce juveni le de l inquency .
Most teenagers seek adventure , compet ition , and a fee l ing of
belonging .
A properly supervised recreation program can help provide
teenagers with· an acceptab le out l et for obtaining these des ires .
5
6
Ib id . , p . 211 .
6
H. Doug l as s Sessoms and Thomas G . Stein , Recreati on and Special
Populations ( Boston : Holbrook Pres s , Inc . , 1973) , p . 36 4.
6
Teenage recreational act ivities should include organi z ed sports
l e agues , such as footbal l , softb al l , and basketbal l ; dances ; cul tural
activities , such as plays and mus ic lessons ; sports ins truction , such as
t enni s and swimming l es sons ; individual games , such as tennis and pool ;
and outings and outdoor activities , such as retreats and picnicking .
In
general , teenagers needs and act ivi ties center more around organi zed
activities and group s ocial i zation.
Club type organizations and teams
play a big ro l e in recreation activities.
The center of focus for teen­
age act ivi ties i s usual ly a neighborhood or community indoor fac i l ity .
I t is the teenager who makes havy use of re creation cent ers.
7
Adul ts need recreation in order to have a break from their dai ly
work .
When considering adult recreation , it must b e rememb ered that
adult recreat ion does not represent only trivial pursui ts , but it may
al so involve an intensive and continuing learning experience .
Adul ts ,
too , are serious about their need for recreation .
Younger adu l ts or general l y those persons in the ir twenties and
early thirties , are s t i l l very active and therefore s eek a wide range
of recreational activi t i es .
group activities .
People of this age bracket most often enj oy
Sports instruct ion , such as tenni s , go l f , and skin
diving lessons ; outings and trips , such as camping , picnicking , and
skiing ; spect ator sport s , such as col l ege and profess ional basketbal l ,
basebal l , and footbal l ; organiz ed team and individual sport s , such as
softbal l , footbal l , basketba l l , tennis , and contract bridge ; and club
7
Kraus , .Recreation Today, pp . 2 73-4 .
7
and social activities are examples of the recreat ional experi ences most
sought after by young adul ts .
Although people·in this age bracket often
resort to private forms of recreat ion , the other sources of recreat ion ,
especial ly the pub l i c , should make every effort not to s l ight the needs
of young adul ts .
8
As adults grow ol der their recreational needs and int erests change .
Adults with fami l ies have
a
greater need for fami l y oriented recreational
activities th at the whole family can part icipat e in and enj oy .
Organi z ed
sport s with·father- s on or mother-daughter teams are prime examples of the
types of fami ly recreat ion needed .
Other fami l y orient ed activities that
could be included are fami ly evenings , . arts and crafts , picnics , outings ,
theater or music programs , spectator events , hobby night s , and cultural
events .
Private recreation oft en p l ays an important ro l e in providing
family recreation; however , fami ly recreat ion needs are real , and pub l i c
and volunt ary recreation agencies should play a ro l e in helping to meet
9
.
th e nee ds an d 1nterests
o f th"1 s group .
To the middle-age adult , recreation should be more than j ust a
pleasant and enj oyab l e break from his dai ly work .
I deal ly , recreat ion ,
through phys ical conditioning , should help the health of an adul t , and
prepare an individual for ret irement .
10
Middl e - age adults need to
part icipate in phys ical type activities adapted for the ir age group; .
Midd le-age recreational act iv ities shoul d include such activities as
8
rbid . , pp . 2 7 5 - 6 .
10
sessons and Stein , p . 381 .
9
rb id . , p . 279 .
8
formal cal isthenics , b icyc l ing, walking , gardening� hunt ing , fishing ,
swimming , bow l ing , gol f , tennis , arts · and crafts , and various club and
social act ivities .
Such activiti es as cultural events , outings,
spectator events , and organi zed sports leagues are s t i l l of interest to
the midd le-age group ; howeve r , it is also during midd le-age that individual s must begin to adapt · to the ·kinds of act ivities that they wi l l
participat e in during their older years .
For this reason , middle-age
people have a recreat ional need to be introduced to various sport s , such
as shuffle board and hors eshoe s ; hobb ies ; service interest ; and di fferent
forms of passive recreation .
So , in addition to the physical and social
act ivities , recreat ion for this age bracket must also cover a range of
creat ive and aes thetic hobbies and service interes t .
Unfortunately, al l
too oft en thi s age bracket is denied the needed fac i l ities and programs
. favor o f youth or1en
. t e d fac1'1'1t1es
.
1n
an d programs .
11
The elderly, or those persons s ixty- five years of age and older ,
need recreat ion j us t as much or more than any other age group .
General ly,
it is the e lderl y , ret ired person who has the greatest amount of l eisure
time .
Indeed , for some elderly individual s , nearly the ir entire existence
is dedicated to l eisure .
Unfortunate ly, the puritan ethic under which
many of these persons were raised often mak es them regard l i fe without
work as meaningless and empty .
Th e elderly person is looking for recog­
nition, status , prestige , s e l f-expression , and friendship .
12
Whereas an
individual once found such things through their work , an e l derly person
11
Ibid.
12
Ibid . , p . 384 .
9
mus t now l ook to achieve these des ires by other avenues .
Recreation
programs for this age group can provide-a chance for the el derly to
real i z e thes e des ires .
Since an e l derly person needs to feel that what they are doing is
meaningful , e l derly recreational·activities mus t be shown to be more
than jus t fun , chi ld- l ike games or pastimes.
To accomp l ish thi s the
e l derly should be shown that go l f , for exampl e ,
can have therapeut ic
overtones ; or that bridge may sharpen the wits and provide additional
social contacts ; or that rol l ing bandages can provide a s ervice for
others ; or that s e l l ing hobby crafts can provide an individual with
recognit ion and pres t i ge .
Recreat ional act ivities for the e l derly
should inc lude such activities as sports , such as go l f , shuffl e board ,
and hors eshoes ; outings ; arts and crafts ; dancing ; tour programs ; cul­
tural activities ; card playing ; reading; watching t e l evision ; and s el f­
help activit ies , such.as the volunteer programs o f Foster Grandparents ,
Head Start and Friendly Vi s itors .
In meet ing the recreat i onal needs
and interests of the elderl y, indoor recreation centers are needed to
serve as the focus for e l derly recreation programs .
13
The above i s intended not only to give the reader some ins ight
into the recreational needs and interests of di fferent segments o f the
popul at ion, but also to emphas i z e what a di ffering and complex item
recreation actually is .
Recreation is both an end in its e l f and a means
to other social ly desirab l e ends .
13
Ibid. , pp . 3 85- 404 .
Recreation may be totally different
10
for di fferent people · in not on ly different age groups , but also di fferent
occupat ions , di fferent social groupings , and even different areas within
the s ame city .
Because of its complex nature , it is.often hard to
In view of thi s , the
det ermine what recreation should actual ly provide .
fol lowing quotation from an Urban Inst itute pub l icat ion concerning
recreation is · given as a good general statement of the new purpose of
recreat ion :
Recreation s ervices should provide for al l citi zens , to the
extent practicab l e , a variety of adequate year- round lei sure
opportunities which are accessib l e, safe , phys ical ly attrac­
tive , and provide enj oyab le experiences . They shoul d , to the
maximum extent , contribute to the ment al and phys ical health
o f the community, to its economic and social we l l being and
permit outl ets that wi l l help decrease incident s of ant isocial
b ehavi or such as crime and de l inquency . l4
Al though i t would prob ab ly b e agreed that the above recreational
obj ect ives are indeed sound , it is the s ad fact that al l too often such
s ervi ces are not provided equa l l y to "al l citi zens . "
Sometimes the more
affluent areas of citi e s , using the knowledge of how to arti culate their
own needs , employ their pol it ical influence to achieve thes e needs ,
resul t ing in the more affluent areas having a preponderance of recre ational faci lities .
And while there is a growing recognition that people
are unequal in their need for pub l i c supported recreat i onal servi ces ,
often nothing i s done to a l l eviate this prob l em .
Support ing this E l inor
Guggenheimer has stated :
14
Harry P. Hartry and Diana R . Dunn , Measuring the E ffecti venes s of
Local Government Services : Recreat ion (Washington , D . C . : The Urb an
Institut e , 1 9 7 1 ) , p . 1 3 .
11
There has ·been relatively l ittle effort on the part o f city
planners to lay out an orderly array of faci l ities , both
indoor and outdoor , to serve the needs of a l l the various
nei ghborhoods and commUnities in cit ies . As a result , the
devel opment of community centers , pl aygrounds , and parks has
not borne any dis cernib l e rel ation to population dens i ties ,
age factors or neighborhood taste and preferences . l S
Overcoming thi s and providing "al l citizens" with adequate recreation ,
whatever forms may b e needed, .is the prob l em around which this research
is cent ered .
II.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Tradi tional ly, Americans have had a great love for the country ' s
vast open spaces and its p l aces of natural beauty .
Because of this love
and America's wi ldernes s beginnings , the United States has developed a
vast sys tem of parks and recreational fac i l ities .
Many Americans
probab ly feel that the United States has the fines t parks in the world .
I t mus t be acknowl edged that American does have some spl endid parks
scattered throughout the country , but are such parks real ly meeting the
needs of the American pub l i c ?
Large nat ional parks , unfortunate l y , do
very l ittle for the city chi l d who is mi les away from the neares t recreational opportunity.
This is not to downgrade the neces sity and us eful-
.ness of America ' s national and state park s ; however, Ameri ca's cities
need recreational faci l ities, and unfortunately, often such fac i l ities
are severe ly l acking .
15
E linor C . Guggenheimer , P l anning for Parks and Re creation Needs
in Urban Areas (New York : Twayne Pub l i shers , Inc . , 1969) , p . 56 .
12
The s ad fact i s that only one city in a hundred has �nough
pl aygrounds , .pub l ic athletic fie lds , parks , and picnicking
areas to meet its needs right now . And none of them has
enough to fi l l the great ly incre ased needs of tomorrow .
16
Those needs are going.to be terrifi c . .
Magni fying the prob lem has been the past att i tudes of Americans
toward the provision of recreational fac i l ities in and around cities .
I n the early stages ; America ' s municipal parks and recreat ional fac i l i t ies were mode led after Europe ' s great parks .
In 185 3 , Central Park was
estab l ished in New York as America ' s first , great municipal park dedicated
to recreat ion .
Overcoming early opposition , Central Park became a
tremendous succes s .
Central Park became the examp le of a large muni cipal
park and encouraged many other cities throughout the United States to
bui ld s imi lar faci l i t ies .
From the Civi l War unt i l the early 1900 ' s ,
municipal parks were general ly great , formal , b eautiful greens that were
maintained to perfect ion .
I n addition t o New York ' s Central Park ,
Chicago ' s Lake Shore Drive and the Boston Gardens are other prime
examples o f this "Victorian Period" in municipal parks .
17
With the depre s si on years came a new period of municipal park
deve lopment .
The depress ion actual ly helped recreation .
Economic
hardships reduced attendance at commercial recreation attract ions and
created some demand for pub l ic fac i l ities .
During the 1930 ' s through
16
charles K. Brightb i l l and Haro ld D. Meyer , Recre ation: Text and
Readings (New York: Prent ice-Hal l , Inc . , 1953) , p . 292 .
17
· Seymour Murray Gol d , A Concept for Outdoor Recreati on P l anning
in the Inner-City (Ann Arbor , Mi chigan: Univers ity of Michigan
D issert ation, 1969) , p . 36 .
13
the financing o f the Works Progres s Administration , many b as eb al l
diamonds , tracks , smal l parks , and l arge pl ayground faci l ities were
b ui l t in municipal areas thr oughout the Uni ted Stat es .
Howeve r , such
fac il ities were considered luxury items , and not a necessary pub l ic
service .
Througho ut this one hundred year period , the overriding theme o f
mun ic ipal parks remained " general ly formal , graceful , l ove ly , and
ornated . "
18
The p l ayground faci l it ies themselves remained re l atively
s imp l e , con s i s t ing b as i cal ly of open , grassy areas , and an occas ional
b aseb a l l diamond .
I n general , municipal recreation was st i l l not in
great deman d .
After W or l d W ar I I , the pub l ic demand for recreat ional faci l ities
increased ; howeve r , th i s increase was countered b y the pub l ic also
demanding more of other things .
Re l eased from wartime restrictions , the
pub l ic needed mi l l ions of new acres for sub divis ions , industrial s i tes ,
school s , ·highways , and airport s .
The resources avai l ab l e for recreation
diminished in the face of the demands for more of ever ything e l s e .
What
recreat ional faci l i t i es that were provided were usual ly l ocated in the
out lying fringe areas of the city where land was cheapest .
Recreation
was st i l l cons idered a fri l l-- a fri l l that society could not afford to
provide in inner- city areas .
Today , however , recr eat ion is no longer cons idered a fri l l .
Recreat ion is recogniz ed as a fundament al human need .
18J
As the wor l d
E . Curt i s , "W hat' s Ahead for Recreation , " Tennes s ee Town and
City Magaz ine , Tenness ee Muni cipal League ( J une , 1970), p . 17.
.
14
b ecomes more complex, the need for recreation becomes a l l the more
19
.
t an t. .
1mpor
Al though recreation is a univers al need , it is felt mo st
by the city resident who is cut off from nature and convenient opportunities for recreat ion .
Ri chard Kraus c learly states thi s prob l em in
the fol l owing :
Recreation and leisure t ime activities are no longer regarded
as luxury it ems in a person's budget . or his l ife . They are
recognized as ·essent ial to individual and community we l l -being ,
to be planned for and made avai lab l e to everyone irre spective
of their ab i lity to pay . That recreational needs are far
great er for those fami l ies l iving under crowded conditions in
substandard housing and with s cant financial res ources i s
general ly accepted . 20·
Poverty areas have for a long t ime been the neglected segment of
American cities .
I t was not unt i l the 1 9 60 ' s that recreat ion officials
began to noti ce the needs and interes t s of the urb an poor .
So important
is this recreati onal need that the 1967 Kerner Commis sion , from its 1 , 200
interviews conducted in maj or cities acro ss the United States , identified
the l ack of open space and recreat iona l fac i l it ies and programs as the
.
21
.
f'f
1 th mo st 1mport ant gr1evance
.
Pub l ic recreat ion shoul d provide · pl easure for a l l citizens , but
special recognit ion shoul d b e given to the hardships that face the
lower-income res idents of the inner-citi es .
Lower-income fami l i es
19
0utdoor Recreat ion Resources Review Commiss ion (ORRRC) , Outdoor
Recreation for America (Washington , D.C . : United States Government
Printing Office , 1962) , p . 1 .
20
Richard Kraus , Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society (New
York: Appl eton , Century , Crofts , Meredity Corp . , 1 9 7 1 ) , p. 39 .
21
simpson F . Lawson, Workshop on Urb an Open Space (Washington , D . C . :
Department of Housing and Urban Devel opment , 1969) , p . 40 .
15
typically have fewer resources o f their own that they can devote to
private recreat ion , and they therefore have a greater need for pub l i c
recreat ion services .
.
The style of l i fe in inner- city areas int ens ifies
the need for recreation .
The crowded conditions , the fast pace o f l ife ,
and the physical deterioration characteris tic of s uch areas serve to
make recreat ion al l that more important .
I t is in the inner- c i ty that
the need to have some place to escape the grim real ities of dai ly l i fe
i s the greatest .
Bad· hous ing , another characteri s t i c of such areas ,
forces peop l e to focus activities outs i de the home .
Fami l ies find it
difficult to have a social l i fe , and the young are often re luctant to
entertain friends at home becaus e o f poor conditions .
Thi s resul ts in
l eisure t ime b e ing spent in the s treet s , bars , or pub l ic fac i l i ties , i f
any are avai l ab l e· and inexpens ive .
The large number of retired and
unempl oyed inner- c ity residents also gives the area a l arger number of
people s eeking leisure-time recreat ional.facil ities .
The need for
recreational facil ities in such areas is even greater b ecause of the
l ack of transportat ion avail ab l e to these residents .
Many of thes e
res idents d o not have ready access to private vehic l es t o carry them
p l aces outside of the neighborhood , and thi s great ly limit e s their
recreational opportunities .
In add ition , inner- city parks are needed not only by the inner- city
res ident s , but also by the inner-city worker and shopper .
Inner-city
parks can provide workers and shoppers with pleasant p l aces to lunch ,
re l ax, and otherwise break the monotony of thei r busy days .
Such parks
can go a l ong way in he lping make the inner- c ity a more attractive and
enj oyab l e·pl ace to work or shop .
16
It is fairl y obvious that there i s a substant ial need for
recreat ional fac i l it ies in inner- city areas .
need is no easy task .
Unfortunat ely meeting this
It is in such inner- city areas that the competi-
tion for l and is often the sharpes t , resulting in extreme ly high l and
values .
Al l too often there is no l and avai l ab l e for recreat ional
deve lopment .
And what recreational facil ities that do exist may be
undeve l oped, or inadequat ely equipped or maint ained .
of parks is a maj or prob l em .
seem more important .
Local funding
Other s ervices , such as wat er and sewers ,
It should also be noted that the inner-city areas
are general l y the o l der areas of the·city .
Therefore , many of the
facil ities that do exist are old and dilapidated .
Looking ahead int o
the future , there seems to be l itt l e doubt that the provision of recre ational fac i l ities wi l l b ecome a more di fficult and comp l ex t as k .
The state of Tennessee , historical ly a rural stat e , wi l l not b e
without i t s prob l ems i n providing recreational facil ities i n inner-c ity
areas .
As of 1 9 70, 56. 4 percent of Tennessee ' s popul ation res ides in
the state ' s e l even mos t populous counties .
To further emphas i z e the
increas ing urbani zation of Tennes s e e , almost 50 perc ent of the stat e ' s
population now res ides in Tennessee ' s four largest metropo litan areas-Chattanooga , Knoxvi l l e , Memphis , and Nashvi l le-Davidson County .
22
The cities of Chattanooga , Knoxvi l l e , Memphis , and Nashvi l le , l ike
other l arge cities throughout the United States , are faced with providing
22s. S . Holder, J . D . Patton , B . A . Ittmann , Urb an Recreation
Pl anning and Programming in Tennessee : An Evaluat ion of the State ' s Ro l e
( Lexington , Kentucky : Spindletop Res earch, 1 9 7 1 ) , p . 4 .
17
recreation for the citizens res iding , working , and shopping in the
inner-city areas .
It is the res ident s o f the inner- city who have the
greatest need for pub l ic-supported recreation , whi l e i t i s i n the innerc ity that pub l i c o ffic ial s have o ften found it most difficul t and
expens ive to provide adequate recreat ional faci l ities and programs .
It
i s this di l emma and the prob l ems revo lving around i t t o wh ich this
res earch i s directed .
III .
PURPOSE
Recreat i on , as has al ready b een stated , is an e s s ential human need ,
and as such , it i s an ess ent ial governmental s ervi ce to provide recreational opportunities for al l cit izens , includ ing those citizens res iding
in the inner-city.
Communities must provide some sort of re l ief from the
tensions of urban l i fe , and such rel i ef should be provided within easy
reach of the citizens .
real need .
The nat ional , stat e , and county parks do fi l l a
But there are many peop l e who do not have the t ime or the
finances to visit these parks .
For thes e peop l e , in spite of rapid
transit and freeways , whatever recreation they enj oy shoul d come from
the immediate areas where most of them l ive .
Prob ab ly the most serious
prob lem facing recreat i on today is "the need to p l an effective ly to meet
the 1 e1sure an d open space nee ds ·1n
. Amer1ca ' s c1t
. 1es
.
. ,,
.
.
23
The state of Tennessee also recognizes this important need .
Accord-
ing to the Tennes see Statewide Comprehens ive Outdoor Recreat ion P l an ,
1 9 69 (SCORP) :
23
Kraus , Recreation and Le isure in Modern Society, p . 429 .
18
Th e need fo r urb an recreat ion opportunities mus t be cons idered
along with a l l other urban prob l ems . Th e suppo rters of urban
rec reat ion must remember that t remendous cost are involv ed·an d
they are in compet ition with other urban prob lems for l and and
labor. No longer can re creat ion be cons idered a low -cost
low-prio rit y item.2 4
Recreat ion is a part o f ne ighborhood l ife and a unit in the communit y
s t ruct ure .
It must be recogni z ed that rec reat ion can never operat e in a
ful ly independ ent way in the sph ere of social servi c e .
Inst ead , recre-
ation shou ld be an integral part o f a team effo rt wh ich provides a l l
needed servic e s .
A s such, recreat ion should be a p art . of a l l compre hen-
s ive commun ity p l ans .
What is the planner' s ro le i n this ?
What can be do ne to pro vide
a rec reat ional .l ife fo r the inner- c ity res ident ?
The p l anner must look
fo r new concept s and ideas for providing recreat ion .
The pro vis ion of
recreat ional fac il it ies mus t stop b eing a "hit - o r-miss" pro po s it ion,
done simply to meet acreage standards .
The planner needs to impro ve the
park system by o rgan izing it prope rly throug hout t he n ucl eus of t he city.
James Felt , the fo rme r chairman of the New York City P l an ning Commis s io n,
commented on the subj ect in the fo l l ow ing :
We are s aying no w fo r the firs t time i n New York City that
open space is not to be considered as a gauge here and a
not ch the re , depriving buil ders of a val uab l e floor space ,
but as a pos it ive aspect of struct ural deve lopment --a usable
commodity which over the long term can b ring much profit o r
mo re , than the floo r space i t replaces . 2 5
24
Tennes s ee St atewide Com rehens ive Outdoor Rec reat ion Plan (SCORP )
(Divis ion ofPl anning an d Devel opment , Tennessee Department o Conserva­
t ion, 1969 ) , p . 278 .
25
oRRRC , op . cit . , p . 75 .
19
The importance of planning was also recognized i n a report b y the Outdoor
Recreat ion Resources Review·Commiss ion presented to the · Pres ident and
the Congres s .
Recommendation 1 0 - 1 of the report states that "Outdoor
recreation should be an integral el ement in local land-use p l anning . "
26
The report recognizes that planning for pub lic recreation should be j us t
a s syst ematic a s p l anning for roads , water and s ewers , and s choo l s .
Further emphas i s to the·pl anner ' s rol e was added in Recommendation 1 0 - 5
that states "Al l pub l icly owned recreation land should
b e deve loped to
maximi ze its recreat ion potential yet maintain the quality characteristics
o f the area."
27
The planner should play a ro l e in s eeing that such
development is carried out .
Di fferent areas throughout the United States are attacking the
probl em of providing recreat ional fac i l ities in inner-city areas in
different ways.
Some cities are devel oping a system of vest -pocket
parks , or mini-parks, throughout the inner- city area .
Other cities are
s ending mob i l e recreational units into inner-city areas .
Whi l e these
are jus t two device s that can b e us ed, it gives some idea as to how some
areas are attack ing the prob lem .
started act ion.
Unfortunat ely, s ome cities have not
Recreation i s not an overal l panacea for city prob l ems ;
it is , however, one o f the too l s that can b e us ed to make city l i fe as
attractive as it should and can b e .
As such , recreat ion should be of
great concern to p l anners .
Very l it t l e reserach has b een done in Tennes s ee concerning the
provis ion of recreational fac i l ities in inner-city areas .
26
Ibid. , p . 1 4 7 .
27
Ibid . , p . 1 5 6 .
Since
20
Tennes s ee is becoming . more and more an urbani zed s t at e , there is a need
for res earch into this area.
This study has been conducted in conj unc­
tion with the Planning and Deve lopment Divis i on of the Tennes s ee Depart ­
ment o f Conservat i on .
Bas ical ly, the purpos e o f this s tudy i s three-fo ld.
Before a p l anner can adequately plan , he must b e we l l aware of the
prob lems and impediments he face s .
One purpos e o f this s tudy is to
determine exact ly what prob l ems are encountered in Tennes s ee in providing
recreat ional faci lities in inner-city areas .
C l early knowing what
prob lems exist l eads to more effi cient plans for providing-recreat ional
faci lities .
A s econd purpos e i s to ident ify the types of faci l ities and
programs that can and are being used to provide recreational opportunities
in inner- city areas .
This wil l give planners throughout the state ideas
on what devices can and are·being us ed to provide recreational opportuni­
ties in inner- city areas .
The third purpose is to examine the cos t o f
providing such fac i l i t ies and programs .
In summary , the purpose of this
study i s to determine , for a s e lected study area , the prob l ems encountered
with the provi s ion of inner- city recreat ional fac i l ities , what types of·
devices are b eing us ed to a l l eviate the prob l em, and the cost o f acquir­
ing , developing , operating , and maintaining such programs and fac i l ities .
This wi l l ultimately l ead to an eval uati on of the inner-city recreation
operat ions for the s e l ected study areas .
IV.
Recreation .
DEF I N I TIONS
As has already been stated , the term recreation has
different connotat ions for di fferent peop l e .
There is no one , al l
21
encompass ing meaning for recreation .
For the purposes o f thi s study ,
recreat ion wi l l mean publ ic recreat ion , or that recreation which is
" support ed i n whol e o r part b y tax funds o r government monies and whi ch
. 28
services and fac i l ities are open for pub l i c us e . "
Inner-City.
The term inner-city , much l ike the term recreation ,
has no one , cl early defined definit ion .
The definition of inner-city
for purposes of this s tudy w i l l be a modificat ion o f that area consisting
of the Central Business District (CBD) , as defined by the United States
Census Bureau, and the surrounding low-income areas , also as defined by
the Census Bureau.
The Census Bureau defines the CBD as :
(1) An area of very high l and valuat ion , an area characterized
by a high concentration of retai l bus inesses , .offices , theaters ,
hote l s , and " s ervice" bus inesses , and an area of h i gh traffic
flow; and ( 2 ) that is defined to fo l l ow existing tract l ines ,
i . e . , to cons ist o f one or more who l e census tract s . 29
The Census Bureau defines a low-income area as "an aggregate o f al l
census tracts in which 20 percent or more of all persons were below the
poverty l eve l in 1 9 69 . "
30
For purposes of this res e arch , the researcher has adapted the above
definitions to define inner-city as the CBD , as defined by the Census
Bureau, and the surrounding planning units in whi ch 20 percent or more
28
Brightb i l l , p . 5 1 .
29
Raymond E . Murphy, The American City (New York : McGraw-Hi l l , Inc . ,
1966) , p . 309 .
30
" Low- Income Neighborhoods in Large Cities : A Special Tabulation
from the 1970 Census , " Bureau of the Census for the Offi ce of E conomic
Opportunity (Washington , D,C . : U.S . Government Print ing Office , 1 9 7 3 ) ,
p . s.
22
of the populat ion i s b elow the poverty l eve l.
I n al l of the study areas ,
with the exception of Nashvi l l e , the p l anning units are aggregates of
For the res earch in . Nashvi l l e , the definition had
whol e census tract s .
to be adapt ed from planning units to Community Analysis Zones.
In
Nashvi l le , p l anning uni t s are neighborhood size units , comparab l e in
size to census tracts.· However, the planning uni t s do not fol low census
tract l ine s .
Community analys i s zones; comparab l e to the other study
areas' p l anning units , are aggregat es of Nashvi l l e ' s p l anning units .
Therefore , in Nashvi l l e , the inner- city i s defined as the CBD and the
surrounding community analys i s zones in which 20 percent or more of the
populat i on is below the poverty l evel .
I n conduct ing the reserach , the res earcher has noticed several
characteristics of inner-city areas that might further aid the reader in
understanding the t erm inner-city.
In general terms , inner-city areas
can be characterized as b eing o l d and crowded , with a high degree of
run-down hous ing , poverty , and racial concentrat ions .
V.
LIMITATIONS AND ASSUMPT IONS
Recreati on programs should , i dea l l y , be bui l t around the desires
and interests of the peop l e they s erve .
demands .
Thi s need to examine demand represents a maj or probl em in
recreation today .
plans .
Recreation mus t cater to pub l i c
Demand surveys are often l acking from recreational
In the past , al l too often recreat ional p l anners have equated
part icipant hours with demand .
U s ing such a procedure as the number of
participant hours for ranking demand (the more part icipant hours , the
·
23
greater the demand), however, does not necessarily truly reflect demand.
For instance, a facility may be often in use because it is the only
3
facility available, not because there is a demand fQr it. 1
In order to
clearly determine demand, one must examine.the desires for recreational
services among all the people of an area.
Unfortunately, such demand surveys are beyond the scope of this
thesis and therefore present a limitation to this research.
there are certain basic recreational needs.
However,
"Tot-lots" and picnicking
areas are needed to compensate for the lack of back yards in inner-city
areas.
Other basic inner-city needs, accordiRg to H. Douglas Sessoms,
are for indoor centers, multipurpose areas, and a variety of outdoor
recreational opportunities. Mr. Sessoms sees a trend toward more recre­
32
ational variety.
George Butler supports this when he stated, "In view
of the wide variation in individual taste and interest, a diversity of
activities must be provided ifthe program is to serve a large percentage
33
of the community."
It should be noted that providing a recreational
opportunity that has never before been experienced in an area, may create
a demand for that opportunity in that area.
Since it is beyond the scope of this reserach to conduct demand
surveys, and in view of the above information on general demands, it is
31
Jack L. Knetsch, "Assessing the Demand for Recreation," Journal
of Leisure Research, I, Number 1 (Winter, 1969), p. 86.
32
H. Douglas Sessoms, "New Bases for Recreation Planning," Journal
of the American Institute of Planners, XXX (February, 196 4), p. 31.
33
George D. Butler, Introduction to Community Recreation (New York:
McGraw-Hill Company, 1967), p. 264.
24
generally assumed that a wide variety of recreational opportunities is
needed.
It should be pointed out that Nashville has conducted a user­
nonuser survey to investigate citizen1attitudes towards Nashville's
recreational services. This survey, although not strictly a demand
survey, does give some indication of recreation preferences and will be
discussed in the chapter on Nashville.
A copy of the questions used in
conducting the survey is in the appendix of this work.
The time of year the research was conducted presents a second
limitation.
Since the reserach was conducted during the winter months,
it might be argued that the quality of maintenance of the outdoor
facilities was not at its best.
For example, the markings on a tennis
court may not be maintained as well in the winter as they would be in
the summer.
The reseracher does realize this and wishes to point it out.
However, each area.does claim to have year-round programs, and therefore
should have year-round maintenance.
The researcher also feels that the
evaluation system (to be discussed in the methodology section of this
chapter; see page 3 2) will help minimize this problem.
felt this limitation is a minor one and will
adverse affect
on
not
It is therefore
have a significant
this work.
VI.
METHODOLOGY
Study Area Selection
The inner-cities of Tennessee's four largest cities--Chattanooga,
Knoxville, Memphis, and Nashville--were 9elected as the study sites for
this research.
Since these four areas are Tennessee's largest cities,
25
they are more likely to be involved in and concerned about inner-city
recreation.
Also, the use of smal ler cities might not have revealed the
true problems of inner-citi es as inner-city is defined for thi s study .
The s election of these four citi es has presented the res earchers wi th a
geographi c cross s ection of Tennessee and has indi cated what is being
done throughout the state.
Also, by looking at four di fferent areas,
the res earcher has been able to determine with more accuracy what are
universal problems, and what are problems pecul iar to a specific area.
Data Collection
Primary data for this study has been collected bas icall y by two
methods .
First data was collected by personal intervi ews .
A question-
naire was developed as an interview guide to be used in these interviews
in order to insure that all interviewees were asked the same basic
questions.
(A copy of the questi onnaire i s in the Appendix, see page 1 40 . )
The personal interview technique was employed beca�se it allowed the
researcher more flexibility in gathering information than would a mai lout questionnaire.
Since the number of people interviewed is relatively
small, the personal interview technique did not present any signifi cant
probl ems .
I nitially, interviews were conducted with the directors of the
planning agency and parks department , or its equivalent, in each of the
34
four study areas .
At the end of these intervi ews, the res earcher
34
Nashville is an excepti on. Because of an extensive out-of-town
trip by the di rector, the res earcher was unabl e to interview R . H . Pas lay,
26
asked the director to recommend other memb ers of his staff for interviews .
At the conc lus i on of these intervi ews , the researcher asked for information concerning what other persons ( e . g . , recreat ion commi s s i oners , etc . )
have an input into the inner- city recreat ion· programs .
then conducted with thes e persons .
Interviews were
By conducting interviews with al l the
peop l e mentioned ab ove , the researcher was ab l e to ob tain informat ion
covering a rather b road viewpoint .
From the interviews , the researcher ob tained informat ion on the
prob l ems encountered in each area .
The interviews a l so yie lded informa-
tion concerning the study area , inc luding the populat ion of the area ;
the numb er , l ocat ion , and s iz e of the various recreat ional faci l ities in
the area; and the special programs , i f any , that are provided in the area .
Cos ts informat ion , especial l y that informat ion concerning the Capital
Improvements Program and the methods for funding fac i l it i es and programs ,
was obtained in the interviews.
Informat ion concerning coordination of
efforts b etween r ecreat ion and other pub l ic sectors was also ob tained .
The second 1nethod of primary data co l l ect ion was the researcher ' s
personal inspection of the recreat ional facil it ies in each study area .
A check l ist was deve l oped to b e used in the personal inspect ion o f the
faci l ities .
(A copy of the check l i s t i s in the Appendix , see page 142 . )
The use o f a check l i st insured that the res earcher l ooked for the s ame
items at every faci l ity.
The checkl i st was a l s o valuab l e b ecaus e it
the Director of the Nashvi l l e - Davidson County P l anning Commi ssion . How­
ever , s everal interviews were conducted with persons on the staff and a l l
the neces sary informat ion was obtained . The res earcher was ab le to inter­
view the director of the Metropo l i t an Board o f Parks and Recreation .
27
gave the · researcher a separat e record for each fac i l ity , and this proved
especial ly important in helping avoid the confusion that could have
arisen from inspecting so many parks .
The inspecti ons were conducted from the l ist of facil ities that was
obtained in the interviews .
From the ' inspecti ons , by means of the check­
l is t , the researcher obtained , . for each facil ity , information concerning
the type of faci l ity each faci l ity is (e . g . , tot- lot , community center,
et c . ) , the avai l ab i l ity of supervisors and checkout equipment , the
various act ivit ies and opportunities availab l e at the fac i l ity , the
physical access ib i l ity factors of the faci l ity , and the maintenance o f
the fac i l it y .
The primary data for t h e research was co l l ected from
Novemb er , 1 9 7 3 , through Apr i l of 1974 .
Any p l ans or fac i l ities devel oped
after this time are not inc luded in this · study .
S econdary information was obtained from the researcher ' s readings
on recreat ional fac i l ities in inner- city areas .
However , such informa­
tion was not of any great importance except to the Recommendations
s ection of this thesis .
Because of the lack of pub l ished informat ion
concerning recreat ional facil ities in inner- city areas in Tennes see ,
most of the informat ion obtained from the readings was concerned with
areas outs ide of the s tudy areas and therefore was of l ittle use to the
main port ion of this thes i s .
However , the information obtained from the
readings has proved · to be valuab l e · in discuss ing programs in the
Recommendat ions s ect ion of the thes is .
28
Evaluation
After the resea rcher has comp l eted the int e rviews and inspect ions ,
the� prob lems of each of the study areas as pe rceived by those persons
interviewed was identi fied .
Second l y , the researcher developed a
descript ive invento ry of the existing and planned facil it ies .
The
inventery focus ed on the s i z e of the fac i l ities , and , fo r the exist ing
fac i l it ies , the phys ical appearance of the fac i l ities .
of the p rograms in each study area . was des c rib ed .
Next , the co sts
The des cript ion
focus es on the cost of acqui ring , deve loping, operat ing , and maintaining
the rec reat ional facil ities in the inner-city area .
Special attention
was given to the percentage of the Capital Imp rovements Pro gram al lotted
to the - inne r-city areas , the methods used fo r financing the programs ,
and the do l l ars spent per capita in the inner- city area.
Once this was completed , evaluat ions of the ove ra l l prog rams in
each study area were made - on the basis of five somewhat re l ated factors
us ed fo r measuring recreation adequacy.
Unfo rtunate l y , the re is no
definite l i st o r number of fact o rs that has been j udged to be the best
to us e .
Di ffe rent studies have us ed different factors .
us ed fo r evaluation in this research are :
The five fact o rs
( 1 ) accessib i l ity , ( 2 ) variety ,
( 3 ) qual ity of maint enanc e , ( 4 ) effect ive use of l and , and (5) costs .
35
In the fo l l owing , the meaning and importance · of each fact or is
discussed , and the techniques · fo r assessing each fact or are de scribed .
35
Each of the factors has been used o r recommended in previous
studies , but the methods used fo r assessing the factors have , in some
cases , b een modified fo r this study .
29
(1) Acces s ib i l ity:
36
The geographical accessib i l ity of a
recreat i ona l faci l ity to its potent ial users i s a principal factor in
determining the adequacy o f recreat ion programs .
Al l other things being
equal , the further away a person l ives from a fac i l i ty , the less l ikely
he is to use the fac il ity .
Therefore , the distribut ion of the community ' s
recreat ional fac i l ities and act ivit ies in relation to the community ' s
popul at ion is very important .
F or purpos es of this s tudy , accessibi lity was measured in terms of
the percentage of persons not l iving within
of fac i l ities .
!
mi l e s of di fferent types
From th e interviews the researcher was ab l e to obtain
rather det ai led geographi cal populat ion estimate s for the s tudy areas .
By locating the recreational s ites on maps , drawing s erv ice-di stance
radii from each fac i l ity , and comparing it to the det ai l ed popu l ation
estimat es ; the res earcher was ab l e to determine the number of persons
within the radii .
By then comparing this informat ion with the already
ment ioned descript ive inventory and looking at al l the s i t e s in the
s tudy area , the researcher was ab l e to determine what percentage of the
total inner-city population was not within a cert ain radius for d ifferent
spec ific facil ities .
For examp l e , approximat ely 74 percent of the inner-
city res i dents in Knoxvi l l e are not within one mi l e of a swimming pool .
It should a l s o b e pointed out the recreat i onal faci l ities l ocat ed outs ide
the study area that provided s ervices within the des i red radii to the
s tudy area were taken into account in det ermining a cces s ib i l i ty .
36
Harry P. Hatry, and Diana R. Dunn , Measuring the Effect iveness of
Local Government Servic es : Recreation (Washington , D.C. : The Urban
Institute , 1971), pp . 25- 26 .
30
A radi us of one-half mi le was used fo r basically neighbo rhood
fac ilities of a c o mmuni ty nat ure .
37
Within the half mi le rad ius , the
re searcher checked fo r such fac i lities as paved play court s fo r basketball, vo lleyball, etc . ; an informal open space area that can be used
fo r free play as · Well as fo r info rma l games of footba ll and softball;
play apparatus such as swings , s lides , sandboxes , and tetter-totters ;
a covered area wi th sanitary faci lities ; marginal areas fo r pass ive
recreat ion such as s i tting ; and a spray poo l or wading poo l .
faci lities should be contained in a neighborhood park .
38
Such
A community
park should contain all that a ne ighbo rhood park contains and mo re .
There fore , wi thin the mi le readius the research er checked fo r such
additional fac i lities as a swi mming poo l; tennis court s ; regulation
athlet ic fi e lds for such spo rt s as baseball , softball, and football;
spect ator facilit ies ; picnic areas ; walking t ra i ls and bicyc le paths ;
39
.
.
"
and most 1mportant 1 y , a recreat1on
center b Ul" ld 1ng
.
The end resu lt
was the percentage of each study area ' s populat ion that was not within
eithe r a half-mi le or a mi le o f the above specific fac i lities .
40
37
F . Stuart Chapin , Jr. , Urban Land Use Plann ing (Chicago :
Univers ity of I llinoi s Press , 1945) , p . 377 .
38
Jay S . Shivers , and George Hj elte , Planning Recreational Pl aces
(Cranbury , New Jersey : Associated Un ive rs i ty Pres ses , Inc . , 197 1 ) ,
pp . 2 5 0- 2 .
39
40
, pp . 260- 3 .
Sh 1vers
"
I t is reali zed that such percentages are estimates and sub j ect to
error. However, it is believed they are sufficient ly c lose enough for
this research . Hat ry stated that "E xact numb ers are not requi red in
data collection procedures . Est imates of plus o r minus 10 pe rcent wi ll
generally be adequate to pinpoint weak spot s or inadequacies and to
serve as guides for action . " Hat ry , op . cit . , p . 18 .
31
In addition , during the personal inspect ions the researcher checked
the faci l ities for ready access to pub l i c transport ation and for any
man-made or . natural phys ical barriers that might impede access to the
fac i l it i e s .
Thi s information was tabul at ed as to the percentage o f s ites
avai lab l e by pub l ic transit and s ites with acces s impediments , and , as
such , was taken . into account in the final as s e ssment of each study area ' s
accessib i l it y .
( 2 ) Var1.ety: 4 1
.
As has already been menti oned , this study assumes
that a wide variety of recreat ional opportunities i s needed .
P l anners
should make sure that recreational faci l it ies are avai lab l e that appeal
to al l s e gments of the popul at ion , from the preschool age chil d and h i s
tot- lots t o the e lderly person and h i s s enior citizen act ivities .
For purposes · o f this study , .variety i s measured by the numb er o f
act ivities o r opportunities avai l ab l e at the various fac i l ities .
information was obtained from the personal inspections .
This
During the
inspect ions , the res earcher recorded on the check l i s t the activities or
opportunities that are avai lab l e at each s ite .
Tabulation o f all the
facil it ies in each study area showed what act ivities and opportunities
are avai lab l e to the res i dents of the inner-c ity , and , maybe more import ant l y , gave some indication as to what activities and opportunities are
unavai l ab l e .
Special attenti on was given to the percentage o f fac i l ities
that l ack needed supervi sors or check-out equipment .
4 1 Hatry , p .
30.
32
( 3) Quality of Maint enance :
42
The qual ity of ma int enance is an
impo rtant aspect of recreat ion adequacy .
An important aspect of
re creat ion areas is to contribut e to the community ' s ove ral l phys ical
att ract ivenes s .
The qual ity o f maintenance is an important factor in a
fac il ity ' s visual impact .
An inadequate ly maintained facil ity may , in
fact , det ract from a commun ity ' s at t ract ivene s s .
Of even greater
importance · is the fact that an inadequate l y maintained facil ity may
actual l y deter the fac il ity ' s us e , and can even rende r a facil ity useles s .
For maximum enj oyment , from a visua l , operat ional , and safety standpoint ,
a facil ity should be we l l ma int ained .
In this study , during the course of the pe rs onal inspect ions , by
us ing a modified vers ion of the American Pub l ic Health Assoc iat ion ' s
hous ing appraisal t echnique , the recreational s it es were clas s ified as
( a) we l l maint ained , (b ) adequat ely maint ained , or (c) inadequat ely
.
. d
ma1nta1ne
•
43
.
'
was d evoted to ma1ntenance
0ne sect1on o f the ch ec k l 1st
.
of s ites and contained s ix areas of needed improvements .
These were
( 1 ) clean ing of buildings and grounds , ( 2) upk eep of game courts ,
( 3 ) cut t ing o f g ras s and hedges , (4) upkeep of equipment and apparatus ,
( 5 ) paint ing, and (6) general drainage .
Zero to one · areas of imp rovement , ·
if regu l ar ma int enance would · take care of the defic iency , ind icated a
we l l ma intained s ite.
42
43
General ly speak ing, a we l l maint ained s ite is one
Ib id . , p. 33 .
committee on the Hygiene of Hous ing , An Appra isal Method fo r
Measuring the Qual ity of Hous ing: A Yardstick fo r Health Offi cers , ·
Hous ing Offic ials and Planners (New York : Ame rican Pub l ic Hea lth
As s ociat ion , 1945-50) .
33
in which both the landscaping and equipment are in good order .
An
adequat ely maintained site , or a s ite with two to three areas of impro ve ­
ment s needed , is one in general ly good condition , but i s in need o f some
minor work or re pairs .
Genera l ly , four or more areas of needed impro ve-
ment s ind icat ed an inadequately maintained s i t e.
Howe ver , i f a site had
an ob j ect or obj ect s in such a state of disrepair or l ack of maintenance
so that the s ite was unus ab l e , the site was c l as s ified as inadequat e .
44
Whene ver a fac i l ity was dec l ared only adequat ely or inadequate ly maintained , the res earcher made comments on the check l i st concerning the
exact nature of the needs .
Final tabulations showed what percentage of
the inner- ci ty s ites fit into each category .
(4 ) Effect i ve Use of Land :
45
Since l and for inner-c ity recreation
purposes is often in short supply , it is essent ial that the land that is
avai lab l e be used as effect i ve l y as pos s ib l e .
Where inner- city recre-
at ion programs are concerned , the effect i ve us e of land is probably more
important than the sheer qual ity of l and .
From the interviews , informat ion was obtained concerning each area ' s
effort s to coordinate their programs and facil ities with the programs
and faci l ities provided by other sect ors .
44
For instance , is there any
ane examp le of this could be a tennis center where the court s are
unmarked , therefore rendering the area virtual ly use l es s . Another
exampl e could be a pl ayground that has b ecome o vergrown with vegetation
to a degree that the playground i s us e l es s . Although in each case on ly
one ass igned area needs improvement , the areas are definit ely inadequat ely
maint ained . Where facili ties needed impro vement , in any category , j ust
to make the s ite us ab l e , the site was automat ica l ly dec lared inadequate .
45
But l er , p . 197 .
34
att empt to locat e new parks and schoo ls • together in orde r to combine the
re sources of the two?
Or are schoo l recreational faci lities avai lab le
fo r pub l ic us� when schoo l is not in sess ion?
The s e , and many other such
cros s- sector coo rdinat ion effo rts · provide •a measure fo r as ses s ing an
area ' s effect ive us e of land .
From the int erviews , info rmation was also
obtained concerning the percentage of inner-city land owned by the
One t ract of land that is
recreat ion department that is undeve loped .
developed w e ll can be of greater us e than seve ral undeveloped t ract s .
Th is percentage of un
effectiveness .
dpve loped · land
served as the second measure fo r
From the interviews and personal insp ect ions , the
re serache r compared the total rec reation acreage of the inne r- city to
the numb e� of recreat ional oppo rtunities .
( Fo r ins tance , a park that
consists of a picnicking area, a swing set , and a swimming poo l would
represent three recreational . oppo rtuni ties . )
Such a comparison gave the
re searche r an idea of which areas are p roviding the mo st opportunities
in the least space, and therefo re rep resents the thi rd measure of
effectivenes s .
When examined together, th ese three measures enab l ed the
researche r to determine how effectively each area is us ing its land .
(5) Costs :
46
As has already been stated , it is quite expensive to
provide recreational faci l ities in inner- c ity areas .
great ly help in solving the prob l em .
Mo re money would
Howeve r, money fo r rec reat ional
purposes is limited , and the p l anne r must provide the services in
accordance with the al lott ed expenditures .
46
Ho lder, p . 2 7 .
The re is a need fo r a p rope r
35
balance in the number , type , and l ocation among the various types o f
recreat ional faci li tie s .
But such a program should b e hand l ed as
economica l ly as po s s ib l e .
For the evaluat ion purpos e s of thi s study , cost s were measured in
terms o f operating expendi tures per capita in the inner-city areas .
Such
informat ion , obt ained from the interviews , gave the res earcher a compara­
tive expenditure fi gure , more so than j ust tot al expend i tures .
In the chapters that fo l l ow , each area wi l l be evaluated according
to its measured degree of adequacy for accessib i l ity , vari ety , qua l i ty
of maintenance , effective use of l and , and costs .
By evaluating each
area ' s programs according to these five factors , the researcher gained
a greater ins ight into the true strengths and weaknes s es of each area
than would have b een obtained by simp l e des cript ions of the prob l ems ,
costs , and fac i l i ties in each area .
The evaluat ion system a l s o
enab l ed the res earcher to draw comparisons between areas , and was there­
for of great help in discussing conclus ions and recommendat ions in the
final chapter o f thi s thes i s .
CHAPTER I I
CHATTANOOGA
I.
THE STUDY AREA
The s tudy area fo r Chattanooga is composed of four pl anning
districts , those being the C ity Center D is t rict ( D ist rict 1 ) , the South
Center D ist rict (Dist rict 2 ) , the East Center Dist rict (District 3) ,
and the North . Center C ity (Dist rict 4 ) (see map , F igure 2 - 1 ) .
The study
area is bounded on the No rth · by the South Chickamauga C reek ; on the Eas t
by the South · Ch ickamauga Creek , a Louisvil l e and Nashvil le Rail road l ine ,
North Crest Road , C rest Road , and the town of East Ridge ; on the South
by the Tennes see-Geo rg ia state l ine ; and on the West by the foot of
Lookout Mountain , and the Tennes see River.
In acco rdance w ith the definit ion of inner- c ity fo r th is res earch ,
20 pe rcent o r mo re of the popul ation in each pl anning dist rict is below
the poverty l eve l .
The fo l l owing p resents the popul at ion and the per­
centage of the populat ion below the pove rty level in each planning
district :
P lanning Dist rict
1
PoEul at ion
1
% in Pove rtl
1.
Cent er C ity
1 8 , 330
39 . 8%
2.
South Center C ity
29, 281
28 . 4%
3.
East Center City
2 7 , 947
2 3 . 3%
4.
North Center C ity
1 2 , 4 80
26 . 7%
F igures taken from U . S . Census , 19 7 0 .
36
37
F I GURE 2 - 1
CHATTANOOGA I NNER-C ITY AREA
38
The total population for the Chattanooga study area is 88 , 038 .
In
the Chattanooga study area , the rat io o f white popul ation to b l ack
popul ation is fairly equal , with b l acks compos ing 48 . 5 percent of the
popul at ion and wh ites 5 1 . 5 percent .
In only the City Center District ,
where b l acks compri s e 69 percent o f the populat ion , does one race corn­
pose a great maj ority of the populat ion .
In the other three districts
the whites compris e . a s l i ght maj ority , with the South Center City b eing
57 percent wh ite , the East Center City b eing 56 perc ent whi t e , and the
North Center City b eing 4 8 percent wh it e .
Low , moderat e , and midd l e
income hous in g i s di spersed throughout the inner-city are a , with fami l i es
and young adults compo s ing the maj ority of the population .
II.
2
THE ADMINI STRATI ON
The adminis trative arm of pub l i c recreation in the city o f
Chattanooga i s t h e Bureau of Pub l i c Uti l ities , Grounds , and Bui ldings .
The Chattanooga Recreation Department , under the supervision of the
Commissioner of Pub l i c Ut i l it i e s , Grounds , and Bui l dings , i s respons ib le
for the administrat ion , programming , and maintenance o f recreation and
parks for the city of Chattanooga .
3
The Commi ss ioner of Pub l ic Uti l i t ies ,
Grounds , and Bui l dings , St eve Conrad , is the chief administrative
officer of recreation for the city of Chattanooga .
2
3
Ib id .
s. s.
39
Recreation planning for the city of Chattanooga is handl ed
primari ly by the Chattanooga-Hamil ton County Regional P l anning Commiss ion .
Although the Recreat ion Department does have a recre ati on planner on
st aff, the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Pl anning Commission
assists the Recreation Department in its short -range planning and is
respons ib l e for long-range p l anning and the • preparat ion of the Capi tal
Improvements Pro gram for recreat ion .
4
For preparing the plans , the Regional Planning Commiss ion uses
basical ly popul at ion-based standards .
In 1972 , the area Counc i l of
Governments comp l e ted a Recreation Study , stating goal s and pol icies
and estab l i shing standards .
However , the s taff of the Regional P l anning
Commiss ion fee l s that this report was not that we l l done and bel ieves
that its findings are not rea l ly applicab l e ,
5
At present time the· main
priority for recreation in the city of Chattanooga is the deve lopment of
modern indoor fac i l ities .
6
III .
PERCE IVED PROBLEMS
The first step in thi s res erach was to ident ify the prob l ems
connected with inner-city recreation as perceived by those persons
intervi ewed .
4
During the course of the interviews , each person
Ib id. , p � 4 3 .
5
Interview , Mr . T . D . Harden , Director , Chattanooga-Hami lton County
Regional P l anning Commi ss ion , January 31 , 1 9 74 .
6
Interview , Mr . Steve Conrad , Commissioner , Bureau of Pub l ic
Ut iliti es , Grounds , and Buildings , January 31 , 1974 .
40
int erviewed was asked if he or she cons idered the present fac i l it i es
adequate t o meet the recreational needs o f the inner- city area .
E ach
person interv i ewed in Chattanooga fe l t that the pres ent faci lities were
not adequate to meet the present needs .
The consensus of opinion was
that there were enough act ive fac i l ities , such as bal l fields , to meet
the present need , but that there was a need for b oth pass ive areas and
modern indoor fac i l it i es .
When asked what did they consider to b e the maj or probl ems connected
with providing recreat ional faci l i t i es in inner- city areas , the consensus
of opinion was that there are three maj or prob l ems :
a lack of funds , an
insufficient amount of l and , and a negative att itude by the pub l i c and
governing offi ci a l s toward recreation .
Both Steve Conrad , Commi s sioner
of Pub l ic Ut i l it i es , Grounds , . and Bui ldings , and Bob E lmore o f the
Chattanooga Tourist Bureau s tated that the indifference of the pub l i c for
support ing more recreat ion proj ects l eads to the governing o fficial s
giving a low . priority to pub l ic recreat ion .
The low priority resul ts in
a lack of funds , and as such , the two const itut e maj or prob l ems concern­
ing inner-city recreat ion .
I n addition t o this , a l l persons intervi ewed
stated that the sites that are avai lab l e are general ly smal l and that
there is a l ack of l and in the inner- city area on whi ch to deve lop new
faci l i t i es .
It should b e pointed out that the above prob l ems are j ust the main
ones that are perceived as prob l ems by those persons int erviewed .
Other
prob l ems and inadequacies that were detect ed during the course of this
research w il l b e di s cuss ed in the remaining port i ons of this chapter .
A
41
summary of th ese prob l ems and the Chattanooga inner- city recreat ion
s ituation wi l l be presented at the end of this chapter .
IV .
INVENTORY
In February o f 1 9 7 3 , the Chattanooga · Recreation Department completed
a "Tabl e of Fac i l ities , " l i s t ing the s ites , locat ion , appro�imate
acreage , and avai lab l e facil ities .
By us ing the informat ion obtained
from this "Tab l e of Facilities" or inventory , the int erviews , and the
personal inspect ions , . the res earcher determined that there are thirty-one
recreational sit e s covering two hundred nineteen acres (exact ly 2 1 8 . 95)
located throughout the inner-city area .
For the locat ion of these s ites
see Figure 2-2 and for the opportunit ies avail ab l e at these s i tes see
Tab l e 2 - 1 .
The numb ers on F igure 2 - 2 correspond to the numbers associat ed
with s ites in Tab l e 2 - 1 .
In addition to the thirty-one permanent inner-city sites , the
Chattanooga Recreation Department operat es two mob i l e pl ayground recre­
ation units .
These units operate during the summer primari ly in the
inner-city area, providing pl ayground facil ities such as s l ides and
swings in areas where such faci l it i es are l imited .
V.
COST
The Chattanooga Recreat ion Department receives funds for its
Operating Budget from the general fund of the city of Chat tanooga .
According to Steve Conrad , the Chattanooga Recreation Department ' s
42
29
•
30
•
31
•
5
•
6
2
Zl
•
•
23
•
22
•
•
•
3
27
25
•
24
•
17
•
18
19
•
14
15
. .6
•
•
•
•
13
9
•
•
•
10
12
•
I I
F I GURE 2-2
LOCAT ION OF CHATTANOOGA INNE R-CITY RECREAT I ONAL S I TES
t
43
TABLE 2 - 1
CHATTANOOGA S I TE INVENTORY
fAC I LITIES AVAI LABLE
�
"
.,
i;l
"
.�
"'
c
0
PARKS
l.
3.
2.
4.
5.
6.
8.
7.
9.
10.
'" ·
l>.
'�·
l�.
l�.
l7.
'" ·
�·
l9.
ll.
u.
23.
24.
�
27.
28 .
25.
29.
30 .
31.
Park P l ace
Col l e�e Hi l l Courts
Grove Street
Howard
Peool es Street
Joseoh E . Smith
Pass Homes
East Lake Courts
¥ort l:heat lm
East Lake
Cedar H1 s
tma "nee er
1ney WOOdS
Alton Y
_ar
J<_
_
Mllllken
c:lfton HlllS
Donaldson
LOOKOUt
M. cnno
Llncoln
. carver
CltlCO ot-Lot
Warner
dal
Oak Grove
Montague Park
Wesley Rec. Center
Park-CitY
Orchard Knob
East Chatt anoo2a
Avondale
Ridj!e
Total
e
"
"'
"
"
..
·�
"
.::!
c
�
�"'
"'
�
c
"'
..
0
"'
....
>
:I
�
\'
.. "'
" u
"' "
0
u
"
Vl
:I
6
1.5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1.5
10 . 7
3. 7
1 . 47
1.0
4 . 53
l.l
43.9
3.5
3.0
.
X
X
X
,.,
0..
"'
"
>
"
0..
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"
"
!(
.::!.
.49
C)
:I
CT
"'
...
"
"'
Vl
c
"
8'
l. u
3.U
�.5
l3.0
X
X
X
....
"'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
,,
�.u
u.o
46.5
4.5
1.0
45.0
l . 09
.48
3. 5 2
218. 9 5
7.3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
!
"'
"
0
0
.0
"'
"
"'
..
....
....
.<:
0
:I:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
!
:I
.<:
Vl
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vl
"'
"
..
"
>
0
u
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
·X
X
X
X
X
....
C)
"
...
>.
..
"
.:::
c
"
Vl
"'
"
"
..
"'
.�
..,...
. ...
<
"'
.�
.�
�
"
.::
"'
"'
"
0..
�
�
0
0
0..
""
c
��
0
0
0..
"'
...
..
:I
0
"" u
."'...
c
:�
�
Vl
c
c
"
....
"
"
X
X
:I:
�
�
�
�
�
�
.0
.0
-e
"
"
"'
�
..
X
X
X
X
X
"
!( t:
"'
.!:! .!;
c
.!:! �
"'
C)
"
...
. ...
X
"
...
....
0
Vl
X
X
X
"
0
0
...
X
..
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
�
...
C)
�
Vl
"
&
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
:I
0
u
"
..
....
C)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"
"'
..
"'
X
X
X
X
X
.�
.:::
X
X
X
X
X
X
"
"'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
�
X
X
.x
"'
..
"
X
X
X
3.
:I
<
0
c
....
"'
..
"
"'
...
"
..
"
"'
"'
i
. ,.
X
"'
"
.,
c
"
u
X
X
0
.,
. ...
"'
c
"
..
...
u
. ...
-§
0..
X
X
44
Operating Budget for 1973 was $ 1 , 4 20 , 00 0 .
Of this total , $ 1 , 207 , 000 , or
approximate l y 8S percent was al located to the inner- city area .
7
The
Operat ing Budget covers such expenditures as maintenance , salaries and
personne l , equipment , supp l i es , and programs .
For 1 9 7 3 , the city of Chattanooga had a Recreation Capi tal
Inprovements Program of $37S , OOO .
·ane hundred percent of this total was
scheduled for the deve lopment of two proj ect s -- $ 2 2 S , OOO for a swimming
pool and $ 1 S O , OOO for a recreation cent er--in the inner-city area .
8
The
Capital Improvements Program is financed primarily by mat ching fund
federal grants in which a federal government agency (such as the Bureau
of" Outdoor Recreat ion) pays for: SO percent of a proj ect whi l e a local
government matches the federar share with the other SO percent .
The
city of Chattanooga provides its mathcing shares main ly through general
ob ligat ion and revenue bonds .
9
The comb ined Operat ing Budget and Capital Improvements Pro gram for
the inner- city area for 1 9 7 3 was approximately $ l , S8 2 , 000 .
Thi s total
represents the amount of money the city of Chat tanooga spent on inner­
c ity recreat ion in 1973 .
VI .
EVALUAT ION
Accessib i l ity
As has al ready been stated, accessib i l ity wi l l be measured in terms
of the percentage of persons not within either a one-half mi l e or a one
7
Int erview , Mr . Steve Conrad .
45
mil e radius of certain types of fac i l it ies .
The one-ha l f mi le radius
was used for essential ly nei ghborhood oriented fac i l ities , whi l e the
one mi le radius was used for essential ly community oriented faci l ities .
The specific faci l ities examined in each category were discussed in
Chapter I .
Again , it should be noted that in eva luating accessib i l ity
the researcher was unab le to consider accessib i l ity in t erms of citizen
demand in each area .
Twenty- four (24) percent of the Chattanooga inner-city res idents
are not within one-half mil e of a recreat ional s ite with a paved play
area .
Eighteen ( 1 8 ) percent of the inner- city populat ion i s not within
a ha l f mi le of s ites with informa l open space, and 1 5 percent of those
persons l iving in the inner-city are not within a hal f mi l e of pl ay
apparatus such as sl ides and swings .
Recreat iona l si tes with sanitary
fac i l it ies are not avai lable wi thin a ha l f mi l e radius of 19 percent of
·
the inner-city population .
Pas s ive recreation areas are not within a
hal f mi le of 39 percent of the inner-city popu l at ion .
And 8 1 percent
of the inner-city population l acks a recreation s i te with a wading poo l
or a spray pool within one-hal f mi le of their homes (see Tab le 2 - 2 ) .
Concerning the community oriented fac i l ities , 70 percent of the
inner-city population does not reside wi thin a mi le of a swimming pool .
Eleven percent of the inner-city re sident s do not l ive within a mi l e of
tennis court s .
On ly 2 percent of the inner-city populat ion i s not within
a mi le of regulation athl et i c , and on ly 7 percent of the inner-city
res idents are not within a mi le of ath letic fields with spectator
faci l ities .
Forty-nine (49) percent o f the inner- city populat ion is not
46
TABLE 2 - 2
CHATTANOOGA--ACCESS I B I L ITY
Type
Population W/Out
Percent
One-hal f . mi l e radius
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Paved P l ay Area
Informal Open Space ·
Play Apparatus
Sanitary Faci l i t ies
Pas sive Area
Wading - or Spray Pool
·
·
2 1 , 155
1 5 , 8 56
1 3 , 066
1 6 , 632
34 , 85 0
71 ' 1 4 2
24%
18%
15%
19%
39 %
81%
61 , 816
9 , 765
1 , 9 30
6 , 1 72
4 3 , 72 2
8 8 , 038
6 , 307
70%
11%
2%
7%
49%
1 00%
7%
One mi l e radius
1.
2�
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Swimming Pool
Tennis Courts
Ath l et i c F ields
Spect ator Faci l ities
Picnic Areas
Hiking o r Bicyc l e Trai l s ·
Community Centers
47
within a mi le of a picnic are a , and 1 00 percent of the inner-city
res ident s are not within the des ired radius of either hiking and/or
bicyc le paths .
And only 7 percent of the inner-c ity resident s are not
within a mi l e of a community center (see Tab l e 2 - 2 ) .
In addition to the direct accessib i l ity measures concerning
distance , other acces sib i l ity factors were al so taken into consideration .
Six (6) percent of the inner- city recreat ional sites are not acces s ib ly
by sidewal ks .
Sixty- five (65) percent of the s ites are not acce ssib l e
by pub l i c transport ation .
and 19 percent of the inner- city recreat ional
sites have phys ical impediment s , such as railroad tracks or busy
thoroughfares , hindering ace ss to the sites .
The above information indi cat es that acces sibi l ity is a prob l em to
five specific faci l i ties :
pass ive areas , wading or spray pools , swimming
poo l s , picnic areas , and hiking and/or bicyc le trai l s .
other types of facil ities seem to be fairly acces s ib l e .
However , the
But the high
percentages , especial l y for wading pools , swimming , picnic areas , and
trai l s , does indicate that Chattanooga does ' have some inner- city recre•
at ion acce s s ib i l ity prob l ems .
Variety
The thirty-one recreational sites in Chattanooga ' s inner-city
provide sixty-one di fferent recreat ion act ivities .
The most often
provided facil ities are swings , avai lab l e at twenty- four sites ; s l ides ,
avai lab l e at twenty-three s ites ; informal open space for games and free
play , avai lab l e at twenty-two site s ; j ung l e-gyms , availab l e at twenty-one
48
sites; and outdoor basketbal l (paved play area) , avai lable at e i ghteen
sites .
In addit ion to these activit ies , the Chattanooga Recreat ion
Department operat es a special "Summer Recreation Outdoors" Program .
Included in this program are basebal l cl inics , summer t rack programs ,
free summer concert s , li ttle theater performances , educat ional programs ,
and field trips .
In addition , al l pl aygrounds are supervised s i x days
a week .
The Chattanooga Recreat ion Department , in conjunction with the
Coca-Cola Company , also conducts a summer Inner-C ity Tennis Program .
Th is program offers tennis ins truct ions and sets up team compet ition .
The Coca-Co la Company provides free transport at ion and t ennis shoes to
the part icipants in the program .
To determine the total number of act ivities avai lab l e to the
inner- city res idents , the re searcher combined the numb er of t imes the
various si xty-one activities are avai lab l e at the thirty-one s ites wi th
the two mob i l e units and the special programs .
The comb ined variety
total 4 2 6 recreat iona l activities or opportunities .
However, during the course of the research , some weaknesses in
variety were det ected .
At the pres ent t ime , the study areas contain
on ly one swimming poo l , and senior citizen act ivities at the various
community cent ers are l imited at best .
course in the who l e inner-city are a .
Additiona l l y , there is no gol f
An d although community centers are
readi ly avai lab l e to most of the inner- city resi dents , many of these
centers are old and incomplete .
For examp l e , six of th e fourteen
49
inner- c ity community centers l ack gymnas iums .
I t should be pointed out ,
however , that the new commuity centers that are being devel oped are
comprehens ive type fac i l ities .
To Chattanooga ' s credit , it should b e noted that the inner- city
recreat ional s ites are we l l supervised .
Each community center is served
by supervisors and check out equipment , and , as has al ready been noted ,
each playground has supervi sory personnel in the summer .
As the above information indicat es , recreat ional variety in
Chattanooga ' s inner- city area does have some weakness ; but the recre­
ation offi cial s real ize this and are attempting to a l l eviate them .
When all things are considered it appears that Chatt anooga offers its
inner-city res idents a fairl y wide range of recreat i onal opportunities .
Again , the Chattanooga inner-city residents have a variety of some 4 2 6
pos s ib l e recreat ion activities offered to them .
quality of Maintenance
As was stated in the first chapter , the qual ity of maintenance is
evaluat ed by the percentage o f sites that fit into three categories :
( 1 ) we l l maintained , (2) adequat e l y maintained , ( 3) inadequat ely
maintained ( for the criteria used for asses sing each category see the
"Eva·l uation" s ection , ''Qual ity of Maintenance" in the first chapter) .
Of the thirty-one inner-city recreat ional s ites in Chat tanooga , 4 6
percent are w e l l maintained , 3 5 percent are adequately maintained , and
1 9 percent are inadequately maintained (see Tab l e 2-3) .
50
TABLE 2 - 3
CHATTANOOGA-QUALITY O F MAINTENANCE
Category
Number of Sites
Percent
We l l maintained
14
46%
Adequat ely maintained
11
35%
6
19%
Inadequate l y maintained
The c l eaning of grounds and bui l dings is the most preval ent
maint enance prob l em, fo llowed by the upkeep of game courts , and then the
upke�p of equipment and apparatus .
Graffiti on the bui ldings , and l itter
in the form of paper and glass was the maintenance prob l em mo st often
seen during the personal inspect ions of the recreat ional s ites .
Not
on ly does thi s detract from the visual attract iveness of a site , but
broken g l ass is also a safety hazard to the users of the sites .
At
three of the sites , the playground equipment and apparatus was in such
poor condit ion that the equipment was inoperative .
Such conditions
could be corrected by regular maintenance and the s ites made usab l e ,
enj.oyab l e , and safe .
As it present l y stands , the qual ity of maint enance of Chattanooga ' s
inner-city recreation faci l i ties represents a minor prob l em .
However ,
regular maint enance and the repair of broken equipment could alleviate
this probl em.
51
Effect ive Use o f Land
Since recreation is o ften in competition with other users for l and
in inner-city areas ; recreat ion department s should make the most effi­
cient use pos s ib l e of the avai lab l e recreation l and .
One method of
doing this is j oint . cooperation among the various pub l ic sectors ,
primari ly the school boards and the recreation departments .
From al l indications of this reserach , there is a degree of
cooperation among the various pub l ic sectors in Chattanooga .
In fact ,
eight of the thirty-one inner- city recreation s ites are j oint ventures
by the Recreation Department and either the Chattanooga Hous ing Authority
or the School Board .
The Chattanooga Housing Authority helps in the
devel opment of community centers located adj acent to pub l ic housing
proj ects .
The Recreation Department also has a working arrangement with
the Schoo l Board whereby the Department instal l s the l i ghting and fending
of fi elds and the Schoo l Board al lows pub l ic us e of the sites during
nons chool hours .
Although · such arrangements are good , neither of the
arrangements are written pol i cy arrangements b etween the agenci es , and
therefore do not l ead to as wide spread use as they could .
The
cooperat ion that does exist is economical to al l agencies in that it
makes a more efficient us e of l imited resources .
However , more
cooperat ion among the various agencies could l ead to an even more
efficient use o f the tax do l l ar , and provide more and b etter faci l it ies
at less cost .
A second measure of effective us e o f land is determining what
percentage o f inner- city l and i s undeveloped .
According to informati on
52
obtained from Steve · Conrad , very l itt l e l and , l ess than 5 percent , owned
by the Recreat ion - Department i s now undeve loped .
10
However, Bob Elmore ,
al though ·he agreed with Mr . Conrad , did state that there are · s everal
thous and acres vacant · in the · fl ood pi ain that could be us ed for recre­
ation purposes .
•
11
The fact s t i l l stands , however , that only 5 percent
of the inner-city recreation l and is · undeveloped .
A third measure of effective us e of land is the rat i o of total
inner-city acreage · ( 2 1 8 . 9 5 ) to total inner-city recreational opportunities (426) .
This comparis on results in a rat i o of one recreational acre
for every 1 . 94 recreational opportunities , or a rat io of about 1 : 2 .
From al l indicat ions , Chattanooga is making fairly effect ive us e of
its recreat i on land .
There i s , however , sti l l room for improvement .
Tab l e 2 - 4 shows the evaluation o f the three measures of effectuve us e of
land .
TABLE - 2- 4
CHATTANOOGA--EFFECT I VE USE O F LAND
Measure ·
1.
Coordination of E fforts
2.
Percent o f Undeve loped Land
3.
Rat io o f Opportunities t o Acreage
10
11
Evaluation
Some
5%
1 . 94 : 1
I nterview ,. Steve Conrad .
I nterview , Bob Elmore , Director , Chattanooga , Tourist Bureau,
February 8 , 1974 .
. 53
Costs
As has already been stat ed the Operat ing Budget for the Chattanooga
Recreat ion Department for 1 9 7 3 was $ 1 , 4 20 , 000 .
Of this total , $ 1 , 2 07 , 000
was a l l ocat ed for conduct ing programs in the inner-city area .
Chattanooga inne!-city populat ion is 8 8 , 038 .
The
Therefore , for 197 3 , the
Recreat ion Department spent $ 1 3 . 70 per capita for inner -c ity recreat ion .
Th i s compares to a recreat ion expend iture of $ 1 1 . 9 2 per capita for
Chattanooga as a who l e .
VII .
SUMMARY
Th i s res earch indicates that there are four main prob l ems connected
with inner- city recreation in Chattanooga .
First , as was indicat ed in
the perceived prob lems , is the prob l em of a lack of land .
Not only is
land for new faci l i ties in short supply, but the present s i tes are
general ly smal l and the total acreage l imi ted .
Th i s leads to prob l ems
for developing sites with go l f courses and hiking and/or b iking trai l s ,
both types of fac i l it ies lacking in the inner - c i ty area .
More l and to
provide new sites and add it ional opportunities is great ly needed .
in turn , leads to accessibi l ity prob l ems .
Th i s ,
Access to pass ive areas ,
wading poo l s , swimming pools , picnic areas , and hiking and/or bi cyc l e
trai l s ( each an ingredient i n a comprehens ive recreat ion program) , is
l imited , and therefore not ava i l ab l e to many of the inner- c i ty residents .
The present variety of opportunities a l so is a prob l em .
Al though the
Recreat ion Department does a fine j ob of prov iding summer opportun i t ies ,
there is a l ack of programs geared toward year-round use .
Also there is
54
a lack of recreat i onal opportunities that appeal t o al l ages .
I t should
be pointed out that the modern indoor faci l i t i es that are b e ing developed
can go a long way t oward solving this variety prob l em .
However , develop­
ment of such fac i l it ies takes money , and a l ack of funds i s the fourth
maj or prob lem .
There are strong points t o the inner- city recreat ion s ituat ion ,
however .
One i s the att itude o f the Commis s ioner of Pub l i c Ut i l it i es ,
Grounds , and Bui l dings .
He rea l izes the importance of recreat ion , and
i s trying to encourage the pub l ic and pub l i c offi c i a l s t o give recreation
a higher priorit y .
Another s trong point is the acces s ib i l ity o f cert ain
types of fac i l i t ies , especial ly p laygrounds , athl et i c fie lds , and
community centers .
Although addit ional strengths and weaknesses w i l l b e evident when
comparisons among the study sites are discussed in the l as t chapt er of
this thes i s , when viewed alone , the inner-c ity recreat ion s ituat ion for
Chattanooga can best b e described as one that i s providing adequate
programs t o its res ident s whi l e b eing hindered by a l ack of l and and
money .
CHAPTE R I I I
KNOXV I L LE
I.
THE STUDY ' AREA
The s tudy area for Knoxvi l l e is compo sed of seven p l anning unit s ,
those being P l anning Unit 1 (The Central Business Di strict ) , P l anning
Unit 2 (The Univers ity Area) , P l anning Unit 3 ( Beaumont ) , P l anning Unit
4 ( Broadway) , P l anning Unit 5 (Mount ain View) , P l anning Uni t 9 ( Lonsdal e) ,
and Pl anning Unit 1 2 ( East Knoxvi l l e) (see map , F i gure 3- 1 ) .
The s tudy
area is bounded on the South by Fort Loudon Lake and the Tennes see River;
on the North by Interstate 7 5 , Woodl and Avenue , Washington Pike , Brice
Street , Cherry Street , and Int erstate 40 East ; on the East by Rut l edge
Pike , Fern Street , Skyl ine Drive , Dun l ap Lane , and Tynemouth Drive ; and
on the West by Interstate 640 , Interstate 40 Wes t , Al coa Highway , and
Neyland Drive .
In accordance with the definition of inner - city for this res earch ,
in each p l anning unit , 20 percent or more of the population i s below the
poverty l evel . · The fo l l owing presents the popul at ion and the percentage
of the popu l ation b e l ow the poverty l evel in each planning unit :
P l anning Unit
1.
Central Bus ines s District
2.
Univers ity
PoEulat i on
1 , 380
1 3 , 766
1
1
% in Povertl
46 . 9 %
40 . 5
" Poverty in Knoxvi l l e and Knox-County , " The Knoxvi l l e Knox County
Community Act ion Committee ( F eb ruary , 19 73 ) , pp . 1 9 - 20 .
55
56
<
�
M
I
t")
�
IX
:::>
t.!)
H
tl.
�
H
u
I
IX
�
z
z
H
5
...:I
H
!;<
0
�
57
Pl anning Unit
Population
% in Poverty
5 1 . 4%
3.
Beaumont
1 1 , 787
4.
Bro adway
9 , 2 03
29 . 5
5.
Mountain View
9 , 858
40 . 0
9.
Lonsdale
7 , 983
28 . 2
1 0 , 949
23 . 0
12 .
East Knoxvi l l e
As the above figures indicat e , the degree of poverty in the inner-c ity
of Knoxvi l l e is fairly high .
The researcher wishes to point out that
the Univers ity of Tennessee ' s populat ion is inc luded in the study area ,
and may therefore skew some of the results .
Th e total population for the Knoxvi l l e study area is 64 , 9 26 .
Although poverty and inner-city l iving are often associated with b l acks ,
only 19 , 595 , or about 30 percent of the inner- city popul ation in
Knoxvi l l e is b l ack .
2
Blacks composed the · maj ority of the populat ion in
only two of the seven planning unit s , Mount ain View with 60 perc ent and
East Knoxvi l l e with 6 1 percent .
3
These two units alone composed 63
percent of the total b l ack populat ion in the inner-city .
In the other
five units , whites maintain a maj ority whi l e b l acks are located in
scattered isolated pocket s .
In general , segregat ed l iving is the way of
l i fe in Knoxvi l l e ' s inner-city .
In general , Knoxvi l l e ' s inner- city , composed of seven cont iguous
pl anning unit s , has a relative ly sma l l population with a fairly high
2
3
Ibid . , tabulated from figures given , p . 14 .
Ib id .
58
degree of povert y .
Wh ites maintain a maj ority of t h e popul at ion , and
the races each l ive in fairly segregated pockets to themse lves .
II.
THE ADMINI STRAT I ON
The adminis trat ive arm of pub l ic recreat i on in the city of Knoxv i l le
is the Knoxv i l l e Bureau of Recreat ion, a divis ion of the Knoxvi l l e
We l fare Department .
The Director of Recreat ion, Maynard G l enn , i s the
admini strat ive offi cer of the Recreat ion Bureau , wh ich is respons ib l e
t o t h e Mayor and t h e City Counci l .
4
The Knoxvi l l e - Knox County Metropo l i -
tan Plann ing Commi ss ion i s respon s ib l e for long-range pl anning and the
preparat ion of the Capi tal Improvement s Program for the Knoxv i l l e
Recreati on Bureau .
The Bureau i t s e l f handl es its own immediat e p l anning
and stud ies through its staff .
To aid in preparing its own studies , the
Bureau has divided Knoxvi l l e into twenty-six recreat ion dis trict s in
order to establ ish a method of l earning c i t i z ens ' recreat i onal des i res
and needs .
In its planning and studies , the Recreat ion Bureau uses its
own recreat ion s t andards and ideas of community need .
The main
5
goals o f the Knoxv i l l e Recreat i on Bureau are :
To provide out lets for expres s i on in a variety of avenues
for al l ages , both sexes and a l l c l asses of peopl e .
T o enrich l iving by enab l ing indi vidua l s t o find out l ets
for sel f- express ion and thereby deve lop their inherent
4
Knoxvi l l e - Knox County Community Faci l it i es P l an , Knoxvi l l e , Knox
County Metropo l i t an P l anning Commi ss ion , 1 9 7 0 , p . 3 5 .
5 s . S . Ho lder, J . D . Patton , B . A. I t tman , Urban Recreat ion
and Programming in Tennessee : An Evaluat ion o f the State ' s Ro l e
ton , Kentucky : Spindletop Research , 1971 ) , p . SO .
59
potent ial for achieving des i red sat i s fac t i ons . Thes e
sat i s factions include adventure , fe l lowship , a sense of
accomp l i shment , the enj oyment of beauty , and the joy of
creat ing .
To help peop l e t o develop interest and ski l l s wh ich enab l e
them t o make constructive use o f l ei sure and which contribute
to physi cal and: mental health, safety , good cit i zenship, confi­
dence , and character development .
To provide recreat ional act ivit i e s , fac i l i t ies , and leader­
ship suitab le for peopl e of al l ages and a l l cultural l evel s . 6
III .
PERCE IVED PROBLEMS
The first s tep in this research was to ident ify the prob lems
connected with inner-city recreat ion as perceived by those persons
interviewed .
During the course of the intervi ews , each person inter-
vi ewed was asked if he or she considered the present faci l i ties adequat e
to meet th e recreat ional needs of the inner- city area .
Seven of the
eight persons interviewed in Knoxvi l l e answered "no , " and the one person
who answered "yes" qual i fied his answer with "when compared to simi lar
cities . "
7
Of those answering no , the general fee l ing was that the
quantity of faci l it i es was adequat e , but that the quali ty of the
fac i l it i es was inadequate .
When asked what did they con s ider t o be the maj or prob lems
connected with providing recreat ional fac i l it i es in inner-city areas ,
al l agreed that a l ack of funds was one of the maj or prob lems .
Maynard
Gl enn and Ralph Teague , both with the Recreat ion Bureau , stat ed that
6
7
1973 .
Knoxvi l l e- Knox County Community Faci l it i e s Plan , pp . 3 1 - 32 .
Ralph Teague , Knoxvi l l e Recreat ion Bureau , intervi ewed October 3 1 ,
60
they cons ider maintenance and acqui s it ion of suitab l e · l and as prob l ems
of maj or importance .
Of part icul ar interest i s the fact that three interviewees ( each
wished to remain anonymous concerning this point) s t ated that pol i t ical
probl ems are a maj or prob l em affecting inner- c ity recreat ion .
One s t at ed
that the city decision-makers s t i l l do not consider recreat i on an impor­
tant function .
The decision-makers hesitate to acquire addi tional l and
for recreation becaus e it takes · more land off the city tax rol es .
In
addition , this interviewee stated that the decis ion-makers s imply did
not want to spend the money necessary to deve lop first - c l as s recreat ional
faci l ities .
Another interviewee stated that each counci lman and recre­
at ion commis s i oner requests money for faci l ities in their own district .
Each counci lman exerts his own po l it ical influence to assure that h i s
di strict mus t receive something whether it real ly needs i t or not .
Such
act ion results in the recreat ion do l l ar b eing spl it in too many direc­
tions , result ing in a quantity of fac i l ities but making qual ity almost
impossib l e .
Thi s spl ittin� o f resources along pol itical districts
di lutes the effect ive us e o f the recreat ion dol l ar .
Another interviewee
stated that due to po l itical pressure , recreati on j obs are o ften granted
as po lit ical favors .
Such pol i t i cal pressure results in an unnecessary
number of people b eing on the recreat ion payrol � l eaving less money for
facilities and programs .
what it should be .
As a results the qual ity of faci l it i es i s not
Although thes e three interviewees des crib ed the
po l itical prob l ems different ly , the end results were the s ame--po l itical
probl ems restrict the recreat ion do l l ar thereby hurt ing the qual ity of
61
the fac i l i t i e s .
As such , po l i t i ca l prob l ems mus t h e con s i dereJ
a
ma j o r
probl em connect ed with inner- c ity recreat ion .
Another perceived problem in Knoxvi l l e results from the Recreat ion
Bureau ' s emphas i s on act ive recreat ion .
Four of the eight persons
interviewed stated that an over- emphas is on active recreat ion faci l it ies
was a prob lem in Knoxvi l l e .
Thi s over-emphasi s on act ive recreat ion
resul t s in fewer pass ive fac i l ities being avai lab l e , thereby denying a
desirab l e recreat ional opportunity to many inner-city residents .
I t shou l d be pointed out that the above prob lems are j us t the main
ones that are perce ived as prob lems by those persons int erviewed .
Other
prob lems and inadequacies that were det ected by this res earch wi l l be
discus s ed in the remaining port ions of this chapt er .
A summary of these
prob l ems and the Knoxvil l e inner-c ity recreat ion si tuat ion wi l l b e
presented a t t h e end of thi s chapter .
IV.
INVENTORY
At the present t ime , the Knoxvi l l e Recreat ion Bureau does not have
an up- t o-date inventory of their recreat iona l faci l i ties .
The l ast
inventory undertaken by the Recreat ion Bureau was completed in 1 9 67 .
However , the Metropo l itan P l anning Commiss ion completed a Communi ty
Faci l i t ies Study for Knoxvi l l e and Knox County in 1970 .
This Community
Fac i l i t ies Study contained a l i s t ing of recreat ional sites and acreages
by pl anning uni t .
During the course of the personal inspect ions of
recreat ional sites , however , the res earcher found ten errors in t he
recreation informat ion given for the inner-city ' s five p l anning uni t s .
62
Thes e errors inc luded locating s i t es in wrong p l anning units , incorrect
acreage figures , incorrect addresses , and even simply not l i sting s ome
existing faci l it ies .
For examp l e , Tyson Park was l i sted in two different
planning units , each with different acreage figures and different sets
of proposals for future improvements .
8
Since the Community Faci lities Study does contain many errors and
since the Knoxvi l l e Recreation Bureau has no current l i s t ing of s ites ,
the city officials actua l l y have no adequat e , current information on the
locat ion , s i z e , and avai l ab l e opportunities of the inner-city ' s recreational s ites .
unaware .
This i s a prob l em of which the city officials seem to b e
This lack o f know ing where s ites are and what they contain
makes p l anning for improvements and future needs extreme ly hard .
A l ack
of an adequate l ist ing of fac i l it ies can l ead to other prob l ems , and the
fact that such a lack exists gives an indicat ion that pub l i c officials
may not really know what the true recreation s ituation i s .
Faulty
informat ion on present fac i l ities can l ead to faulty plans for the
fut�re .
By using the information obtained from the Community Faci l ities
Study , the interviews , and the personal inspect ions , the researcher
determined that there are thirty-one recreat ional s ites covering two
hundred and s i xty- s even acres ( exact ly 267 . 4) located throughout the
inner-city area .
8
For the locat ion of these s ites see F i gure 3 - 2 , and
Knoxvi l le-Knox County Community Fac i l ities Study , Knoxvi l le­
Knox County Metropo l itan P l anning - Commiss ion, Knoxvil l e , 1970 , pp . 9 1 92 , 103- 104 .
12
e 28
e 26
4
14 .
e t5
5
a9 •
.,6
3
e
e
4
F I GURE 3 - 2
LOCATI ON OF KNOXVI L LE I NNER-C I TY RECREAT ION S I TES
0\
(,.!
64
for the opportunities avai l ab l e at thes e sites see Tab l e 3- 1 .
The
numb ers on Fi gure 3 - 2 correspond to the numb ers assoc iated w i th the
sites in Tab l e 3- 1 .
As can b e seen from inspect ing F i gure 3 - 2 and
Tab l e 3- 1 , although the inner- city area does have thirty-one sites , some
areas have more s it es than others .
For examp l e , P l anning Unit 4 ,
Broadway , has no outdoor recreat ion faci l it i es of any kind , indi cat ing
poss ib l e acces s ib i l ity prob lems (to be di scus s ed in the "Evaluat ion"
sect ion of this chapter) .
In addit ion to the thirty-one permanent s i tes
in th e inner - c ity , the Knoxvi l l e Recreat ion Bureau operat es two mob i l e
recreat ion units .
These unit s , one a mob i l e rol l er- skat ing rink , and the
other a mob i l e poo l , operate in the summer , primari ly serving low - income ,
inner-city areas .
During the summer each mob i l e unit operates in two
ne ighborhoods per day , operat ing in one neighborhood in the morning and
in another neighborhood in the aft ernoon .
Because t hes e uni t s provide
recreat ion in many areas during a summer, mob i le uni t s mus t be considered
an int egral part of the recreat ion inventory .
V.
COST
For 1 9 7 3 , the Knoxvi l l e Recreat i on Bureau had an Operat ing Budget
of $ 1 , 569 , 000 .
Of thi s total , approximate l y $ 4 7 0 , 000 , or 30 percent ,
was al l ocated to the inner-city area . 9 The Operat ing Budget covers such
expenditures as maintenance , according to Maynard Gl enn and Ralph Teague
9
Informat ion obtained from an interview with Maynard Gl enn , Director ,
Knoxvi l l e Recreat ion Bureau , Knoxvi l l e , October 3 1 , 1 9 7 3 .
65
TABLE 3 - 1
KNOXVI LLE SITE INVENTORY
FAC I LITIES AVA I LABLE
..
..
.,
.,
=
..
u
=
..
a
"'
.e-
.�
.,.
=
.,
..
..
..
"
"
..
PARKS
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Market Street Mall
City Hall Park
Terrace Ave.
White Circle
Tyson Park
Grand Ave.
Beaumont
ot-lot
Tot-lot
Western Heights
Les l i e S t .
u
<
u
·;
0
u
�
�
. ...
..
..
�
,.,
"'
..
..,
e
..
..
"'
0
0
.0
�
� �
..
'<;
"
)..
> ..8
�
� .= 0.
X
.5
.6
5.6
13.0
X
X
X
7.3
18.
19 .
Austin Homes Rec. Center
Babe Ruth
Cal Johnson
East Port Park
1.0
2.2
5. 2
X
X
20.
West View
21.
22.
Lonsda 1 e Home s
Ohio St .
4.1
2.0
3.8
X
X
26.
27.
u
.c
u
�
"'
..
"'
...
0
=
'<;
=
.c
"'
.:;
..
.c
"'
..,
..
...
"
>
0
u
....
�
...
..
0..
,.,
..
..
"'
.�
�
.l(
..
.!;;
.,
.:!
"'
......
..
>
�
0
0
0.
..
0
0
0.
..
=
'i
.�
.:! ·�
= "' .., ....
..
"'
X
..
0.
..
..
�
"'
"'
.,
..
�
0
u
u
0.
=
..
0..
�
..
.0
"
"'
..
.,
�
�
�
.0
.,
'<;
0
.0
.,
0
0
..
"'
';;j
""
..
0
""
u
"'
...
...
X
X
v
a
X
c
X
a
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
.,
..
u
'<;
+'
"
"'
"'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n
X
L
t
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
t
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Larch S t .
Sand land
Skyl ine Dr.
Wilson Ave. Field
Union Square
Nichols Ave.
Chi lhowee Park
8.0
1.0
10.0
X
17.9
2.9
1 .9
131.6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Total
2 76 . 4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
�
.g
0
0.
"'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
�
X
X
X
X
X
X
"'
..
...
X
X
X
X
..
"'
..
�
0
u
X
X
5.0
2.7
3.0
....
..
..
...
.l(
..
...
.� .u
= = .�
"
.
�
�
"
....
.:!
....
"
..
5.4
Winona Athletic Field
28.
29.
30.
31.
""
0.
X
16.
Buck Toms
�
�
k
..,
..
..
"'
..
..
X
2.0
22.0
1.3
IS.
Lonsdale Rec. Center
�
�
8'
"'
..
..
¥!
.,
..
X
.8
.7
5.1
23.
..
..
"'
"'
.,
=
..
X
Crafts Rec. Center
Lamar St . Rec. Center
John T . O ' Connor
24 .
25.
.�>
Ul
"
..
..
<
..
"'
"'
.j
.u
"'
u
1.5
2.0
1.3
13.
14.
17.
"'
..
"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
66
the largest single e xpendi ture in the Operat ing Budget ; sal aries and
personne l ; equipment ; suppl ies ; and programs .
The Operat ing Budget i s
financed b y the C ity of Knoxv i l l e through local t axes .
For 1973, the City of Knoxvi l l e had a Recreat i on Capital Improvement s
Program of $ 2 , 035 , 300 .
Of thi s tot al , $ 1 , 2 1 0 , 000 , or approximate l y 60
percent , was s cheduled for proj ect s in th e inner- city area .
10
The
Capital Improvements Program covers expenditures for the acqui sit ion and
devel opment of new proj ects and/or ext ens ive expan s i on or improvements
of exist ing sites .
The Capital Improvements Program is financed
primarily by matching fund federal grants in whi ch a federal government
agency pays for 50 percent of a proj ect whi l e a l ocal government matches
the federal share with the other 50 percent .
The Ci ty of Knoxvi l l e
provides its matching shares mainly through general obli gation bonds
and revenue bonds .
11
The combined Operat ing Budget and Capit al Improvement s Program in
the inner- c ity area for 1973 was a total of $ 1 , 680 , 700 .
Al though thi s
is quite a sum , the researcher noti ced during h i s pers onal inspec t i ons
that some of the Capi tal Improvements proj ect s s chedul ed for 1 9 7 3 , were
eithe r running b ehind s chedule or had not even been started by the
beginning of 1974 .
However , this is the total fi gure pub l i c offi cials
al l ocated for recreat i on in Knoxvi l l e ' s inner- city area for 19 73 .
1°
Knoxvi l l e Capital Improvement s Program, 1 9 7 3 , Knoxvi l l e-Knox
County Metropol i t an P l anning Commi s s i on , Knoxvi l l e , 1 9 7 3 .
11
Interview with Ralph Teague , As s i s tant Di rector , Knoxvi l l e
Bureau o f Recreat i on , Knoxv i l l e , October 31 , 1 9 7 3 .
67
VI .
EVALUATION
Acces sib i l ity
As has al ready b een s tated , acce s s ib i l ity wi l l b e measured in terms
of the percentage of persons not within either a one-hal f mi l e or a one
mil e radius of certain types of fac i l ities .
The one-hal f mi l e radius
was used for essential ly neighborhood oriented facil it ies , whi l e the one
mil e radius was used for essent i al l y community oriented fac i l it i es .
The
specific fac i l ities examined in each category were discus s ed in Chapt er I .
S ixty ( 60) percent o f . the inner-city res idents are not within one-.
hal f mi l e of a recreat ional site with · a paved play area : · Thirty-one ( 3 1 )
percent o f the inner- city residents are without informal open space and
p l ay apparatus ( i . e . , s l ides and swings ) in the recreational s ites
within one-ha l f mil e of their homes .
Recreat ional s i tes with sanitary
faci l ities are lacking within a one-hal f mi l e radius of 42 percent of
the inner- city res ident s , whi l e 5 1 percent of the inner-city populat i on
is not within one-half mi le of a pass ive recreation are a .
And 9 1 percent
of the inner-city popul ation is not within one-ha l f mi l e of either a
wading pool or a spray pool (see Tab le 3-2) .
I t shoul d be remembered that al l o f the types of faci l ities
mentioned above are recommended to b e within walking distance of the
peop l e they s erve .
The high percent ages o f peop l e not within a one­
hal f mi l e radius of these types of facil ities indicates that acces s ib i l ­
ity t o neighborhood recreat ion fac i l it i es i s a prob l em for the Knoxvi l l e
inner-city resident .
68
TAB LE 3 - 2
KNOXV I LLE --ACCESS I B I LITY
Type
Populat ion W/Out
Percent
One-hal f mi l e radius
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Paved P l ay Area
Informal Open Space
P l ay Apparatus
Sanitary F ac i l iti es
Pass ive Area
Wading or Spray Pool
38 , 949
19 , 8 05
19 , 8 0 5
2 7 ,-546
32 , 872
58 , 8 8 1
60%
31%
31%
42%
51%
91%
4 8 , 375
22 � 8 1 4
12 , 4 1 0
20 , 666
8 , 369
64 , 9 2 6
26 , 9 1 5
74%
35%
19%
32%
1 3%
1 00%
41%
One mi l e radius
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Swimming Pool
Tennis Court
Athl eti c F i e l ds
Spectator Fac i l i t i es
Picn i c Areas
Hiking or Bicycl e Trai l s Community C enters
·
69
Al though the percentages within the one mi l e radius are not as high
in every type as within the one-hal f mi l e radius , the one mi l e radius
percentages do indicate acces s ib i l ity difficulties for certain types of
fac i l ities (see Tab l e 3-2) .
Seventy- four (74) percent of the inner-city
residents do not l ive within a mi l e of a swimming pool .
Thirty- five (35)
percent o f the inner-c ity populat i on is not within a mi l e of tennis
courts .
Only
19 percent
of the
inner- c ity population i s not
wi thin a mi le of regulation athletic fie l ds (support ing the fact that
the Knoxvi l l e Recreat ion Bureau emphas i z es act ive recreation-sport s
programs ) ; however , 32 percent o f the inner-city res idents are not
within a mi l e radius of athl et i c fields with spectator fac i l ities .
Picnic areas appear to b e read i ly acces s ib l e to most inner-city res idents
as only 13 percent of the inner-city population is not within a mi le of
a picnic area .
Al though bicyc l ing and walking are b ecoming increas ingly
popular as recreat i on pastimes , there are no b i cyc l e paths or walking/
hiking trai l s within a mi l e of any inner- city res ident .
And whi l e
community centers are wide ly recogni zed a s a vital part of · a recreat ion
program, and although Maynard Glenn s tated that community centers are
within walking distance of a l l inner- city res idents ,
12
41 percent of
the inner- c ity res idents are not within a mi l e of a community center .
Whi l e high percentages of persons not within the given radii for
certain types of fac i l ities indicate direct acces s ib i l ity prob l ems
concerning distance , other acces s ib i l ity prob l ems were also noticed
12
Interview , Maynard Glenn , October 31 , 1 9 7 3 .
70
during the course of the personal inspecti ons .
Twenty-nine percent o f
the inner- city recreat ional s i tes were not acces s ib l e by pub l ic transi t .
�
Twenty-two percent o f the s i tes were not acce s s ib l e by sidewalks .
And
32 percent of the inner- city recreat ional sites had phys i cal impediments ,
such as rai lroad tracks , busy streets and thoroughfares , or hi l l s or
gul l ies hindering access to the si tes .
And , 1 2 percent o f the faci l i ties
were found to b e fenced and locked with no indi cation gi ven o f when they
would be open .
The above informati on cl early indi cates that accessibi l ity to s i tes
and fac i l it i es is a prob l em in the Knoxvi l l e inner-city area .
Al l types
of neighborhood fac i l ities , swimming poo l s , tennis courts , b i cyc l e and
hiking trai l s , and community centers are not within the des i red radii of
at l east one-third o f the inner- c i ty populat ion .
Whi l e mob i l e uni t s
could help al l eviat e some o f the accessibil ity prob l ems , Knoxvi l l e only
has two mob i l e uni t s and they are , therefore , o f l i ttle s i gni ficance in
assess ing the access ib i l ity prob l em .
Al l things considered , the
access ib i l ity of inner- city recreat i onal fac i l it ie s is cl early a prob l em
in Knoxv i l l e .
Variety
The thi rty-one recreational sites in Knoxvi l l e ' s inner- c i ty area
provide fifty- seven di fferent recreati onal activi t i es .
The most often
provided fac i l i t ie s are informal open space for games and free play,
availab l e at nineteen sites ; swings , avai lab l e at s eventeen s i tes ; and
s l ides , avai l ab l e at thirteen sites .
Active type act iv ities , such as
71
pl ayground apparatus , informal open space ; and bal l fie lds are the most
often provided opportunities at the various thirty-one sites .
In addition to these activities , the Knoxvi l l e Recreation Bureau
also conducts summer programs in the inner-city area .
In conj unction
with the Knoxvi l l e Community Act ion Committee , free summer lunches are
provided at various pl aygrounds for dis advantaged youth .
Each summer,
Recreation Support Programs are conducted by the Recreation Bureau and
the Community Act ion Committee (CAC ) .
Funded by the United States
Department of Labor , exact activities vary from summer to summer depending on the amount of funds received .
Programs in the pas t have included
such act ivities as free day camp , tours of places of interest , and
tut oring programs .
In addition to the Recreation Support Program , the Knoxvi l l e
Recreat ion Bureau provides bus transport ation from area t o area for
disadvantaged people so that peop le can participat e in various ath letic
events outs ide their own areas .
Al s o , the Recreation Bureau opens the
City'' s swimming pool s at reduced rat es twice a week for the economi cal l y
disadvant aged .
13
T o determine the total numb er of act ivit ies avai l ab l e to the
inner- city res i dents , the res earcher combined the number of times the
various fifty- s even activities are avai lab l e at the thirty-one sit es
with the two mob i l e units and the special programs .
The comb ined
variety tot al was 229 recreational activit ies or opportunities .
13
As a general rul e , the above programs are avai lab l e to fami lies
whose incomes are b e l ow $ 3 , 600 per year . Interview , Maynard Gl enn .
72
In determining this number of act ivities , the researcher dis covered
some weaknesses in Knoxvi l l e ' s variety.
The inner- city area i s comp l etely
lacking a go l f course ; and there is only one · swimming pool and one senior
citizen center in the inner-city area.
Al though , there are s ixteen tennis
courts in the inne r-city area, nine of these court s are located at one
site--Tyson Park .
In addit ion , the inner- city community centers are no t
providing the complet e comprehens ive services they should .
In the first
place , · four of the eight inner-city community cent ers are lo cated in
Housing Proj ects and have l ittle or no recreation area surrounding the
bui lding .
One community cent er , Wes tern Heights , however , is located in
a Hous ing Proj ect that is on a 5 . 6 acre s ite with a pl ayground surrounding
the buil ding .
On ly the Cal Johnson Recreation Center and the Lonsda l e
Park Recreat ion Center are lo cated i n parks s eparate from housing proj ects .
It is l ikely that lo cating centers in housing proj ects may l imit the sites
us ers to mainly those persons residing in the proj ect .
Although people
l iving in high density housing proj ects do have a need for indoor
recreati onal faci lities , other residents of the inner- city should not be
overl ooked .
Secondly , the community centers ' structure and programs are
not as comprehensive as they probab l y should b e .
The maj ority o f
community centers in Knoxvi l l e consist o f a gymnas ium with an adaptab l e
al l -purpo se court for basketbal l , vo l l eybal l , and shuffl eboard ; a central
office for supervisors and the storing of equipment ; a game room with a
ping-pong tab l e , a pool tab l e , and l imited tab l e games ; a club room; and
restrooms .
Al though such faci l it ies cover an adequate range o f activities ,
such things as arts and crafts , senior cit i z ens ' activit i es , kitchen
73
This lack of
faci l iti es , and dressing rooms are not provided for .
comprehensiveness is another exampl e of the Knoxvi l l e inner- city recre­
at ion si tuat ion b e ing one of quantity and not qual ity .
Howeve r , to the city ' s credit , it should be pointed out that in
general , the Knoxvi l l e inner- city recreat ional s ites are we l l supervised .
In the Knoxvi l l e inner- city area , a l l community centers are served by
supervisors and are supplied with · check-out equipment .
In addition , some
of the l arger parks are also served by supervisors and s upp l ied with
check-out equipment ;
Whi l e it would be ideal for al l si tes to have
supervisors , it is real ized that such action would be impractical and
economica l l y impos s ib l e .
Under the circumstances , Knoxv i l l e do es a good
j ob of supervising i t s faci l ities .
As the above informat ion on variety indicates , the Knoxvi l l e
inner-city area does have some variety weaknesses .
At pres ent , however ,
inner-city res idents have a variety of 2 2 9 po ssib l e recreation act ivities
availab l e at the thirty-one s i tes and two mob i l e units .
Qual ity of Maintenance
As was stated in the first chapter , the qual ity of maintenance i s
evaluat ed b y the percentage o f sites that fit into three categori es :
( 1) we l l -maint ained , ( 2 ) adequat e l y maintained , or (3) inadequately
maint ained (for the criteria used for assessing each cat egory see the
"Eval uat ion" sect ion , "Qual ity of Maintenance" in the first chapter) .
Of the thirty-one inner- city recreat ional sites in Knoxvi l l e , 19 percent
are well -maint ained , 62 percent are adequately maintained , and 19 percent
are inadequately maintained (see Tab l e 3- 3) .
74
TABLE 3-3
KNOXVI LLE --QUALITY OF MAINTENANCE
Cat egory
Numb er of Sites
We l l Maintained
Adequate l y Maintained
Inadequately Maintained
Percent
6
19 %
19
62 %
6
1 9%
Although six s ites ar� cl ass ified as we l l maintained , three of the
si tes are the three ath letic compl exes located in the inner- city :
Beaumont Park , Winona Athletic Fie l d , and Wil son Avenue Athletic Field .
This further indicates that the Recreation Bureau emphas i zes athletic
programs over the needs of . other recreat ional programs .
General drainage is the most preval ent maintenance prob lem, fol l owed
by the cl eaning of grounds and bui ldings , and then the cutting and upkeep
of grass and hedges .
Several s ites had serious erosion prob l ems such as
trenches through bal l fields .
Eros ion is a maj or prob l em at Les lie Street
Park where city officials have sold the top soil and each rain caus es
serious erosi on .
Run off from the site washes int o ne ighboring yards
creating other prob lems .
Several faci l ities also l ack grass , resul ting
in dusty areas in dry weather and muddy areas in wet weather .
of grass also detract s from a s it e ' s visual attract iveness .
sites a l so have prob l ems with litter .
The l ack
Several
Broken g l ass , cans , paper , and
other forms of litter were in evidence at several s ites .
Not onl y does
this detract from the visual attract ivenes s of a s ite , but broken glass
and cans are al so safety hazards to the users of the s ites .
75
Although city o fficial s admit maintenance i s a prob l em , c ity
official s tend to b l ame such prob l ems on vanda l i s m .
Whi l e vandal i sm
undoubted l y does cause some extra maint enance prob l ems , this res earch
has indicated that the maj ority of the maintenance prob l ems can b e ·
al l eviated by proper and regu l ar maintenance of the s ites .
Effective Use of Land
S ince recreat ion is · often in competit ion with other users for l and
in inner-city areas , recreation departments should make the most
efficient use pos s ib l e of the avai lab l e recreation land .
One method
of doing this i s j oint cooperation among the various pub l i c s ectors ,
primarily the s choo l boards and the recreat ion departments .
In Knoxvi l l e , there is a di fference of opinion concerning the
extent of coordination of efforts among the various pub l ic s ectors .
According to Maynard G l enn , al l city school s are open to the pub l ic
during nons chool hours .
And Ralph Teague , the Assistant Director o f
the Recreation Bureau , stated . that the School Board , the Knoxv i l l e
Community Development Commis s ion ( KCDC) , the Community Act ion Committee
(CAC) , and the Recreat ion Bureau al l work together .
However , official s
outside the Recreat ion Bureau do not total ly agree with this .
John
Ulmer of KCDC told the researcher that there i s litt l e real coordination
of effort s .
According to Mr . Ulmer there i s some smal l degree of
coordination in exi s t ence, but , in general , the Schoo l Board d i scourages
such coordination because it is afraid that pub l i c use o f their property
wil l result in more damages · Caused by vandal is m .
And Joe Bowker, of the
76
Metropo l itan Planning Commi s s i on stated that there was only " l imited
14
.
cooperat1on . 11
During the course o f the personal inspect ions , s ince s choo l s ites
were l is ted as recreat ion s ites in the al ready mentioned Community
Fac i l ities Study , . some schools were · inspect ed by the researcher .
Every
school s ite inspected was found to be fenced and · l ocked and , therefore ,
unavai l ab l e to the · pub l i c .
A s ubs equent check with the School Board
reveal ed that this is the basic po l icy of the Schoo l Board .
school s ites were · not cons idered as recreation s ites .
Therefore ,
·
In rea l i ty there
is very l it t l e cooperat ion b etween the School Board and the Recreat ion
Bureau on exis t ing s ites .
In evaluating the coordination o f effort s in Knoxvi l l e , it was
found that there is some cooperat ion b etween the Recreat ion Bureau and
KCDC in deve loping new s ites through urban renewal .
There is also s ome
cooperation b etween the Recreation Bureau and the · CAC in administering
the summer Recreation Support Programs .
However , there is l ittle or
no cooperation b etween the Recreat ion Bureau and the School Board , and
this cooperation i s · probab l y the most needed cooperat ion in the innercity .
In general , there i s , at best , l imited coordinat ion of effort s
among the various pub l i c s e ctors , a prob l em that definitely needs
improvement .
A s econd measure of effect ive use of land i s determining what
percentage of inner- city l and is undeveloped .
14
According to Maynard
I nterview , Joe Bowker , Knoxvil l e - Knox County Metropol itan P l anning
Commiss ion , Novemb er 1 9 74 .
77
G l enn , approximately 14 percent o f the inner- city recreation land is
undeve loped at this t ime .
However , Mr . Gl enn s aid that thi s l and has
been purchased in advance . and was · s cheduled for future deve lopment as
the inner- city area grows .
The third measure of effective use of land is the ratio of total
inner-city recreat i on acreage (267 . 4 acres) to total inner- c ity recreational - opportunities ( 2 2 9 ) .
Thi s comparison results in a ratio of 1 : 1 5
recreat ional opportunities avai l ab l e for every one acre o f recreational
l and , a rat io of about 1 : 1 .
From all · indications , Knoxvi l l e ' s main prob lem with effective use
of inner- city recreat ion l and is the · lack of coordination of efforts
among the various pub l ic sectors .
Other measures on effect ive us e of
l and reveal that only 14 percent of the inner - city recreat ion l and i s
undeveloped , and that there is 1 . 1 5 recreational opportunit ies for every
one acre of recreat i onal l and in the inner- city (see Tab l e 3-4) .
TABLE 3 - 4
KNOXV I LLE --EFFECTIVE USE O F LAND
Measure
1.
Coordination of Efforts
2.
Per : ent o f Undeve loped Land
3.
Rat io Total Acreage to Opportunities
Evaluation
Limited
14%
1 : 1 . 15
78
Costs
As has al ready b een s tated , the Operat ing Budget for the Knoxvi l l e
Recreation Bureau for 1 9 73 was $ 1 , 569 , 000 .
Of this total $ 4 7 0 , 000 was
al locat ed for conducting programs in the inner-city area .
inner-city has a population of 64 , 9 26 .
The Knoxvil l e
Therefore , for 1 9 73 , the
Recreat ion Bureau spent - $ 7 . 25 per capita for inner- city recreation .
This compares to an expenditure o f $ 8 . 98 per capita for recreation for
Knoxvi l l e as a whol e .
VII.
SUMMARY .
Thi s res earch indicates · that Knoxvi l l e inner- city recreation has
weaknes ses to some · degree of another in each of the five factors used
for evaluat ion ,
The most pre s s ing prob lems appear to b e with acces s i ­
b i l ity o f the s ites and coordinat ion of effort s .
Prob l ems with variety ,
e specia l l y in programs conducted at the community centers , are prob l ems
that a l s o indi cate weaknes s es in the inner- city recreat i on program .
In
addit ion to the above weaknesses , the pol itical prob l ems as sociated with
recreati on, the lack of a current inventory of the recreat i onal s ites ,
and the emphas i s on sports programs at the expense o f pass ive recreat ion
are other prob l ems that are weaknes ses in the recreation program and need
to be dealt with.
However, the present inner- city recreation programs do show certain
strengths .
Foremost is the Recreat ion Bureau ' s recognition o f the need
for more fac i l ities in the inner-city area .
Thi s is evident by the fact
that 60 percent of the Capital I mprovements Program for 1 9 7 3 was al located
79
for acqui s i t ion , deve lopment , and improvements for the inner-cit y .
And
although it result s in a weakness b y not providing for pass ive recre­
at ion , it mus t b e acknowl edged that the Recreat \on Bureau does operate
a strong ath l et ic- sports program in both the inner-city and the suburbs .
In addit ion to these strengths , it should be mentioned again that the
Recreat ion Bureau does a good j ob of supervis ing the fac i l i t i es that do
exi s t .
Although additional strengths and weaknes ses wi l l b e evident when
compari sons among the study s ites are discussed in the last chapter of
this thes i s , when vi ewed alone , inner-city recreat ion in Knoxvi l l e can
best b e summari z ed by describ ing the fac i l it ies and programs as being
of adequate quantity but l acking qual ity .
CHAPTER I V
MEMPHI S
I.
THE STUDY AREA
The study area for Memphi s is composed of three planning district s ,
those b eing the North Memphis Planning Dis trict , the Central Bus ines s
District (CBD) -Medical Center P l anning District , and the South Memphis
Planning District (see map , Figure 4 - 1 ) .
The study area i s bounded on
the North by the Wo l f River Levee ; on the East by the I l l inoi s Central
Rai l road , Vol l intine Street , Interstate 2 5 5 , Bel lvue Street , and
Interstate 255 again ; on the South by the I l l inoi s Central Rai l road ,
Interstate 55 , and the Nonconnah Creek ; and on the West by Lake McKe l l ar
and the Mis s i ss ippi River .
In accordance with the definition o f inner- city for this research ,
20 percent or more of the population in each p l anning district i s below
the poverty l evel .
The fo l l owing pres ents the population and the
percentage of the populat i on below the poverty l eve l in each planning
unit :
PoEu l ation
1
% in Povertl
CBD-Medical Center
3 3 , 674
40 . 2%
North Memphis
61 , 418
27 . 5%
South Memphis
7 7 , 72 1
25 . 3%
Planning Di strict
1
Memphis and Shelby County: Populat i on Hous ing Economl, Memphi s and
Shelby County Planning Commi s sion , January , 1 97 3 , pp . 8 , 1 7 .
80
81
N W.
•
MILLINGTON
SHELBY
SHELBY FARMS­
GERMANTOWN
WHITEHAVEN-LEVI
OAKHAVEN
PAJIKWAY VILLAGE
F I GURE 4 - 1
MEMPH IS INNER-C ITY AREA
COLLIERVILLE
82
The total populat ion for the Memphis study area is 1 7 2 , 8 1 3 .
In
each of the three inner- city planning dis tricts , the great maj ority of
the popul at i on is ·b l ack .
B l acks comprised approximately 89 percent of
the total inner- city popul at i on , with · the CBD-Medi cal Center District
being 70 . 9 percent b l ack , the North Memphis District being 88 . 1 percent
b l ack , and the South Memphis District b eing 97 . 3 percent b l ack .
2
Low ,
moderate , and middl e- income housing is di spers ed throughout the innercity area with the l ow- income · fami l ies primari l y res iding in pub l i c
hous ing complexe s .
II.
THE ADMINI STRATION
The admini strat ive arm of pub l i c recreation in the city of Memphi s
i s the Memphis Park Commi ss ion .
Estab l ished in 1900 , the five -man
commi s s ion, whose memb ers are appointed by the Mayor , i s authorized to
acquire l and for park purpos e s ins ide and within ten mi l e s of the city
l imit s .
3
The commis sion i s respons�b l e for estab l i shing admini strat ive
and operational pol i c y , and contro l l ing and · maintaining parks , playgrounds , and parkways acquired under privisions of the city code .
The
E xecutive Director , James Hadaway , i s the chief administrative offi cer
of the Memphis Park Commissi on .
2
3
Ibid . , p . 8 .
Parks, Recreation and Conservation P l an, Community Fac i l ities
Study, Volume V ; Memphi s and Shelby County Pl anning Commi s s ion , Apri l
1972, p . 2 1 .
83
The Memphis Park Commiss ion employs its own planner , and with · staff
as s istance from the Memphis and Shelby County P l anning Commi s s ion , does
its own long- and short- range planning as we l l as preparing its own
Capital Improvements Program.
4 ·
Basic populat ion-bas ed acreage standards
are used for recreat ion planning .
However , the Memphis Park Commi ss ion
also fee l s that cert ain "qualitat ive standards mus t also be met if the
total · park system is to funct ion · effect ive ly . "
5
For this reason the
Memphi s Park Commi ss ion feel s that parks should be developed not on ly in
accordance with speci fied st andards but also in accordance with the
part icular needs and wants of individual communit i es .
Thi s act ion i s
accomp l i shed by surveying the citi z ens in the area around where a
propo sed s it e is to b e constructed in order to determine what fac i l ities
should go into the site .
Al though · the Memphis Park Commis s ion has a goal of estab l ishing a
system of neighborhood and district parks , a system of large urban
parks , a system of regional parks , and a system o f greenbelts , in recent
years the top priority of the commi ss ion has been the devel opment of
neighborhood community centers .
6
4
s . S . Ho lder, J . D . Patton , and B . A . Ittman , Urban Recreat ion
Pl anning and Programming in Tennessee : An Evaluation of the State ' s
� ( Lexington , Kentucky : Spindl etop Res earch ; 197 1 ) , p . 7 1 .
·•
5
6
Parks, Recreation and Cons ervat ion P l an , p. 47 .
Interview 1 Larry Cox , P l anning Coordinator , Memphis Parks
Commiss ion , December 1 2 , 19 7 3 .
84
III .
PERCE IVED PROB LEMS
The first s t ep in this research was to ident i fy the prob lems
connected with inner-city recreat i on as perceived by tho s e persons
intervi ewed .
During the course of the intervi ews , each person inter-
viewed was as ked i f he or she considered the pres ent fac i l ities adequat e
to meet the recreat ional needs of the inner- city .
.
Each person int er-
vie.wed in Memphi s fe lt that the pre s ent faci l i t i es were inadequat e to
meet the present needs .
Six of the seven peop l e int erviewed stat ed that
there j ust was not enough s i tes in the inner- city area .
Mr . Frank
Buford , Director o f Area Program Coordinat ion for the Memphi s -She lby
County Community Act ion Agency, fe lt that not onl y are there too few
sites , but a l s o that the sites that are avai lab l e lack adequat e programs
.
and equ1pment
.
7
When asked what did they con s i der to be the maj or prob l ems connected
with providing recreat ional fac i l i t i e s in inner-city areas , the consensus
of opinion was that there are three maj or prob l ems :
a l ack of money ,
high land cost in the inner-city area , and a lack of avai lab l e land .
It should b e pointed out that the above prob lems are j ust the main
ones that are perceived as prob l ems by those persons interviewed .
Other
prob l ems and inadequacies that were detected by thi s res earch wi l l b e
di scus s ed in the remaining port i ons of this chapter .
7
A summary of these
Interview , Mr . Frank Buford , Di rector of Area Program Coordinat i on ,
Memph i s - Shelby County Community Act i on Agency , December 14 , 1 9 7 3 .
85
probl ems and the · Memphis · inner- city recreation s ituation wi l l · be
presented at the end of this chapter .
IV .
INVENTORY
Both the Memphis Park Commission and the Memphis and Shelby County
P l anning Commi ssion have compl eted recreat ional site inventori es in the
l as t three years .
The Memphis and Sh elby County P l anning Commiss ion
compl eted a Community Faci lit ies Study in April of 1 9 7 2 .
The fifth
volume of this study is ent it led Parks , Recreat ion and Cons ervation
Plan and contained a recreational site invent ory .
The Memphis Park
Commission in 1972 completed an inventory of its s ites .
By us ing the informat ion obtained from the two recreat ional site
inventori es , the interviews , and the personal inspect ions , the reseracher
determined that there are fourty- four recreational sites covering seven
hundred and fi fty- seven acres (exact ly 756 . 8 1 ) locat ed throughout the
inner-c ity area .
For the locat ion of these s ites s ee Figure 4 - 2 , and
for the opportunities avai lab l e at these s ites see Tab le 4 - 1 .
The
numbers on Figure 4 - 2 correspond to the ,numbers assoc iat ed with · sites
in Tab le 4 - 1 .
In addition to the · forty- four permanent sites , the Memphis Park
Commi ss ion perat es eighteen mob i l e recreat ion units .
These eighteen
units including a zoomobi l e , a movi emob i l e , an instant pl ayground
trai l er , a b oxing mob i l e , two portab le stages , two arts and crafts units ,
two skatemob i l es , two science and nature unit s , and four mob i l e recre­
at ion pl aygrounds are used in taking recreat ion programs into area where
there are only l imited fac i l ities .
86
•
15
•
31
u
•
21
•
0
•'
14
•
za
•
•
3
•2
•
121
51
•
44
•
n
•
45
• •
••
•
24
35
•
II
•
54
•
t
F I GURE 4 - 2
LOCATION OF MEMPH IS INNER-C I TY RECREATION S I TES
87
TABLE 4 - l
MEMPHIS SITE INVENTORY
FACILITIES AVAILABLE
..
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
u
"'
.�"
"
..
..
..
..
PARKS
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30 .
31.
32.
33.
34 .
35.
36.
37 .
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44 .
Bickford Park
Gooch
Guthrie
Hol lywood
Klondike
_ll_urt V l lue Center
May Street
New Chicago
Oates Manor
Univers i ty
Vollentine
Washin2ton
L . E . Brown
John Rogers Tennis Ctr.
Malone
Brinkley
Columbus
Tom Lee
Ashburn
Martyrs
Army
Navy
Beale
Forrest
Madison & Orleans
M:u.evney House
ourt S uare
Jefferson Davis
Confederat e
Handy
Winchester
Morris
Chand ler
Lincoln
South Side
Patton
B. F . Boothe
Belz
Mart in L . Kin2 Riverside
DeSoto
E . H . Crump
Pine Hi l l
Riverview
Gaston
Total
�
3 . 01
10. 28
6 . 00
3 . 02
12.83
2 . 00
8 . 50
8 . 45
3 . 00
1 0 . 40
3 . 59
7 . so
6 . 10
4 . 94
1 . 88
.97
. 11
1 0 . 28
2 . 26
6 . 14
• 54
.45
8 . 00
8 . 07
.51
. 26
2 . 08
2 . 46
2. 75
.43
8 . 88
4 . 85
2 . 58
1 . 10
3. 39
. 47
4 . 23
1 0 . 92
372 . 32
18 . 59
5 . 60
60 . 76
17.72
8 . 29
756.81
..
u
'"
u
� .." �
;
a
"'
!( li �
"'
,., � ..
..
�
� c..
"'
'i'
�
�
"'
..
0
"'
·><
0
u
"
Ul
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
[
X
t
!l'
X
X
c
c
c
E
E
E
i
...
u
..
"'
"'
"
u
c..
�
...
;;
X
X
X
X
X
X
u
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
Y.
X
X
X
s
s
s
"'
..
"
·
'"
"'
..
i
"
..
0
D
X
�
c..
"'
"
0
.c
"
"
"
..
0
:c
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
'2
..
0
..0
...
:I
�
X
E
I
I
I
c
c
c
u
X
u
N
D
X
D
N
E
X
E
Ul
..
>
0
u
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
N
N
"
"'
<
·><
·><
�
u
..
"'
� 'll t:
"
... ..
X
v
.!::
"
·�Ul
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
s
s
s
I
I
I
T
T
T
E
E
E
v
E
v
E
L
X
L
0
X
0
I
X
T
X
E
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
s
c
E
N
u
s
X
X
X
c
X
X
X
E
X
X
N
X
X
X
I
X
X
X
N
X
X
X
X
X
I
X
s
c
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
c
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
v
s
X
X
X
E
I
X
X
X
"'
..
"
..
"'
"
-<
"
'"
..
"
"
"
·><
�
"
.;:
"'
"'
..
"'
"
·><
�
0
0
c..
..
.::;
�
0
0
c..
�
0
.. u
"
"'
...
'i
=
=
"'
�
X
X
X
c..
-g
·><
�
X
X
X
�
"'
"
..
�·><
..
"
..
<
u
·><
u
·><
..
..
... �
�
.. "
..0
.::;
"
.!:! � �
..
c..
"'
X
X
�
�
"
..0
"
....
�
�
..
..0
"
0
0
"'
0
Ul
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
T
E
X
X
..
"'
u
..
..
...
::
..
0 :I
" 0
.. u
"
u
....
" �
"' 0
Ul "
X
X
E
X
D
s
I
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
p
X
p
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
p
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
N
R
I
v
E
E
X
E
H
D
s
I
T
E
T
0
R
I
�c..
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
t:
�
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
p
"
"'
;
·><
..
"'
..
�
R
X
X
D
I
s
X
c
A
L
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
88
V.
COST
The Memphis Park Commi ss ion receives from the general tax levy an
amount not tu exceed $0 . 1 5 for every $ 1 00 . 00 of assessed valuat ion .
The
current amount - from the tax levy directed to parks i s $0 . 1 1 ; however ,
thi s figure is suppl emented by a general fund appropriat ion equal to
about $ 0 . 08 .
8
For 1 9 7 3 , the Memphis Park Commi s sion ' s Operat ing Budget
was a l it t l e over eight mi l l ion do l l ars .
Of this total , approximate l y
25 percerit o r about two mi l l ion do l l ars was a l l ocat ed to the inner-c ity
area .
9
The Operat ing Budget covers such expenditures as maintenance ,
It should be
salaries and personnel , equipment , suppl ies , and programs .
pointed out that the eight mi l l ion do l l ar budget included the high
expenditure items of Memphi s Memorial Stadium and the Overton Park Zoo ,
both of which are outside the inner-city area .
For 1 9 7 3 , the City of Memph is had a Recreation Capi tal Improvements
Program of $ 1 , 6 2 1 , 79 6 .
O f this tot al $ 750 , 000 , o r approximate l y 4 6
percent was scheduled for proj ects in the inner- city area .
10
The
Capital Improvements Program covers expenditures for acquis ition and
deve lopment of new proj ects and/ or extens ive expans ion or improvement s
of exist ing s ites .
The Capital Improvements Program is financed
primarily by matching fund federa l grants in which a federal government
agency pays for SO - percent of a proj ect whi le a l ocal government mat ches
8
9
Parks , Recreat ion and Conservat ion P lan , p . 2 2 .
Interview ; Larry Cox .
10
Ibi d .
89
the federal share with the other SO percent .
Th e city of Memphi s
.provides i t s matching shares mainly through general ob l i gat ion bonds ,
revenue bonds . and revenue obtained from the Memphi $ Park Commi s s ion ' s
.
11
.
fac1' 1 1t1es
"
The comb ined Operat ing Budget and Capital Improvements Program in
the inner-c ity area for 1973 was approximat ely $ 2 . 750 , 000 .
VI .
EVALUATI ON
Acces s ib i l ity
As has a l ready b een stat ed , acce s s ib i lity wi l l be measured i n t erms
of the percentage of persons not with in either a one-ha l f mi l e or a one
mile radius of certain types of fac i l it i es .
The one-hal f mi l e radius
was used for essent ial ly ne ighborhood oriented faci l it i e s , whi l e the
one mi l e radius was used for essent i a l l y communi ty oriented faci l it ies .
The spe c i fic fac i l it i es examined in each cat egory were d i scus sed in
Chapt er I .
Th irty-one ( 3 1 ) percent o f the inner- city res i dent s of Memphis are
not within one-hal f mi le of a recreat i onal s i te w i th a paved play area .
Twent y ( 2 0 ) percent o f the inner- city res idents are without informal
open space , and 25 percent of those persons l iving in the inner-city are
not within a ha l f-mi l e of p l ay apparatus such as s l ides and swings .
Only
1 5 percent of the inner- c i ty res idents are not within a hal f-mi l e of a
recreat ion s ite with s anit ary fac i l it ies .
11
Ibid .
Th irty- seven ( 37 ) percent of
90
the residents are without a passive recreation site · within a half-mi l e
o f their home s , and 5 7 percent lack a recreational s i t e with a wading
poo l or a spray pool within a hal f-mi l e of their home;
( s ee Tab l e 4 - 2 ) .
Within the one-mil e radius , only 20 percent of the inner-city
res ident s do not l ive within a mi l e of a swimming pool .
Twenty- four ( 2 4 )
percent of the inner-city populat ioni s not within a mi le o f tennis
court s .
Only 2 percent of the inner- city populat ion is not wi thin a
mi l e of regulation athletic fie l ds , but 31 percent of the inner-city
residents are not within a mi l e radius of athletic fi elds with specator
faci l ities .
Thirty-three ( 33} percent of the inner-city popul ation is
not within a mi l e of a picnic are a, and 81 percent of the inner- city
residents are no t within the pres cribed dis tance of either hiking and/or
b iking trai l s .
And 2 7 · percent of the inner- city dwe l l ers do not l ive
within a mi l e of a community center (see Tab l e 4 - 2 ) .
In add it ion to the direct access ib i l ity measures concerning distance ,
other acces s ib i l ity factors were also taken into cons iderat ion .
Eighteen
( 1 8 ) percent of the inner-city recreat ional s ites are not ac cessib l e by
pub l ic transport at ion .
Sixt een ( 1 6 ) percent of the sites are not
accessib l e by s idewal ks , and 20 percent of the inner-city recreational
sites have phys ical impediments , such as rai lroad tracks , busy streets
and thoroughfares , or hi l l s or gul l ies hindering access to the sites .
The above informat ion ind icates that acces s ib i l ity to s ites and
fac i l it i e s i s not a great prob lem in Memphis , except for pas s ive recre­
at ional s ites , s ites with · a wading or spray pool , and hiking and b i cycl e
trai l s .
However , the percentages do indicate that there is st i l l room
91
TABLE 4 - 2
MEMPH IS --ACCESSI B I LITY
Population W/Out
Type
P ercent
One�half mi le radius
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Paved P l ay Area
Informal Open Space
P l ay Apparatus
Sanit ary Fac i l it ies
Pass ive Area
Wading or Spray Poo l
54 , 5 4 1
34 , 008
4 3 , 279
26 , 1 37
64 , 2 26
97 , 9 0 7
31%
2 0%
25%
15%
37%
57%
35 , 01 0
4 1 , 335
3 , 700
52 , 864
57 , 69 5
139 J 700
47 , 07 7
20%
24%
2%
31%
33%
81%
27%
One-mi l e radius
1.
2.
3.
4.
·s.
6.
7.
Swimming Pool
Tenn is Court
Athletic Fi elds
· ·�ectator Fac i lities
Picn ic Areas
Hiking or Bicycl e Trai l s
Community Centers
·
92
for improvement s and that there are not , as the perceived prob l ems
suggested , enough · si tes in the inner-city area .
Variety
The forty- four recreat ional sites in Memphis ' inner-city area
provide seventy-one different recreat ional act ivities .
The most oft en
provided facil ities are s itting areas for pas sive recreat ion , availab l e
at thirty s i t e s ; swings and informal open spac e , avai l ab l e at twenty­
four sites ; s l ides , avai lable at twenty-three s ites ; and j ungle-gyms
and outdoor basketbal l avai lab l e . at ninet een sites .
In addition to these act ivit ies , the Memphis Park Commi ss ion a l s o
conducts special summer programs in the inner-c ity area .
I n conj unction
with the Memphis Board of Educat ion , the Park Commiss ion operat es a free
lunch program for disadvantaged youth · that serves over 30 , 000 chi ldren
each day .
For dis advant aged youth , the Park Commis sion operat es free
day camp and · free swimming at various s ites throughout the inner- city
area.
Addit ional summer programs operated in the inner-city include
field trips , rock concerts , a b i cyc l e derby, and various educational
classes .
To determine the · t ot al number of activities avai l ab l e to the inner­
city res idents , the researcher combined the numb er of times the various
seventy-one act ivit ies are avai lab l e at the forty- four sites with the
eighteen mob i le un its and the special programs .
The comb ined variety
total was 5 2 2 recreational activities or opportunit ies .
93
An indicat ion of the recreational variety avai lab l e i n Memphi s can
b e seen in the divers e - opportunities avai lab l e at the various communi ty
centers .
The typical community center includes a gymnas ium for a l l
types of ath l et i c act ivities such as basketbal l , . vo l l eybal l , badminton ,
weight l i ft ing , tumb l ing, and supervised cal isthenics ; game rooms for
ping-pong , poo l , checkers , chess , and other tab l e games ; meeting rooms
for art s and crafts cl asses , hobb ies , and club · meetings ; multipurpos e
rooms for dancing , mus ic , o r choral instruction ; dre s sing rooms ; a
central office for supervis ors and the · s toring of equipment ; restrooms ;
and a kitchen .
It should also be pointed out that al l Memphis community
centers have week ly act ivities for Senior Citizens .
In addition, it should also b e noted that the Memphis inner- city
recreat ional s ites are wel l supervi s ed .
In the Memphis inner-city area,
al l community centers are served by supervisors and supp l i ed with check­
out equipment .
And in the summer, al l s ites are served by supervis ors .
As the above information indicates , the Memphis inner-city
recreati onal s ites offer a large and wide- ranging variety of recreational
opportunities .
Again , the Memphis inner- city res idents have a variety
of some 522 pos s ib l e recreat ion act ivities offered to them .
Qual ity
of Maintenance .
As was s tat ed in the first chapter , the qual ity of maintenance is
evaluated by the percentage of s i tes that fit into three cat egories :
( 1 ) wel l -maint ained , ( 2 ) adequately maintained , or (3) inadequately
maintained ( for the criteria us ed for as s es s ing . each category s ee the
94
"Evaluation" section ; "Qual ity of Maintenance" in the first chapter) .
Of the forty- four inner- city recreat ional s ites in Memphis , 59 percent
are wel l -maintained , 34 percent are · adequately maintained , and onl y 7
percent are inadequately maintained (see Tab l e 4 - 3) .
TABLE 4 - 3
MEMPHIS --QUAL I TY O F MAINTENANCE
Category
Percent
Number of Sites
We ll Maintained
26
59%
Adequately Maintained
15
34%
3
7%
Inadequat ely Maintained
The cl eaning of grounds and bui ldings is the most preval ent
maintenance prob l em, fo l l owed by the upkeep of game court s , and then the
upkeep of equipment and apparatus .
Litter in the form of broken glas s ,
cans , and paper was the maintenance : prob l em that was mos t often seen
during the personal inspections of the recreat ional s ites .
As has been
pointed out , not only does thi s detract from the visual attractiveness
of a s i t e , but broken glass and cans are also s a fety haz ards to the
us ers of the s it e s .
Al l things cons idered , the qua l ity of maint enance of Memphis ' inner­
city recreat ion fac i l ities is good and should not b e considered a prob l em .
Some minor work i s needed , however, on individual s i tes in order to make
them the attract ive , safe fac i l it i e s they should b e .
95
Effective Us e o f Land
Since recreation is often in competit ion with other us ers for l and
in inner-city areas , recreation departments should make the most .
efficient use possib l e of the avai l ab l e recreat ion land .
One method of
do ing · thi s i s j oint cooperat ion among the various pub l ic sectors ,
primarily the s chool boards . and the < recreation department s .
From a l l indicat ions of this research , there is a great deal of
cooperat ion between the Memphis Park Commission and the Memphis Board of
Educat ion .
As has al ready been ment ioned , the Park Commiss ion and the
Board of Educat ion operate a free lunch program during the summer for
disadvantaged youth .
Mr . Gerald McKinney , Superint endent of Recreat ion
for the Memphis Park Commission , stated during an interview ; that the
Board of Educat ion a l l ows the Park Commi s s ion to us e s ome forty to fifty
schoo l gymnasiums year round to supp lement the Park Commiss ion ' s community
center programs .
12
Since there is a cooperative agre ement b etween the Board of
Educat ion and the Park Commission , every attempt is made to locat e
neighborhood parks adj acent t o s choo l s ites " in order t o avo id dup l ica.
.
.
" 1"
,l3
.
an d to perm1t max1murn ut1 1zat1on
.
t1on o f fac 1. 1 1t1es
" .
'
During the
course of the personal inspections , · the researcher dis covered that
nearly al l of the neighborhood parks and community centers were l ocat ed ·
adj acent to schoo l s .
I n fact , 3 8 percent of al l inner-city recreation
12
Interview , Mr . Gerald McKinney , Superint endent of Recreation ,
Memphis Park Commiss ion , Decemb er 1 7 ,. 1973 .
13
Parks, Recreation and Cons ervat ion Plan , p . 48 .
96
sites were l ocated next to schoo l s .
Al l indications are that there is a
great deal of cooperat ion among -the various pub l i c sectors .
A second measure of effective us e of land is det ermining what
percentage of inner-c ity l and is undeveloped .
According to informat ion
obtained from Larry Cox and from the resear.cher ' s own obs ervations , only
2 percent of the inner-city recreat i on land is undeveloped .
This l and
wi l l be deve loped ' in future years .
A third measure of effective use of l and is the rat io of total
inner-city recreat ion acreage (75 6 . 8 1 ) to total inner-city recreational
This comparison results in a rat io of 1 . 45
opportunities ( 5 2 2 ) .
recreat ional acres for every one recreat ional opportunity .
However , the
researcher wishes to point out that two l arge - inner- city parks account
for 533 . 08 acres or about 70 percent of the total inner- city recreation
acreage .
For this reason, Memphis ' rat io of recreat ion acreage to
opportunities might be mis l eading .·
From al l indicat ions of this research , Memphis is doing a good j ob
of effectively using its recreation land .
Tab l e 4 -4 shows the evaluation
of the three measures of effective use of land .
TABLE 4-4
MEMPH IS--EFFECTIVE USE OF LAND
Measure
1.
Coord inat ion of Efforts
2.
Percent of Undeve loped Land
3.
Rat io of Opportunities to Acreage
Evaluation
Good
2%
1 : 1 . 45
97
Cost s
As has already been stated , the Operat ing Budget for the Memphis
Park Commiss ion for 1973 was s l ight ly over $8 , 000 , 000 .
Of this tot a l ,
$ 2 , 000 , 000 was a l l ocated for conductipg programs in the inner-city area .
The Memphis inner-ci ty popu l at i on i s 1 7 2 , 81 3 .
Therefore , for 1 9 7 3 , the
Park Commi s s ion spent $ 1 1 . 57 per capita for inner-city recreation .
This
compares to a recreat ion expenditure of $ 1 1 . 1 3 per capita for Memphis as
a who l e .
VI I .
SUMMARY
Th i s res earch indicates that there are no g l aring weaknesses in the
Memphis inner- city recreat ion program .
Of the five factors used for
evaluation in this research , Memphis ' main prob l em seems to be acces s ib i l ­
ity.
As each of the persons interviewed indicated , there are s imp ly not
enough fac i l ities in the inner-city area .
The neighborhood oriented
faci l i t i es of paved play areas , pass ive areas , and wading and spray
poo l s a l ong with the community oriented faci l it ies of picnic areas and
hiking and biking tra i l s represent the main acce s s ib l e prob lems .
How­
ever , the l ack of money, the l ack of avai l ab le land , and the high price
of inner -city l and are the main prob l ems that impede access ib i lity
progress .
As has already been stated , there appear to be no glaring weaknesses
in Memphis ' inner- city recreation s i tuat ion .
strengths .
However , there are certain
First and foremos t i s the pos itive att i tude and the reali za­
tion of th e need for inner- city recreation by the staff of the Memphi s
98
Park Commission .
I t i s b ecause o f the staff that the inner-city area
has such a wide variety of programs and opportunit i e s .
The Park
Commi s s ion ' s priority on community centers has provided a strong system
o f community cent ers and a var iety o f programs in the inner- city area .
Another strong point of . the Memphi s inner- c ity recreat ion s i tuation i s
the fact that more money i s spent per capita on recreat i on i n the inner­
city area than i s spent for recreati o n per capita for the city as a who l e .
Al though additional strengths and weaknes s es wi l l b e evident when
comparisons among the study sites are discus sed in the l ast chapter o f
this thes i s , when viewed alone , the inner-city recreation s ituation for
Memphis can best be describ ed as a strong one that is striving to improve .
The offic i al s real i z e its weaknes ses and are trying to improve them.
CHAPTER V
NASINI LLE
I.
THE STUDY AREA
The s tudy area for Nashvi l l e is composed of four Community
Analys is Zones , those being the North Nashvi l l e , the East Nashvi l l e ,
the Elm Hi l l , and the University Center Analys is Zones (see map ,
Figure 5 - l ) .
As was stat ed in Chapter · · I , Community Analys is Zones
are used for Nashvi l l e because such zones are comparab l e to the other
study areas ' p l anning units , whi l e Nashvi l l e ' s pl anning units are
neighborhood units , comparabl e to the other s tudy areas ' census tract
districts .
I t should again be noted that neither Nashvi l l e ' s planning
units nor Community Analysis Zones fo l l ow census tract lines .
The Nashvi l l e s tudy area is bounded on the North by the Cumberland
River, C l evel and Avenue , Mi l e End Avenue , and Dougl as Avenue ; on the
East by a Louisvi l l e and Nashvi l l e Rai lroad Line , and the property
l ine for the Tenness ee Preparatory Schoo l ; on the South by another
Louisvi l l e and Nashvi l l e Rai lroad Line , and Interstate 440 ; and on the
Wes t by another Louisv i l l e and Nashvi l l e Rai l road Line , Char lotte
Parkway , Centennial Boul evard , and Bos l ey Road .
In accordance with the defin it ion of inner-city for thi s res earc h ,
in each Community Analys is Zone , 2 0 percent o r more o f the populat ion
is below the poverty l evel .
The fo l l owing presents the popul ation and
99
100
F I GURE 5- l
NASHV I LLE INNER-CITY AREA
1 01
the percentage of the population below the poverty l evel in each
Community Ana lysis Zone :
Analysi s Zones
1
% in Poverty
Popu l ation
North Nashvi l l e
41 , 889
33 . 8 %
Eas t Nashvi l l e
33, 539
2 3 . 4%
Elm Hi l l
12 , ll6
38 . 6%
Univers ity Center
36 , 4 7 3
24 . 4 %
The total population of the Nashvi l l e study area i s 1 24 , 01 7 .
Of this total , 69 , 900, or approximative l y 56 percent , are black .
Bl acks compri se the maj ority of the popul ation in two zones , North
Nashvi l l e where 93 percent of the population is b lack , and Elm Hi l l
where 6 6 percent o f the 'population i s b l ack .
In the East Nashvi l l e
zone , b l acks compose about 30 percent o f the population , whi l e in the
Univers ity Center zone blacks compos ed about 35 percent of the popu�
1 at1on .
.
2
In each zone fami l i es with chi l dren make up a high percentage
of the population .
I I . THE ADMINI STRATION
The admini strative arm of pub lic recreat ion in the city of
Nashvi l l e is the Nashvi l l e-Davidson County Metropol i tan Bo ard of Parks ·
11
1 Inner City Bl ight , " Nashvi l le-Davidson County. Metropo litan
P l anning Commiss ion (Septemb er , 1 9 73) , pp . 139- 2 3 3 .
1 02
and Recreation .
Established in April of 1 963 when the ·Metropoli tan
Government was estab l i shed , the Board of Parks and Recreation is made
up of seven members .
The mayor appoints five of the members , and one
member each comes · from the · School Board and the · Metropoli tan Planning
Commi s s ion .
Charl e s R . Spears , .the Director o f the Metropoli tan Board
of Parks · and Recreation , is the chief adminis trative offi cer .
Al though the staff of the Board of Parks and Recreation is
respons ib l e for recreation p l anning (i . e . , long- and short-range p l ans ,
plans , the Capital Improvement s Program : for Recreat i on) , Recreation
Space-- 1 980 , a recreation p l an done by the Metropol itan P l anning
Commis sion in 1 965 , estab l i shed guide l ines and standards that are s ti l l
fol l owed by the Board in formulating their plans .
Fol l owing the
guidelines and standards estab l ished by Recreation Space-- 1 9 8 0 , three
bas i c types of parks have been and are being estab l i shed by the Board
of Parks and Recreation :
( I ) pl ayground parks serving nei ghborhood
areas and being at l east seven acres and no more than twenty- five
acres , ( 2 ) p l ayfi e l d parks s erving s everal neighborhoods and being at
l east twenty-five acres and no more than one hundred acres , and (3)
large urban parks s erving the metropolitan area as a whol e and being
at least one · hundred acres .
In both the p l ayground parks and the
p l ayfi e l d parks , the s ites should be so designed that hal f the area wi l l
b e devoted t o active activi ties and hal f the area devoted to passive
103
act ivit ies .
Large urban parks are int ended to general ly be l eft in
their natural s t at e .
3
To see how we l l Nashvi l le ' s recreat ional needs were being met ,
the Park s and Recreation Department , the Metropo l i tan Department of
F inance , and the Nashvi l l e Urban Observatory conducted a c i t i z en
survey .
The purpos e o f the survey was to inves t i gate c i t i zen att itudes
toward metropolitan recreation services and to evaluat e the effect iveness of the services .
A telephone survey was conducted using a random
sample taken from the Nashvi l le telephone directory .
Although total
results from the survey are not ava i l ab l e at the t ime of t hi s writ ing ,
prel iminary resul ts from February , 1 974 , has caused. the Board of Parks
and Recreat ion to recons ider some of the standards and guidel ines
estab l i shed by Recreat ion Space-- 1 980 .
The main goa l s of the Nashvi l l e-Davidson County Metropol itan Board
of Parks and Recreat i on are :
•Acqui s i t ion of land prior to ful l development to insure proper
locat ion and to minimi ze l and costs .
•Whenever pos sible development of recreat ion fac i l i t ies in
conjunction with schoo l s ites to avoid dup l icat ion of faci l i ties .
• Proper maint enance o f fac i l i ties to in sure perpetual i ty .
• Provide park activities to s uit the needs o f the peop l e t o be
served .
• Development of the individual s i te to give the maximum use .
• Location so as to best serve the popul at ion . 4
3
Recreation Space -- 1 980 , Nashvi l l e-Davidson County Metropol i t an
P l anning Commission (F ebruary , 1 965) .
4
Memorandum, Nashvi l l e-Davidson County Metropol itan · P i anning
Commiss ion (Augus t 1 7 , 1 973) , p . 9 .
1 04
III .
PERCE IVED PROBLEMS
The first step in this research was to identi fy the · prob l ems
connected with inner- city recreation as perceived by those persons
interviewed .
During the course of the interviews , each person
int erviewed was asked if he or she considered the present facil ities
adequate to meet the recreational needs of · the inner-city are a .
Each
person interviewed in Nashvi l l e responded no , the consensus o f opinion
being that there are enough of some types of fac i l ities but not enough
o f others .
Neighborhood pl aygrounds are the type of faci l ity that is
most o ften lacking .
In discus s ing the main prob l ems connected with inner- city
recreation , all persons interviewed mentioned the l ack of n eighborhood
facil ities .
Mr . Lal l i e T . Richter , Res earch and Planning Administrator
of the Board of Parks and Recreation s tated that the Recreat ion Space-1 980 had s et a top priority on the acquisition of large tracts of land
for l arger parks .
Thi s prob lem is mainly so lved , but the needs for
smal l er neighborhood faci lities st i l l remains .
for such faci l it ies is now in short supp ly .
5
And , unfortunate l y , land
Char l es R . Spears
supported this when he stated that the main probl em is s imp ly that there
5
Interview , Mr .. Lal l i e T. Richter , Research and P l anning Admin i s �
trator, Nashvi l l e- Davidson County Metropo l itan Board of Parks and
Recreation , February 2 7 , 1 974 .
105
i s n o open space avai l ab l e �
6
The consensus o f the intervi ewees i s
that a lack o f avai lab l e land and a l ack of neighborhood sites are the
main problems associated with · inner-city recreation .
Again , it should be pointed out that the · above probl ems are j ust
the main ones that are · perceived as prob l ems by those p ersons
interviewed .
Other prob l ems and inadequacies that were detected by
this res earch wi l l be discus sed in the remaining portions o f this
chapter .
A summary o f thes e probl ems and the Nashvi l l e inner- city
recreation si tuation wi l l be presented at the end of thi s chapter .
I V : . INVENTORY
Both the Metropol itan Planning Commi ss ion and the Board o f Parks
and Recreation have fairly up-to-date recreationa l s i te inventories .
The Metropolitan P l anning Commi s s ion comp l eted an Inner City B l i ght
s tudy in September of 1 973 .
In thi s study , there i s a recreational
inventory for each Commun ity Analys i s Zone .
In addition , the Board of
Parks and Recreation compl eted a l i s ting o f its si tes in January of
1 9 74 .
By using the information obtained from thes e two inventori es , the
interviews , and the personal inspections of the s i tes , the res earcher
determined that there are twenty- three recreational si tes covering over
nine hundred and fi fteen acres (exactly 9 1 5 . 1 5 ) located throughout the
inner- city area ,
6
For the locati on o f thes e s ites s ee Fi gure 5 - 2 and
Interview , Mr . Charl es R . Sp ears , Director , Nashvi l l e- Davidson
County Board of Parks and Recreation , F ebruary 2 6 , 1 9 74 .
1 06
8
4
•
•
9
•
5
•
I
•
•
10
13
•
II
•
12
•
T
•
•
22
•
•
2!
FI GURE S - 2
LOCATION OF NASHV I LLE INNER- CITY RECREATION SITES
1 07
for the opportunities avai l ab l e at these sites see Tab l e 5 - l .
The
numbers on Fi gure 5 - 2 correspond to the numbers associat ed with the
s i tes in Tab l e 5 - l .
The smal l number o f sites with a large total
acreage supports Mr . Richter ' s statement that the first priority o f
the Board was to acquire l arge tracts o f l and for l arger parks .
In add it ion to the twenty- three permanent s ites , the Board of
Parks and Recreat ion also operated s ix mob i l e recreation un its .
Nashvi l l e ' s mob i l e units inc lude two p l aymob i l e s , one skatemobi l e , one
showmobi l e , one chowmobi l e (a mobi l e concess ion stand) , and a mobi l e
music l aboratory .
The mob i l e units provide recreat i on and entertainment
opportunities in areas having l imited faci l ities , and as such supp l e ­
ment neighborhood oriented faci l i ties .
V.
COST
For 1 9 73 , the Nashvi l l e - Davidson County Metrop o l i tan Board of Parks
and Recreation had an Operating Budget of $4 , 4 7 7 , 5 1 6 .
Of this total ,
$ 2 , 68 6 , 509 , or about 6 0 percent was a l l o cated to the inner-city area .
7
The Operating Budget covers s uch expenditures as maintenance , salaries ,
equipment , supp l i e s , and programs .
The Board of Parks and Recreat ion ' s
Operating Budget i s main ly funded by the government ' s general fund , and
according to Char l es Spears , the recreation budget accounts for 3 . 7
percent of the total Nashvi l l e-Davidson County Metrop o l itan Government ' s
budget .
7
8
8
In addi tion to the resources a l l ocated from the general fund ,
Int erview , Charles R . Spears .
Ibid .
1 08
TABLE 5 - l
NASHVILLE SITE INVENTORY
FACI LITIES AVAI LABLE
...
"
"
c:
u
..
c:
0
"
..
"
"
..
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
�-
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
IS.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
PARKS
�
R . H . Boyd
Hadley
Rhodes
Buena Vista
Elizabeth
Morgan
wat ins
Cleveland
McFerrin
fred Dou2las
East Park
Kirkpatrick
She lby
Howel l
South Park
Napier
Duclley Park
Centennial
Hawkins
E . S. Rose
Nort Negley
Reservoir
Sevier
10. 3
34 . 0
152 . 0
36 , 7
11.0
7.0
8.2
1 7 . 75
11.0
22.0
10.8
7 . 75
361 . 5
2.0
4.7
2.5
6.7
Total
915 . 15
13.3
2.3
22.0
4 7 . 45
16.5
24 . 0
u
§
::1
....
0
u
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
u
X
X
X
J
"
"'
"'
"
1!
X
"
c:
..
....
...
..
"
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
N
X
X
<T
..
...
"'
"'
g
0
·e
..
"'
"
"'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
...
"'
u
..
..
!Q
li! ii "
"
8' ...
"
�
a
oll
"'
..
...
..
"'
"
0
ll
..
0
�
� �
,.,
"
�
�
..
0
.5 �
6 ...
...
"'
...
...
"
..:
"'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I
.>C
u
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
...
""
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
v
X
E
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
L
X
X
X
..:
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
!::
"
..:
"'
""
..
...
..
>
8
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
p
X
X
X
E
X
X
X
X
"'
"
"
"'
...
...
! li!
"
:=u
..
...
t'
"
"
-�
"'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
D
X
X
X
X
"
..
.s
"
-�
"'
......
"
�
"
...
....
0
0
8
...
"'
...
...
"
0
u
X
X
X
X
X
....
....
..
�
"
"'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
."
...
u
"
...
X
X
X
X
....
....
..
...
...
..
li!
c:
..
..
.:!: .u
...
.s 'i
c: c: .s
.... c:
-g �
-� �
� ... "'
31:
...
X
X
X
X
::::
....
"
..
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
....
....
"
.<>
...
...
0
(/)
....
....
..
.c
...
0
0
...
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
...
0
"
�0
...
...
"
...
u
"
...
...
"
"'
"'
0
t:)
u
u
....
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"'
�
...
...
u
....
.g
...
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
109
the Board of Parks and Recreation also receives some revenue from
parking fees and such charged at v�rious recreat i onal s ites .
For 1 9 7 3 , Nashv i l l e-Davidson County had a Recreation Capital
Improvements program of $ 3 , 300 , 000 .
Of this total , $ 2 , 1 S O , OOO , or
approximat ely 6S perc ent was schedul ed for proj ects in the inner-city
area .
9
The Capital Improvements Program covers expenditures for
acqui sition and devel opment of new proj ects · and/or ext ens ive expans ion
The Capital Improvements Program is
or improvement of existing sites .
financed primari ly by mat ching fund federal grants in which a federal
government agency pays for SO percent of a project whi l e a l ocal
government matches the federal share with the other SO percent .
Nashvi l l e -Davidson County finances its matching shares primari ly through
geneDal ob l igation bonds .
10
The combined Operating Budget and Capital Improvements Program
al located to the Nashv i l l e-Davidson County inner-city area for 1 973 was
$ 4 , 836, S09 , and represent s the a l l otted cost of recreat ional acqui sition ,
development , and programs for 1 9 7 3 .
VI .
EVALUATION
Accessibil ity
As has already been stated , access ib i l ity wi l l be measured in terms
of the p ercentage of persons not within either. a one-half mi l e or a one
9
10
Ibid .
Ib id .
110
mi l e radius o f certain types o f faci l i t i es .
The one-half mi l e · radius
was us ed for e s s ential ly ne ighborhood oriented facil ities , whi le the
one mi l e radius was us ed for essent i a l l y commun ity orient ed faci l ities .
The specific facil ities examined in each category were · dis cus sed in
Chapter I .
Within the neighborhood ori ented radius of one -half mi l e , 38
p ercent . o f the inner-city res idents are not within the desired radius
of a paved .p l ay area .
Twenty-three ( 2 3 ) percent of the inner-city
popul ati on does not l ive within a hal f-mi l e of a recreat ional site
with informal open space .
However , on ly 1 6 percent of the inner-city
residents · are without play apparatus (i . e . , s l ides and swings ) in a
recreat ional site within one-hal f mi l e of their homes .
And only 1 8
percent o f the inner- city population does not live within a hal f-mi l e
of a recreat ional s ite with s anitary facil ities .
Recreat ional sites
with pass ive areas are lacking wi thin one-half mi l e of 3l · p ercent of
the inner-city res idents , and 2 6 percent of the inner- city popul at ion
is not within one-half mi l e of ei the r a wading poo l or a spray pool
(see Tab le S- 2) .
In looking at the · community oriented faci l it ies , it was determined
that 1 2 percent of the inner-city popul ation does not reside within a
mi le of a swimming poo l .
Sixteen ( 1 6 ) percent of the inner- city
residents are not within a mi le of tennis court s .
Only 4 percent of the
inner-city population is no t wi thin a mi le of regulation ath letic fields ,
but 2 2 percent of the inner- city residents are not within a mi le of
regulation athletic fi elds with spectator faci l i ties .
Eight een ( 1 8 )
111
TABLE 5 - 2
NASHVI LLE--ACCESSI B I LITY
Type
Population W/Out
Percent
One-ha l f mi l e radius
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Paved P l ay Area
Informal Open Space
P l ay Apparatus
Sanitary Fac i l i ties
Pass ive Area
Wading or Spray Pool
· 4 7 , 9 50
28,453
19 ' 7 7 3
2 2 , 34 5
38 , 9 3 5
31 , 9 85
38%
23\
1 6%
18%
31%
26%
14 , 7 3 3
20 , 51 0
4 , 860
27 , 1 7 6
22 , 4 26
1 0 2 , 858
4 , 860
1 2%
16%
4%
22%
1 8%
8 3%
4%
One mi le radius
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Swimming Pool
Tennis C ourts
Athletic Fi e l ds
Spectator Fac i l ities
P i cnic Areas
Hiking o r Bicycl e Trai l s
Community Centers
112
percent o f the inne r - c i ty popu lat ion l a cks picn i c areas wi t h in a mi l e
of t h e i r home s .
Ei ghty-three
(83) percent o f t ho s e peop l e l iving in
the inner- c i ty are not within a mi l e of bicyc l e paths or wa lking/ h i k ing
tra i l s .
Fina l l y , on ly
4 percent of the inner - c ity pop u l at ion i s not
within the des ired radius of commun i ty cent ers
( s ee Tab l e
S-2) .
In addi t ion to the d irect acce s s ib i l ity factors concerning d i s t ance ,
other factors were t aken into con s i deration in eva l uating acces s ib i l ity .
Th irty-one
(31 ) percent of the inner-c i ty recreat iona l s i tes are not
acc e s s ib l e to pub l i c trans it .
Twent y - s i x
(26) percent of the inner-
c i ty s i t e s are not acces s ib l e by s i dewa l ks .
And
26 percent of the
inner- c i ty recreat ional s i tes have phys ical impedimen t s ,
such as
Int erstat e s , maj or thoroughfares , and rai l road track s hindering acc e s s
to t h e s i tes .
The above information indicat e s that Nashvi l l e ' s maj or acc e s s ibi l ity
prob l ems are with nei ghborhood oriented s ites and h i k ing and bi cyc l e
tra i l s .
A s was s tat ed by the int erviewees j there i s a l ack of
neighborhood ori ented s i t e s .
Al though acces s ib i l ity to commun i ty
or i ent ed faci l i t ies i s fairly good , acce s s to types of nei ghborhood
oriented fac i l i t i e s
(espec i a l l y paved p l ay areas and pass ive areas )
appears to be a prob l em for inner - c ity res ident s .
Variety
The twenty-three rec reat i ona l s it e s in Nashvi l l e ' s inner - c i ty area
provide s eventy-four di fferent recreat ional activit i es .
The most often
provided ac t iv i t i e s are swings , avai l ab l e at nineteen s it e s ; s l ides ,
113
avai l ab l e at eighteen sites ; lighted softbal l fi elds , availab l e at
seventeen sites ; informa l open space , pass ive areas , jungle-gyms , and
swimming poo l s , avai lab l e at sixteen sites ; and gymn as iums and cl ub
rooms avai lab�e at fi fteen sites .
In addit ion to these activit i es , the Board of Parks and Recreation
also conducts spec ial programs in the inner-city area .
During the
summer, a Summer Recreation Program is conducted at al l sites .
activities include games , arts and crafts , and field trips .
The
In addition ,
the Board al so provides free swimming instruction , and conduc ts a rol l er
skat ing instruction course and derby .
I t should b e noted that Nashvi l l e was a final ist in the 1 973 Gold
Medal Awards Contes t .
The contest is sponsored by the Sport s Foundat ion ,
Inc . and is s anctioned by the National Recreation and Park As sociation .
The program and award · seeks to focus national attent ion on recreat ion
and parks departments which have made outstanding contribut ions to
recreat ion .
The award honors cities for exce l lence in providing
"meaningful parks and recreation programs and sports activi t i es for
their citi z ens . " 1 1
To qua l i fy for an award , the recreation program must inc lude both
group and individual programs .
for everyone :
These programs must include something
to tots and pre-schoo l ers , the teen-agers , th e young
adul ts , the mature , the elderly , the mentally retarded , and the
1 1 1 1N
at 1ona l 'Go ld Med al Awards 1 9 73 , " Chicago , I l l ino is : Sports
Foundation , Inc . , p . 1 .
114
phys ical ly handicapp ed .
The programs must be rel evant to those l iving
in the inner-city as wel l as the environmental ists .
The special criteria used for j udging programs inc ludes sound
financing , far- s i ghted l and acquisit ion , creative l eadership ,
diversified programming , and overa l l responsiveness to the community ' s
recreational needs .
Getting to be a fina list in the Go ld Medal Awards Program is an
accomp l i shment o f which the Nashvi l l e-Davidson County Metropo l itan
Board · of Parks and Recreation is rightfu l l y proud , and it indicates
that the Board operates a program offering a wide variety of activities .
To determine the total number of activities avai l ab l e to the
inner-city res idents , the res earcher combined the number of times the
various s eventy- four activit ies are avail ab l e at the · twenty- three sites
with · the six mobi l e units and the special programs .
The c ombined
variety total is 6 1 9 recreationa l opportunities avai l ab l e to inner-city
resi dents .
Quality
of Maintenance
As was stated in the first chapter , the quality of maintenance i s
evaluated by the p ercentage of s i tes that fit into three categori es :
( 1 ) we l l -maintained , (2) adequate ly maintained , or ( 3) inadequately
maintained (for the criteria used for assess ing each category s ee the
"Evaluation" s ection , "Qual ity of Maintenance" in the first chapter) .
Of the twenty-three inner-city recreat ional sites in Nashvil l e , 5 2
percent are we ll -maintained , 31 percent are adequately maintained , and
1 7 percent are inadequately maintained ( s ee Tab l e S-3) .
115
TABLE 5 - 3
NASHVI LLE--QUALI TY O F MAINTENANCE
Category
Number of Sites
Wel l -maintained
·
Percentage
12
52%
Adequat ely maintained
7
31%
Inadequately maintained
4
1 7%
The most prevalent maintenance prob l em i s the c leaning of grounds
and bui ldings , fo l lowed by the upkeep of apparatus and equipment , and
then the cutt ing of gras s and hedges and the upkeep of game courts .
Graffit i on the bui ldings and litt er on the fields i s the maintenance
problem mo st often witnessed by the res earcher during his personal
inspections .
Other prob l ems witnessed are the l ack of markings on some
of the outdoor game court s and broken p l ay apparatus at some sites .
Overal l , the qual ity of maint enance of the Nashvi l l e inner- city
recreational s ites is good, and most of the prob l ems can be a l l eviated
by regular maintenance .
However , there is sti l l room for improvement ,
especial ly at the four sites in the · " inadequately maintained " category .
In genera l , though , th e quality of maint enance i s not a s ignificant
inner- city recreat ion prob l em .
Effective Use of Land
S ince recreation is often in competit ion with · other users for l and
in inner-city areas , recreation departments should make the most
116
efficient us e possible of the avai l ab l e recreation l and .
One method
of doing this is j oint cooperation among the · various pub l ic s ectors ,
primarily the · s choo l boards . and the recreation departments .
In Nashvil le , there i s a degree of cooperation between the School
Board and the Board of Parks and Recreation .
In March of 1 9 70 , an
agreement was reached whereby it was · decided that "in many instances it
is des irab l e to combine s choo l s and parks . 11
12
Basically, the agreement cal l s for the development , whenever
possib � e , of schoo l s and · parks together .
Each Board wi l l be responsib l e
for sharing the cost of acqui s it ion and deve lopment and wi l l al low the
public use of both faci l ities .
In addit ion to this , the School Board
al lows , upon request , the Board of Parks and Recreation to use some of
its fac i l it i es for the Summe r P l ayground Program .
In general , the cooperat ion is good , but more cooperat ion could
go a long way · in help ing to a l l eviate the need for nei ghborhood oriented
facil ities , especial ly in the inner- city area .
A s econd measure of effective use of land is det ermining what
percentage of inner- city land is undeveloped .
In the int erviews with
Charles R . Spears and Lal l i e T . Richter , it was discovered that mo st of
the Board of Parks and Recreation ' s land that is undevel oped is located
outside the study area .
Both est imated that on ly between 1 and 2 percent ,
if that much , of the inner -city recreation land is undeveloped .
l 2 Interview ,
Mr . Robert Kurzynske ; Analyst , Nashvi l l e-Davidson
County Metropol itan P l anning Commis s ion , February 2 2 , 1 9 74 .
117
The third measure of effect ive use of l and i s the ratio of total
inner-city recreation acreage " (9 1 5 . 1 5 ) to total inner-city recreat ional
opportunities ( 6 1 9 ) .
This comparison results in a ratid of 1 . 4 7 acres
of recreational l and for every one ·recreat ional opportuni ty .
As was
the case in Memphis , again it should be po inted out that two s ites
(both with go l f courses) composed over 50 percent of the total innercity recreation acreage .
It should also be pointed out that the top
priority of the Board of Parks and Recreation was the acqui sition of
large urban parks .
Both of these facts should be cons idered when
looking at the rat io of total acreage to total opportunit ies .
From al l · indications , Nashvi l l e is · making fairly effective us e
of its avai lab l e recreation l and .
However , more thorough cooperat ion
between the Schoo l Board and the Board o f Parks and Recreation , in al l
likel ihood , could help in al l eviating the prob l em of the l ack of
neighborhood faci l ities .
Tab l e 5-4 is a summary evaluation of effect ive · use of land . .
TABLE 5-4
NASHVI LLE--EFFECTIVE USE OF LAND
Measure
Eval uation
1.
Coordination of Efforts
Good
2.
Percent of Undeve loped Land
1 - 2%
3.
Rat io Total Opportunit i es to Acreage
1 : 1 . 47
118
Costs
As
ha s al ready been s t at ed , t he Operating Budge t for the
Nashvi l l e-Davidson County Metropo l i tan Board of Parks and Recreat ion
for 1 9 7 3 was $ 4 , 4 7 7 , 5 1 6 .
O f this total $ 2 , 686 , 509 was a l l ocated for
operat ing programs and act ivit ies in the inner-city area .
inner - c ity population i s 1 24 , 01 7 .
The Nashvi l l e
Therefore , for 1 97 3 , the Board of
Parks and Recreat ion spent $ 2 1 . 66 per capita for inner-city recreat ion .
This compares to $9 . 99 spent per capita for recreat ion for the who le
Nashvi l l e- Davidson County metropo l itan area .
I t is easy to see the
emphas i s is on the inner-city area .
VI I
•
SUMMARY
Thi s res earch indi cates that Nashv i l l e ' s maj or inner-city recreat ion
prob l em is the lack of neighborhood or ient ed fac i l i t i es .
Part of this
prob l em is the acreage requirements set up for p l ayground park s .
The
s even acre l imit on the si ze of s i tes el iminat es smal l er parks and
vest pocket parks that can great ly aid in supp lying the needs for
n e ighborhood faci l i ties .
can be a great asset
A we l l -designed site o f l e s s than seven acres
in inner-c ity areas where l and is in such great
demand .
Aside from this one maj or prob lem , Nashvi l le is doing a good j ob
of supp lying recreat ional fac i l ities in inner-city areas .
The atti tude
of the Board of Parks and Recreat ion st aff toward inner- c i ty recreat ion
i s a true strength .
As has been po int ed out , over twice as much money
1 19
is spent per capita on inner-city recreat ion .
The governing officials
want first -class fac i l it i es and are wil l ing to pay for them .
Activities
are geared for year-round part icipation for al l age groups , as is
evident in the l arge . number of community centers with very diversi fied
programs .
Although addit ional strengths and weaknes s es wi l l be evident when
comparisons among the study sites are di scussed in the last chapter
of thi s thes is ; when viewed alone , inner-city recreation in Nashvi l le
is strong , and the Board of Parks and Recreation is trying to make it
stronger .
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUS IONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In each of the study areas the opinion · was expressed that a lack
of avai lab l e land and a lack of money are · the maj or prob l ems associated
with providing inner -city recreat ional : areas .
To help ident ify
additional strengths and weaknesses , the · fo l l owing summary compares the
five factors evaluat ed during the research in each study area .
I ·.
ACCESSIBILITY
This research indicates that each study area has prob l ems with
access to four common types of facil ities .
In each study area , the
types of faci l iti es that are l east access ible , as indicated by the
highest percentage of the population . without , are paved p l ay areas ,
pas sive areas , wading pools , and hiking . and/or bicycle trai l s .
And in
Chattanooga and Knoxvi l l e , a high percentage of the inner-city popul ation
is al so not within the desired radius of : a swimming pool .
This research
indicates the most readily accessible faci lities are play apparatus ,
sanitary faci lities , and athleti c . fields .
community centers · are also
In Nashvi l l e , and Chattanooga ,
within . the des ired radius of a high percent ­
age of the inner-city populat ion .
The Knoxvi l l e inner- city area appears
to have the greatest accessib i l ity problems as Knoxvi l l e has the highest
percentages of persons not within the des ired radii for twe lve of the
thirteen types of faci lities evaluated (see Tab l e 6- 1 ) .
120
Accessib i l ity
121
TABLE 6- 1
SUMMARY
Chattanooga . . Knoxvi l l e
Memphis
Nashvi l l e
31%
20
25
15
37
57
20
24
2
31
33
81
27
31%
23
16
18
31
26
12
16
4
18
18
83
4
Acces s ib i l i tr
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10 .
11 .
12.
13.
Paved p l ay area
Informal open space
P l ay apparatus
Sanitary faci l i t i es
Pass ive areas
Wading or spray poo l s
Swimming poo l s
Tennis courts
Athletic fi e l ds
Spectator faci l i ties
P i cnic areas
Hiking/biking t rai l s
Community centers
24%
18
15
19
39
81
70
4
2
7
49
100
7
60%
31
31
42
51
91
74
35
19
32
13
1 00
41
426
229
Var�ety
Opportunities
522
619
Quality of Maintenance
1.
2.
3.
We l l maintained
Adequate l y maintained
Inadequate l y maintained
46%
35
19
19%
62
19
59%
34
7
52%
31
17
Good
Good
2%
1 - 2%
E ffective Use o f Land
1.
2.
3.
Coordination
Percent of undeve loped
l and
Rat io Opportunities :
Acreage
Some
5%
Limited
14%
1 . 94 : 1
1 : 1 . 15
1 : 1 . 45
1 : 1 . 47
$ 1 3 . 70
$11 .92
$ 7 . 75
$ 8 . 98
$ 1 1 . 57
$11 . 13
$ 2 1 . 66
$ 9 � 99
Costs
$ per capita (inner-city)
$ per capit a (who l e · city)
1 22
to s i tes and fac i l it ies needs to be given more cons ideration by
recreat ion p lanners as they deve lop p l ans for the future .
I I . VAR I ETY
The Nashvi l l e inner-city area has the most recreat ional
opportun i t ies (6 1 9) , fo l l owed by Memphis (522) , Chat tanooga (426) , and
Knoxvi l le (229) .
Nashvi l l e also has the mo st inner-c ity recreation
acreage ( 9 1 5 . 1 5 ) , fo l l owed by Memph i s ( 7 56 . 8 1 ) , Knoxvi l l e ( 2 56 . 9) , and
Chattanooga ( 2 1 8 . 95 ) .
Knoxvi l l e , providing fi fty-seven di fferent
act ivi t i es , has the most l imited variety , whi l e Nashvi l l e with s eventy­
four and Memphi s with seventy-one act ivi t ies have the most variety .
Chattanooga , operat ing on the sma l l est amoun t of acreage provides s i xty­
one di fferent act ivit ies .
Knoxvi l le ' s program .
The lack of variety i s a rea l weakness in
A truly var i ed recreation program should inc lude
not on ly sports and games for chi l dren , but also sports and games for
adul ts ; crafts and hobb ies for a l l ages , such as cerami cs , bead work ,
and wood work ; outdoor and nature activiti es , such as day camping and
field trips ; social activ ities ,
such as . banquets and dances ; mus i c ;
dramat ics ; instructional cours es , such a s cooking cl asses and tenn is
c l inics ; and special events , such as . picnics and handi craft exhib its .
At present , Memph is and Nashvi l l e are operat ing comprehens ive programs .
Chattanooga , considering i t s l imi ted s i tes and sma l l acreage , is
operat ing a waried program and trying to improve .
Knoxvi l le , however ,
needs to expand its present programs from main l y act ive sports act ivities
to programs offering a wider range of opportunit ies to a l l of the inner­
city population .
123
III :
QUALITY OF MAINTENANCE
As · Tabl e 6 - 1 indicat es ,- Knoxvi'H e. not :only has the lowest percentage
of · sites in the · wel l maint ained categary; .. but :; along with - Chattanooga ,
Knoxvi l l e al so has · the highest pereentage ; of� s ites · in the inadequate l y ·
maintained category .
Al though the :quatity ::of�·maintenance could stand
improving in each study area, the ::-.quatity : of: maintenance of Knoxvi l l e ' s
inner-city sites is · poorer than . the : ether:--study s ites . · Memphis , as
Tab l e · 6- l shows , has the ·greatest--pereentage : of · parks in the wel l ­
maintained category and · the · lowe s t percentage in the inadequately
category . · The attractiveness . of Memphis ' parks adds to the pl easure
and enj oyment of their us e .
IV .
EFFECTIVE USE OF LAND
The most important too l used in . this . res earch . for eval uating the
effective us e · of l and is the degree . of:· coordination of efforts · among
the various pub l i c agencies .
This . research .: indicates . that the greatest
degree of coordination of : efforts �· is : im : Memphis .
As was point ed out in
the chapter on Memphis , the Memphi s Park : Commi s s ion and the Board of
Education operate a free lunch . program. in ·. the · summer , . the Board of
Education al lows the Park Commi s s ion : the : us e . of some s choo l gymnas iums ,
and whenever pos sible nei ghborhood . parks . are . l ocated adj acent to school
sites .
In fact , - 38 percent of a l l . inner�city recreat ional s ites in
Memphis are located next to school s . : : There . is also a good deal of
cooperation - in Nashvi l l e , but not quit e · as extensive as that witnes s ed
124
in Memphis .
Chattanooga also has some degree of cooperation between the
School Board and the Chattanooga Hous ing Authority .
In Knoxvi l l e ,
however , there i s little coordinat i on o f efforts at al l .
School s ites
in Knoxvi l l e are general ly not avai l ab l e for pub l i c recreation us e .
Each study area has some inner-city recreat ional land l eft
undeve loped , but such land is s cheduled for future deve l opment .
vil l e has the most undeve loped l and with 14 percent .
Knox­
As was stated in
the text , the ratio of opportunities to acreage may be a l i tt le mi s l ead­
ing when appl i ed to Memphis and Nashvi l l e where both areas have some
l arge urban parks .
According to the rat i o , however , Chattanooga i s the
only area where there are more opportunities than acres ( s ee Tab l e 6- 1 ) .
Al l things cons idered, however , Memphis i s doing the most effective
j ob of using its avai l ab l e land , fo l l owed by Nashv i l l e , Chattanooga , and
Knoxvi l l e , again , coming last .
V.
COSTS
Nashvi l l e , spending $ 2 1 . 66 per capita , spends far more money per
capita on inner-city recreation than the other study areas .
Chattanooga
is next at $ 1 3 . 70 per capita, fol l owed by Memphi s ($ 1 1 . 5 7) , and then
Knoxvi l l e ($7 . 75) .
As can be seen in Tab l e 6- 1 , Nashvi l le has the
largest dis crepancy between inner-c ity expenditures per capita and per
capit a expenditures for the whole city .
Knoxvi l l e is the only area
where more money i s spent per capita for the city as a who le than for
the inner-city.
Maybe it is s igni fi cant that it is a l s o in Knoxvi l l e
where inner- city recreat ion i s the weakes t .
When all things are
125
considered ; Memphis provides . more � . facility.: aud:program wi s e , on l e s s
cost · per · capita and . therefore gets more for its money than d o the other
areas .
·
Memphis and ·Nashvil l e have . the .: overU L·strongest · inner-city
recreation progr ams . ; Memphis � i s . s lightly: ahead 7 0 f · Nashvi l l e because
of the aesthetic beauty . of . i t s . parlrS'·; :·the ::u·s e : E>f: the river as a
recreati on resource · (to ·be discuss ed :in: the . Recommendations to fol low) ,
and the · greater . use of . school . s i t e s : thereby . providing more · neighborhood
fac i l it ies �
Nashvi l l e , on the . other hand , is s l i ght ly ahead of Memphis
because . o f the eas ier access to commun i ty centers and other community
ori ented fac i l it i es · and to wading . or . sptay . poo l s ,
·
Nashvi l l e also has
more inner-city recreation acreage : and opportunities .
Both areas operate
exce l l ent programs , real i ze their . weaknes s es , and are striving to
improve their programs .
·
However , thi s . res earch gives Memphi s a s l i ght
.
edge over Nashvi l l e by virtue of - the. fact that Memphis accomp l ishes i ts
s ervices at a lower per capita . cost . than . does Nashvi l l e .
Chattanooga ' s
program s eems to be · j ust getting . its . feet . on the ground .
Again , for the
faci l it ies it has , Chattanooga . is . doing · a . creditab l e j ob , and ranks
beh�nd Nashvi l l e in this res earch
•
..
.
Knoxvil l e , by virtue of its l ast
p l ace finish in each · of the five . evaluation . factors , ranks fourth in
this research .
areas ;
Knoxvi l l e needs ·to show improvement in each of the five
1 26
VI .
RECOMMENDATIONS
This research has indi cat ed . that each s tudy area , to some degree ,
has probl ems providing adequat e inner•city recreat ional fac i l i t ies and
programs .
The fo l l owing recommendat ions are offered as i deas that could
help improve the inner-city recreat ion si tuat ion .
Al though these
recommendat ions are d irect ly app l icab l e to the four study areas , i t i s
hoped t hat thes e recommendations could a l so b e app l i ed to other inner­
city areas .
Recommendat ion 1 .
Every effort should · be · made to deve lop addit ional
guide l ines other t han j us t populat ion based standards for formulat ing
recreat i on p l ans .
Each study area , to some . degree or : another , uses popul at ion bas ed
standards ( faci l i t i es per l , OOO . popu l at i on) for · formulat ing recreat ion
p l ans .
Although such standards can b e helpful , popu lation standards
shou ld not be the on ly guide l ine . fol l owed by recreat i on pl ann ers .
Standards , such as those pub l ished . by : the National Recreat ion As socia­
t ion , are arbitrary fi gures des i gned . as goals to an ideal s ituat ion and
were intended to serve on ly as a model .
Unfortunat ely , many areas have
adopted these standards without change . to serve as the standards for
their own commun i t i e s .
Because such standards are nat ional in origin ,
they make no a l l owance for differences . between commun i t ies .
Thus ,
poorer communities may have the same goal s , the possib i l ity that area
res idents may have different goal s , . and . the fact that di fferent areas
have different condi tions often . requiring di fferent priorities .
For
exampl e , more neighborhood p l aygrounds may be needed in a high dens ity,
127
inner - c i ty area than are . needed . for the same popu l ation l iving in a
suburban area with l arge backyards .
To further i l lustrate the point ,
the standard o f one t enn i s court fer every two thousand peop le may be
total ly inadequate in an area of yoathfol t enni s · enthus iasts , whi le the
same standard may be total ly unnecessary in an area main ly popul ated by
e l derly peop l e .
Recreation p l anners should look more toward commun i ty and
neighborhood wants and needs in deve loping recreat ion p l ans .
In
addition to population standards , the recreation p l anner should a l so
cons i der demographic data, socio- economic factors , and special urban
conditions whi l e deve l op ing recreat ion p l ans .
Idea l l y , commun ity and
nei ghborhood surveys shou l d be conducted in order to gear p l ans t o the
wants and needs of the peop l e they are to serve .
Recommendat ion 2 .
Greater use should b e made of the rivers that
flow on or through each of the s tudy areas .
Although each of the study areas has a maj or river flowing through
the inner-city area , Memphis is the on ly area that has made use of thi s
recreation resource by providing both active and pass ive recreation s i t es
a l ong t he river .
Not only can such riverfront parks provide access to
popular wat er oriented act iviti es , but pas sive scenic over looks o f the
river can provide enj oyab le p l aces to watch the interes t ing activities
t aking p l ace both on the water and on the docks .
At the present time both Chattanooga and Nashvi l l e have p l ans for
deve loping riverfront parks .
The Chat t anooga site wi l l provide boat
l aunchings and dock tie-ups , l ighted aspha lt wal kways , s it t ing benches ,
1 28
open space for free p l ay , and picnicking and p l ay apparatus areas .
1
The
proposed Nashvi l l e site wi l l provide pedes tri an and bike trai ls on the
dike top , picnic areas , and open space for free p l ay below the dike .
2
Every effort should be made to develop these fac i l ities as soon as
possib l e .
Knoxvi l l e , too , has such a recreation resource in its inner-c ity
area , but at the pres ent time there are no plans to develop any pub l i c
recreation sites along the river in the inner- city area .
However ,
efforts should be made to formulate p l ans for si tes along the river .
Where a resource is avai l ab l e , every effort shoul d b e made to us e it .
Recommendation 3 .
Each area should deve lop addit ional comprehens ive
community centers in order to provide more year-round activities for a l l
age groups .
A properly developed and operated community center can provide more
types of activities for al l age groups on a year-round bas is than can
any other s ingle fac i l ity .
As such a commun ity center is the maj or
faci l ity for year-round commun ity recreation us e �
For this reason
community centers are very important in inner - city areas where recreat ion
l and is in short supp ly .
A comprehens ive community center should contain
a gymnas ium for ath l et ics of al l types , inc luding basketbal l , vo l l eybal l ,
badminton , shuffl eboard , and weight l i fting ; game rooms for p ing-pong ,
1
Nickaj ack-Chattanooga Recreation Study (Knoxvil l e , Tennes see :
The Tennes see Val ley Authority , November , 1 973) , p . 34 .
2
Letter from Charles R . Spears , Director , Board of Parks and
Recreation , Nashvi l l e , Tennes see , March 2 6 , 1 9 74 .
129
pool , checkers , and other tab l e games ; arts and craft s roo�s ; club
meeting rooms ; teenage · lounge ; a senior c i t i z ens ' room; TV area�
dressing rooms ; s anitary faci l it i es ;
admin istrative offi ces .
a:
kitchen ; storage area; and
Programs o f community centers should be geared
toward al l age groups ; from the pre-schoo ler · to the s enior citizen .
Community centers should be deve loped in conj unction with community
parks .
The devel opment and proper operation of a system of comprehensive
community centers can go a long way toward �eet ing the varied recre­
ational needs of al l the peop le res iding in inner- city areas .
Recommendation 4 .
In areas lacking neighborhood faci l i t ies and
where land i s in short supp ly, vest -pocket parks or mini-parks should
be developed to supp l ement the exis t ing neighborhood faci lities .
As has been pointed out in this research ; land for inner-city
recreational purposes is in short supply .
Areas that lack neighborhood
facil ities can help al l eviate thi s prob l em by deve l oping vest -pocket
parks .
Such areas , deve loped on vacant lots , general l y subst itutes for
backyards in high density areas .
wherever l and is availabl e .
Such faci l i t i es can be deve loped
Fac i l ities at vest -pocket parks may inc lude
p l ay apparatus , paved p lay areas , si tting areas , and informa l open space .
Whi l e ves t�pocket parks can ful fi l l certain recreat ional needs ,
their facil ities are usua l l y l imi ted and should be cons idered as
·
supportive rather than as a substitute for neighborhood p l aygrounds .
But in such areas as ·Nashvi l l e , where there is a seven acre l imit on
the s i z e of parks and where addit ional neighborhood type fac i l ities are
1 30
needed , a properly designed and equipped vest -pocket park can help in
meeting the recreational needs of the local resi dents .
As such , ves t­
pocket parks : can be an important aspect in he lping to meet the recreational needs of the inner-city area .
Recommendati on 5 .
The state government should provide more
··
financial assis tance to local governments for the purpose o f acquiring
and develop ing land for recreation purpos es ,
During the course of the interviews , each person interviewed was
asked if they fel t the state should as s ist local governments in deve lop­
ing recreat ion in urban areas --how , · and why (que st ion 23, Appendix A) .
Almost without except ion , the interviewees thought the state should give
local governments more financ ial ai d .
The cons ensvs of opinion was that
the State Department of Conservation does a good j ob of supp lying state
parks .
However , these parks are not easily assessib l e to al l peop l e .
As has al ready been mentioned , over 50 percent of Tenness ee ' s population
now resides in metropolitan areas .
The interviewees fel t that the state
has a responsibil ity to suppl y these peop l e with recreat ional faci l i ties .
Financial resources for cities are l imited and competition for these resources i s split many ways .
has a low priority .
Cons equent ly , money for recreation often
Since the state has more resources , the state
should make funds avai l ab l e for acquiring and deve loping inner- city
areas .
Thi s idea has merit , especia l ly s ince a maj or prob l em facing
inner- city recreation is a lack of land and a l ack of money .
I f more
money was availab l e , it might be pos sib l e that the probl em of a l ack
131
o f land coul d · al so be a l l eviated .
Much in the · same · manner as the Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation makes recreation grants avai l ab l e through the Land
and Water Conservation Fund Program, there is a need for the stat e to
estab l i sh a grant program helping local i t i es acquire and develop
recreational s ites .
_: �
The Tennes s ee Department o f Conservation shoul d
give · this i dea con s i deration .
In the first chapter the res earcher painted a rather b l eak p i cture
of inner- city recreation .
The res earcher stated in general terms that
the inn er- c ity areas are s erved by o l der , somewhat run-down recreationa l
faci l it i es ; that most o f the recreat ion do l l ar was spent outs ide the
inner- city area in the more affluent areas ; and that inner -city
..
�·-- .
'� · ·
..
recreation was general ly negl ected .
Thi s res earch has indi cated that thi s , however , is not the cas e in
Tenne ssee .
In three of the four cities examined , more money was · spent
i
p er capita on inner- c ity recreat ion than was spent for the cities as a
who l e .
In three of the four s tudy areas , the res earcher found the inner-
c ity recreationa l faci l it i es and programs equal to if not sup erior to ,
thos e fac il ities and programs out s ide the inner - city area in each o f the
four study areas n ew recreati onal fac i l ities were being develop ed .
And
in each of the study areas , recreation official s are aware o f the special
recreational needs o f the inner- city resi dent .
Thi s i s not to say that there are not any prob l ems associated with
inner- city recreation in Tennessee .
indicated there are probl ems .
To the contrary , this research has
However , in three of the four s tudy areas ,
inner-city recreation is fai r l y strong , and recreat ion o ffi c ia l s are
1 32
striving to improve the exis ting programs .
Therefore , this research
indi cates that on a who l e , inner-city recreat ion in Tennessee i s not
the serious prob lem that it i s in other areas o f the United St ates .
As Tennessee becomes more and more an urbani zed state , state and
local p l anners must deal with the prob l ems o f inner-city recreat ion .
I t is hoped that this work has given planners
an
indication of the
prob lems they face and an idea of what needs to be considered in facing
these probl ems .
B I BL IOGRAPHY
BI BLI OGRAPHY
1.
Asner , Eve and St einer , Richard . "Vest-Pocket Parks , " P l �nning
1 967 (Chicago : Ameri can Society of P l anning Official s , 1967) ,
pp . 2 3 1 - 239 .
2.
Brightbi l l , Charles K . and Meyer , Harold D . Community Recreat ion :
A Guide t o I t s Organi zat i on . Engl ewood C liffs , New Jersey :
Prentice-Hal l , Inc . , 1 964 .
3.
4.
5.
6.
. Recreati on : Text and Readings .
Prentice-Hal l , Inc . , 1 9 5 3 .
New York , New York :
Bureau o f Outdoor Recreat ion (Department of the Interior) . · Federal
Outdoor Recreation Programs . Washington , D . C . : U . S . Government
Print ing Office , 1 970 .
. The 1 970 Survey o f Outdoor Recreat i on Act ivit ies �
Washington , D . C . : U . S . Government Printing Offi ce , 1 972 .
. Sel ected Outdoor Recreat ion Stati stics .
U . S . Government Print ing Offi ce , 1971 .
·
Washington , D . C . :
7.
But ler , George D . Introduction t o Community Recreat ion .
McGraw-Hi l l Company , 1 967 .
8.
Cant z , Dona l d , ed . Open Spac e for Human Needs .
The Nat ional Urban Coal i t ion , 1 970 .
9.
Chattanooga-Hami lton County Regional P l anning Commi s s i on .
Neighborhood Analys i s , Dis trict No . 1 C i ty Cent er (Jun e , 1 969)
New York :
Washington , D . C . :
.
10.
. Neighborhood Analys i s , District No . 2 South C enter City
-.,..
(J
=-u
ne, 1969) .
11.
. Neighborhood Analys i s , District No . 3 East Cent er C i ty
---:(�
J-:
u l�
y, 1 969) .
12.
. Neighborhood Ana lys i s , D i s trict No . 4 North Center C i ty
gu
s t , l969) .
(A
,_.
u-...
13.
C l awson , Marion and Kretsch , Jack L . Economics of Outdoor Recreat ion .
Balt imore , Maryland : The Johns Hopkings Pre s s , 1 966 .
14.
Curtis , J . E . "What ' s Ahead for Recreation : , " Tennes s ee Town and
City Magaz ine , Tennes s ee Municipal League (Jun e , 1970) , pp . 1 6- 1 8 .
1 34
1 35
15.
d e Grazia, Sebastian . "Outdoor Recreation in Perspective , " Pl anning,
1 966 (Chicago : Ameri can Society of Planning Offi cials , 1966) ,
pp . 2 1 0-2 1 4 .
16.
"The Do l lars and Cents o f Recreat ion , " House and Home Magazine ,
Vo l . 4 3 , No . 2 (February , 1973) , pp . 75 - 1 08 .
18.
Greater Knoxvi l l e Counc i l on Human Relations , Inequities in the
Recreat ion Program of Knoxvi l l e , 1 972 .
19.
Go ld , Seymour M . "Non-us e of Nei ghborhood Parks , " Journal o f the
American Institute of P l anners , Vo l . XXXVI I I (November , 1 972) ,
pp . 369- 378.
20.
Guggenheimer , E l inor C . Pl anning for Parks and Recreation Needs in
Urban Areas . New York : Twayne Publ ishers , Inc . , 1 969 .
21 .
Ho lder , S . S � , Patton , J . D . , and I ttmann , B . A . Urban Recreation
Pl anning and Programming in Tennessee : An Evaluation of the
State ' s Rol e . Spindl etop Research , Lexington , Kentucky , for the
Divis ion of Planning and Development , Tennes s ee D ep artment of
Conservat ion , 1971 .
22 .
Jensen , C l ayne R . Outdoor Recreation in America .
Minnesota : Burgess Pub l i shing Company , 197 0 .
23.
Knetsch, Jack L . "As s ess ing the Demand for Outdoor Recreat ion , "
Journal of Leisure Research , Vo l . I , No . 1 (Winter , 1 969) , pp .
Minneapo l i s ,
85- 8 7 .
24 .
25 .
Knoxvi l l e - Knox County Community Act ion Committee , Poverty in
Knoxvi l l e and Knox County, F ebruary , 1 973 .
. Techniques for Active Communiti es , 1972 .
26 .
Knoxvi l l e - Knox· County Metropo l i tan P l anning Commi s s i on , Knoxvi l le­
Knox County Communi ty Fac i l ities P l an, 1 970 .
27.
Kraus , Ri chard . Recreation and Lei sure in Modern Societ .
App l eton-Century-Cro t s , Meredith Corporat ion , 1971 .
28 .
Lawson , Simpson F . , ed . Workshop on Urban apen Space . Washington ,
D . C . : Department of Hous ing and Urban Development , 1969.
New York :
1 36
29 .
" Low- Income Neighborhoods in Lar � e Cities : A Special Tabul ation
from the 1 97 0 Census . " Bureau of . the Census for the Office o f
Economic Opportunity . Washington , D . C . · : U . S . Government · Print ing
Office , 1 9 73 .
30 .
Memphis Park Commi ssion .
31 .
Memphis -Shelby County Planning Commi ssion . Parks , Recreation, and
Cons.ervation P l an . Vo l . J . Community Facilities Study , Apri l ,
1 972 .
32 .
"A Sununer to Remember , " 1 9 7 3 .
Population Hous ing Economy, January , . 1 9 7 3 .
33 .
''Mobi l e Recreation . " Litchfie l d , Michi gan : · Game Time , I n c . , 1 97 3 .
34 ,
Murphy , Raymond E , The Ameri can City.
1 966 .
35 .
Nashvi l l e and Davidson County Metropo litan P l anning Commis sion .
Inner City Blight , Sept ember , 1 9 7 3 .
36 .
Outdoor Recreat ion Resources Review. Commi ssion . . The Future of
Outdoor Recreat ion in Metropo l i tan Regi ons in the United States .
Study Report 2 1 , Vo l . 1 . Washington , D . C . : U . S . Government
Printing Office , 1 962 .
37 .
New York : McGraw-Hi l l , Inc . ,
. Outdoor Recreat ion for America . Study Report 1 ,
Washington , D . C . : U . S . Government Printing Office , 1 962 .
.
.
38 .
Papers of the Outdoor Recreation Symposium , Apri l 1 2 - 1 3 , 1 973 ,
sponsored by Tennessee Techno logical Univers i ty, 1 9 7 3 .
39 .
' 'Recreation Areas Des i gnated . in Appalachian Highlands , " Appalachia ,
Appalachian Regional Commi s s ion , Vo l . 2 , No . 2 (October , 1968) ,
pp . 25- 2 6 .
40.
Sess ioms , Doug las H . "New Ba sis for Recreation P l anning , " Journal
of the Ameri can Institute of P l anners , Vo l . XXX (February , 1 964 ) ,
pp . 26- 33 .
41 .
Sports Foundation , Inc . National Go ld Medal Awards . l 9 7 3 .
19 74 .
42.
Tennessee Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation P l an, 1 969 . .
Divis ion o f P l anning and Development , Tennessee Department of
Conservat ion , 1 969 .
43.
Tenness ee Val l ey Authority . A Recreation Study: Nickajack­
Chattanooga Area . Knoxvil l e , November , 1 9 73 .
Chicago ,
1 37
Washington , . D . C . : The ·National Urban Coal ition ,
44 .
The State of Cities .
1 971 .
45 .
United States Bureau pf .the Census (Department of Commerce) , 1 9 70
Census of Popul ation, July, 1 9 7 1 .
INTERVI EWS
Chatt anooga
1.
Conrad , Steve ; Commi s sioner of Pub l ic Uti l it i es , Grounds , and
Bui ldings , Chattanooga , Tennes s ee , January 31 , 1 9 74 .
2.
Elmore , Bob , Chattanooga Tourist Bureau , February 8 , 1 9 74 .
3.
Hardin , T . D . , Director, Chattanooga-Hami lton County Regional
P l anning Commis s ion , J anuary 31 , 1 974 .
4.
Jennings , David , Recreation P l anner , Chattanooga Recreat ion
Department , February 8 , 1 974 .
5.
Tate, Gordon , Central City Analys i s , Chat tanooga Human Services
Department , February 7 , 1 974 .
Knoxvi l l e
1.
Bowker , Joe , P l anner, Knoxvi l l e-Knox County Metropo l itan P l anning
Commi s s ion , October 24 , 1 9 7 3 .
2.
Co l e , Stan, Knoxvi l l e-Kno� County Community Action Commi ttee ,
October 31 , 1 9 7 3 .
3.
Gardner, Kent , Advocates for Neighborhood Development , Mechanics ­
vi l l e- Lonsdale Area , November , 1 9 7 3 .
4.
Glenn , Maynard , Director , Knoxvi l l e Bureau of Recreation , October
2 4 , 1 973 .
5.
Gi l son , Pon, Director , KnoxVi l l e- Knox County Metropol itan P l anning
Commiss ion , October 2 3 , 1973 .
6.
Roberson ,· James , Knoxvi l le - Knox County Metropoli tan P l anning
Commi s s ion , October 30 , 1 9 7 3 .
7.
Teague , Ralph , Knoxvi l l e Bureau o f Recreat ion, October 31 , 1 97 3 .
1 38
8.
Ulmer � John , Director of Urban Renewal , Knoxvil l e Community
Deve lopment Corporat ion , October 2 6 , 1 97 3 .
Memphis
1.
Buford , Framk , Director of Area Pro gram Coordination, Memphi s - Shelby
County Community Action Agency , · December 1 4 , 1 9 73 .
2.
Cox, Larry , P l anning Coordinator , Memphis-Shelby County Park
Commi s s ion , December 1 2 , 1 9 7 3 .
3.
McCoo l , Ron , P l anner , Memphis-Shelby County P l anning Commi ss ion ,
November 1 6 , 1 9 7 3 .
4.
McKinney , . Gerald, Superint endent of Recreat ion , Memphis Park
Commi s s ion , November 1 6 , 1 9 7 3 .
5.
Mi l ler, Robert , Director , Memphis-She lby County P l anning Commi s s ion ,
November 1 3 , 1 9 7 3 .
6.
Robinson , G . M . , Chairman , Memphis - Shelby County P l anning Commi ssion ,
November 1 7 , 1 9 7 3 .
7.
Roby, Kerry D . , Senior P l anner , Memphi s - Shelby County P l anning
Commi ssion , November 1 6 , 1 9 73 .
Nashvi l le
1.
Chamber lain , . Mary lyn , Offi ce Manager , Nashvi l l e Urban League ,
February 2 7 , 1 9 74 .
2.
Hermanson , Denni s , Assistant Director , Nashvi l l e Urban Ob servatory ,
February 2 8 , 1 9 74 .
3.
Kurzynske , Robert , Analyst , Nashvi l l e-Davidson County Metropo l itan
P l anning Commis s ion , February 22 , 1 9 74 .
4.
O ' Donni l ey , Ron , Director, Comprehens ive P l anning Divi s ion ,
Nashvi l l e-Davidson County P l anning Commission , February 2 6 , 1 974 .
5.
Ri chter , Lo l lie T . , Research and P l anning Adminis trator , Nashvi l l e
Metropo l itan Parks and Recreation Department , February 2 6 , 1 9 74 .
6.
Spears , Chares R . , Director , Metropolitan Parks and Recreation ·
Department , February 2 6 , 1 974 .
7.
Washington , Same l l a , Director o f Economic Devel opment and Emp l oy­
ment , Nashvi l le Urban Leagu, February 2 7 , 1 9 74 .
.,
APPEND I X
APPEND I X A
I NTERVIEW GUIDE
-----Name : -----Age,cy :
Location :
------Position : -------
Date :
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
1.
How would you define the t erm "inner-c ity"?
2.
Do you have geographi cal population es timates for the inner- city?
3.
What rol e do you see p l anning p l aying in providing pub l i c
recreat ional fac i l ities?
4.
Do you have a l is ting of the number , l ocation , and s i ze o f the
exi sting and proposed pub l ic recreat ional facil i ties l ocated in
the inner- city area?
5.
Do you consider thes e facil ities adequate to meet the recreational
needs of the inner-cit �?
6.
What , from your standpo int , are the maj or probl ems connected with
providing recreational fac i l it ies in . inner-city areas ?
7.
Are surveys conducted to determine where faci l it i es shoulq be
located - or are they supp l ied where l and is avai l abde?
8.
Are demand surveys conducted to determine the recreat ional needs of
the resident s of the inner-city?
9.
Are there any special programs or faci l it i es des igned for the inner­
city area?
10.
11
•
Has there been any speci al push to supp ly the inner-city with more
recreational fac i l ities?
.
Are the inner-city recreat ional fac i l ities desi gned for multip l e
us es?
1 2 :.
Are the fac i l ities and programs geared toward year-round us e?
13,
Do the existing facil ities and programs have appeal to al l resi dents ,
both young and o l d?
1 40
141
14.
I s there any attempt t o coordinate the efforts and resources o f
the various pub l i c sectors in providing recreat ional fac i l ities
( e . g . , coordination between the s cnQQ l board and the parks
department ) ?
15.
How much · money i s spent for acquiring , developing , operating , and
maintaining fac i l ities for the who l e sys t em? For faci l i t ies in
the inner-city?
16.
What percentage · o f recreation ' s Capital Improvements Program i s
a l l ocated t o the inner-city?
1 7 � . What methods are used for finan c ing a l l phases of the recreation
program?
18.
How much money i s spent per capita on recreation in the inner- city?
19.
What percentage o f the inner- city recreation l and i s not developed?
Is there any special reason why?
20 .
In g eneral , are most inner-city fac i l ities eas i ly access ib l e by
pub l i c transportation?
21:
Are your recreation planning efforts coordinated with the 1 969
statewide outdoor recreation p l an? In what way?
22 .
What type of recreati on pl anning standards are in us e (e . g . ,
activity-based, population-based , other) ?
23.
D o you fee l the state should as s is t local governments i n develop ing
recreation for urban areas? How? Why?
24 .
What agencies do you feel have an obl igati on to increas e their rol e
in providing urban recreation fac i lities?
APPENDI X B
PERSONAL INSPECTION CHECKLIST
·
.
I.
II.
Background Information
1 . Name . .
__
�
_n
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
io
t�
2 . Loca�
(Acres)
3 . S i z e of Site
.
-s-------.-v
�i:-:'t-e
-:l�
u
psa-:i4 . Approxi mate opt"'�"'
er
on
5 . Type of Site
(a) Community Center
(b) Neighborhood P arrk----(c) Mini Park
(d) Tot - lot ---(e) P l ay Grotmd_____________
(f) Other_______________
Facil ity
1 . What
(a)
(b )
(c)
(d )
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
(i)
Information
facil ities and opportunities are avai l ab l e at the s i t e
Central Office for checking out equipment_____
Supervi sory s taff_____.;.______
Covered shel ters_�------­
Restrooms--�-----------------Swimming poo l_______________
Go l f course
P i cnic area------Gymnasium _____
_
_
__
__
__
__
__
__
s
Ba l l fi el _
( 1 ) Baseba l l _____________
(2) Softb a l l.________________
( 3 ) Footbal l____________
(4) Other -----------rRemarks
(5) Mult ipurpose__________
Hikin g trai l s____________
Bike trai l s-----Sitting areas
-----------ip_
me_
t
u�
n-:P l ayground eq( 1 ) Swings_____________
(2) S l ides_____________
( 3 ) See- saws---.
--(4) Jungle-gyms____________
(5) Sandboxes
---.
_..;.
---�
-(6) Merry- go-ro tm d s___________
(7) I magination area------(8) Other
Remarks
_
_
_
(j )
(k)
(1)
(m)
_
_
_
_
142
143
(n)
Courts
( 1 ) Basketba l l
- _ .._
._ ___
_ _
._ ..
-.,- .._..
( 2 ) Shuff lebo ar
( 3) Vol l eybal l....
. _..___.._..____,_---__....__
(4) Tennis , ,
- ----�-----:-b'"P:l�
l/
( 5 ) Handba�
a-:
d�
le
d"":"
a-=.1 1
(6) Othe r - · ----------s
R emar,-(7) Mult ipurpos e
Arts and crafts ------Tab l e games________________ _
_
Dance programs _._
. -------------........
.,.. ..
TV areas
s
e_
Ho rs esho_
Community programs
________
�i:-e-:Senior citizen act":"
vl
.t
is
Remarks
Other .
Remar�k-s----Remarks (refer to item by lett er/number)
_
(o)
(p)
(q)
(r)
(s )
(t)
(u)
(v)
(w)
III.
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Maintenance of the Site
1 . The fo l lowing areas need improved maintenance :
(a) C leaning of bui l dings and grounds
.)
c"'"'
�:"""- ----t(b) Upkeep of game courts (marking , e�
(c) Cutting of gras s and hudges
(d ) Upkeep of equipment and. apparatus
(e) P ainting
_a_
-=1· n
dra
e
g_
(f) General ·.,.
Remarks
(refer
to items by l etter )
(g)
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
IV .
Accessibi l ity o f Site
1 . Ready access to pub l ic transportation_�----2 . Easy walking acces s
- ------ --, ------s-k
-=1:"1'
-a
di.,.
ew
(a) Prov isi on of s'T'
3 . List of man-mad e or natural features that impede access
(a)
(b )
(c)
4 . Remarks (refer to number/l etter)
APPEND I X C
NASHVI LLE RECREATION SURVEY
1.
How many peop l e are in your househo ld?
2.
Would you t e l l me the age and s ex - of each person?
3.
Name three recreational activities that
��--���--�--��
enj oys do ing most away from home :
(a)
Repeated for a l l persons in househo l d .
(hous eho ld member # 1 )
(b)
(c)
------
------
4.
Whi ch o f these three is his/her favorite activity?
5.
Where does he/she enj oy going most for this activity?
6.
Do you think there are adequate opportunities i n the Midd le
Tennessee area for al l of thes e activities?
B.
We would l ike to know how your hous eho ld members would rate the
parks and recreational opportunities in your immediate area .
Would you rate them: Exce l l ent , Good , Fair , Poor?
9.
Would you te l l me why you say that ?
10.
Has anyone in your househo ld used (name of neares t park)
--�
-�
�
s ince September 1 ?
Park at (location or addres s )
19.
I f yes , would you tell me how your househo ld members would evaluate
this park ? Woul d they rate i t : Excel lent , Good , Fai r , or Poor?
How - would they rate it according to the fo l lowing :
(a) hours of
operation ; (b ) cl ean l iness ; (c) condition and safety of equipment ;
(d) helpfulness and attitude of personne l ; (e) amount of space ;
(f) feel ing of s ecurity; (g) variety of programs and activities ;
(h) conveni ence of park to your home .
11.
I f no , (to Quest ion 10) , would you t e l l me why no one used it s ince
September 1?
12.
Let me read a l is t o f pos s i b l e reasons in cas e we have overlooked
some .
(a) Not open convenient hours or days ; (b) too far away ;
(c) it ' s too crowded ; (d) it ' s not cl ean ; (e) costs too much to
go there; (f) activities not interest ing (what would be interest­
ing? ) ; (g) l ike other Metro faci l ities better (why do you say
1 44
1 4"5
that ? ) ; (h) too dangerous (if yes , what do you mean by that? ) ;
(i ) you ' ve been too busy with other things ; (j ) us e private
faci l ities instead ; (k) bad weather .
20.
Did anyone · in. your hous eho ld use (name o f nearest community
center)
Community Center at
(locat ion or address)
Since September 1 ?
29 .
I f yes , could you tei i · me how your hous eho ld members would
evaluate thi s community center? Would they rate it : Excel lent ,
Good , Fair, or Poor? How would they rate it according to the
fo l l owing : (same as · in Quest ion 1 9 ) .
21 .
I f no (to Ques tion 20) would you te l l me why no one used it since
September 1 ?
22 .
Let me read a l i st of possib l e reasons in case we have over looked
some , · (Same as in Question 1 2 ) with addition of : Didn ' t know
about its programs .
30.
Has any � in your hous eho ld been to any othe Metro facilit ies
since September 1 ?
31 .
I f yes , whi ch ones were they and who used them?
37.
Whi ch. Metro recreation facil ity does (househo ld member # I )
enj oy most? (Repeated for al l members ) .
------
38 .
Would you tel l me why thi s is his/her favorite fac i l ity?
41 .
Does the househo ld have a fami ly vehicle?
42.
What was the last grade , or cl ass , the head of the househo ld
compl eted in school ?
43.
D o you own your home , or do you pay rent , o r do you live with your
parents?
44 .
About how many years have you l ived in Davidson County?
45.
About how many years have you l ived i n the immediate area?
46 .
Would you tel l me approximately what is the level of income for
al l members of your househol d ; that i s , before any taxes? I s
your total annual income : Below $ 5 , 000 ; between $ 5 , 000 and
$ 1 0 , 000; between $ 1 0 , 000 and $ 1 5 , 000; between $ 1 5 , 000 and $ 25 , 000 ;
over $ 25 , 000?
·
.
146
47 .
Is your race :
wh i t e , b l ack , or another rac e ?
NOTE : .:A number of que stion s have b een omitted where data have not been
analyzed .
VITA
The author was born in At l anta , Georgi a, on December � 6 , 1 9 4 9 .
He attended Head l and High Schoo l in East Point , Georgia, and graduated
on May 1 7 , 1967 .
In August of that same year , he entered Wofford
Col l ege in Spartanburg, South Carol ina .
At Wofford , the author maj ored ·
in Government and graduated w i th a Bache lor o f Arts Degree on May 2 2 ,
1 97 1 .
In September o f 1 971 , he entered the Graduate School of P l anning
at the University of Tennes see in Knoxvi l le .
The author i s present ly
emp loyed by the Mcintosh Trai l Area P l anning and Development Commi s s i on
in Griffin, Georgi a .
147