Citation
Urban parks and the role of the National Park Service

Material Information

Title:
Urban parks and the role of the National Park Service
Creator:
Watkins, A. Whit
Language:
English
Physical Description:
59, [4] leaves : folded maps ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Parks -- United States ( lcsh )
Open spaces -- United States ( lcsh )
Open spaces ( fast )
Parks ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
Academic theses. ( lcgft )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Academic theses ( lcgft )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 61-63).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Master's degree in Planning and Community Development, College of Design and Planning.
Statement of Responsibility:
[A. Whit Watkins].

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
09007999 ( OCLC )
ocm09007999
Classification:
LD1190.A78 1979 .W38 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
environmental design auraria library
URBAN PARKS AND
THE ROLE OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
A. l/^A±JevVv
"But to demand a clean-minted urban image from the work of a single architect, or even a single generation, is to misunderstand the essentially cumulative nature of the city . . . its development requires many creative life times."
The Urban Prospect,
Lewis Mumford, 1956


TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
The Role of the National Park Service in Preserving Urban
Open Space ' 1
Methods of Land Acquisition 10
PART TWO: CASE STUDIES
Gateway National Recreation Area 26
Golden Gate National Recreation Area 35
Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area 44
PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS 53


PART ONE
PROBLEM STATEMENT, INTRODUCTION
AND BACKGROUND


As the United States has grown through the last two decades, partially as a result.of the ecology movement, there has been an increasing public awareness of the need to preserve our natural resources. This has been accompanied by acknowledgement of escalating pressures for provision of accessible open space, preferably near our larger metropolitan areas. The economic demands to develop these remaining open areas into new industrial parks or spreading suburbs increases daily. The question that stands at the forefront of this controversy is how the land should be protected and by whom. This report concerns the role of a federal agency, the National Park Service, in preserving urban open space.
The problem of providing open space is constantly debated by public agencies and private development concerns. Since the provision of funds in the Planning Assistance Act of 1954, in urban areas of every size, committees, commissions and panels have been formed to consider proposals and approve plans in the communities' best interests. Public planning agencies have been charged with developing plans and guidelines on which these groups can base their


decisions. Many of our larger metropolitan areas are composed of several political entities, cities, counties, or even states. This jurisdictional complexity can compound the problem due to the fact that each political entity has its own land use planning staff, concerned with its particular problems. In addition, various federal agencies may be involved, each with its own planning staff and management plan.
As each community contains its own unique resources and priorities for useage, each urban area along with its groups of agency planners must deal with this multifaceted problem in its own fashion. This individualism has both positive and negative sides.
A local example of positive action by an individual community is the greenbelt plan that the City of Boulder, Colorado, is implementing. The plan is based on a city charter amendment, passed in 1967, imposing a one cent sales tax to create a fund for open space and major thoroughfares. The greenbelt is designated on the city master plan as certain areas around the urban core and includes provisions to not allow building above a
2


certain elevation in the foothills on their western edge. Many people laud this plan for its attempts to preserve open space and to avoid the "visual pollution" associated with urban clutter on the mountainside.
On the negative side, others have been critical of the plan, saying that Boulder is trying to stop growth and wall itself off from development. As this is a fairly recent plan, it is difficult to make judgements concerning the desirability of the program. There is room for further research into the subject.
Many planning agencies in a region have been organized to try to overcome some of the interurban conflicts that can arise from different solutions (by different political jurisdictions) to a common regional problem. These regional councils of government may also serve as clearinghouses for local projects involving application for federal funding. Thus, although these councils rarely have any real political power they often serve as the link between local planning and federal planning. This can be very helpful to a federal agency that is trying to plan a project near one of these large urban areas. The National Park
3


Service, in its growing role of urban open space and recreation protection, is finding itself increasingly involved in areas of complex political jurisdictions.
The National Park Service, from its inception, has been vitally concerned with preserving the natural and cultural resources of our country.
"With the establishment of Yellowstone National Park over 100 years ago, the Congress of the United States enunciated and institutionalized a land use ethic recognizing that the scenic, scientific, and natural wonders of our country have value to the whole people to be kept free from exploitation and held in trust for the people by the Government for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Within a few years of Yellowstone's establishment, the same concept was applied to the cultural resources of our country. Today, the National Park System contains over 300 areas, and over 90 nations around the world have established their own national parks or equivalent preserves." —^
4


When the first large national parks were established, they were primarily located in remote areas, and there were few if any conflicts with private land holdings. However, as the larger and more extraordinary natural areas have come to be protected, attention has turned more toward preserving the shrinking resources near populated areas. Reflecting this shift in interest, the inclination of the National Park Service has become to place more emphasis upon public accessibility and active involvement, than on the traditional emphasis upon somewhat passive observation of remote areas. These new park service areas are consequently designated as national recreation areas (N.R.A.) in contrast to the more restrictive designations of national park or monument. Several newly established recreation areas include:
Gateway National Recreation Area, located in
New Jersey and New York, serving the New York metro
area.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, located in northern California, serving San Francisco.
5


Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area, located in Ohio serving the Greater Cleveland metro area.
This designation of national recreation areas is one of several new phases in land resource preservation and is indicative of the growth of outdoor recreation as a national phenomenon. Studies done by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in 1965, predicted that by the year 2000, hiking and camping activities alone will have increased by over 200 percent from their level in 1965. The spread of urban areas, and multitudinous industries is, at the same time, reducing available recreation lands at a comparable rate. These inverse factors have placed public and private landowners in a situation of spiraling demands for new recreation areas.
Therefore, many areas which, while they are outstanding scenically, are neither sufficiently unusual for National Park status nor sufficiently primitive for wilderness designation, are being identified as national recreation areas. These areas are usually easily accessible to the public and have traditionally been receiving heavy outdoor recreation use.
6


Ironically, this accessibility has often resulted from transportation routes of a previous, often resource-degrading use, such as mining or logging.
Such access may also be the result of inappropriate zoning. The resource's attributes may be compromised because of accessibility, intermingled public and private lands, and disagreement about management priorities. The designation of these areas as national recreation areas is viewed hopefully as a
*
way to reconcile these conflicting demands of wanting to extract the economic goods of these resources and simultaneously preserve the resource as a recreation area.
The actual creation of the title of national recreation area within the National Park System occurred in 1963 when:
"A Recreation Advisory Council composed of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and other Federal cabinet officials issued a policy statement relating to selection, creation and management of national recreation areas. This statement recognized that seashores, lakeshores,
7


riverways and other areas administered predominantly
for recreation use served the same functional purpose
and the different designations.simply reflected the
physical resource base of those areas. The council
identified criteria- for selection of such areas on the
basis of recreational carrying capacity, proximity to
urban centers, and degree of federal involvement. It
specifically recommended that such areas be establshed
2/
by acts of congress." —
Although the above idea was first elaborated upon in 1963 and the first city-linked park was created in 1966 (Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore), it was the late sixties before the idea of urban-oriented national parks was seriously considered. Secretary of the Interior, Walter J. Hickel focused the idea in the phrase "Parks to the people!". At the top of Hickel's list was a proposal for a pair of "gateway” parks. One was Gateway National Recreation Area, in New York and the second was Golden Gate National Recreation Area, in San Francisco.
President Nixon, gave enthusiastic backing to these first two areas, stating:
8


"The rugged grandeur of mountains a thousand miles away means nothing t.o a city child who is not able to get to them. The boy sitting on the steps of a ghetto tenement deserves and needs a place where he can discover that the sky is larger than the little piece he is able to see through the buildings."
Richard M. Nixon October 18, 1968
With this additional support, the idea had gained sufficient momentum for the enabling legislation to create Gateway and Golden Gate National Recreation Areas was passed by Congress on October 27, 1972. After the 1972 elections presidential interest dropped, but the parks were already established.
As there was no real political impetus behind the urban national parks idea, the primary catalysts for development were the cities themselves or, actually, in the case of the Cuyahoga Valley in Ohio, local conservationists who generated their own park plans and publicized them. Congressional
9


Representative, John F. Seiberling, proposed the bill for a Cuyahoga. National Recreation Area and it was passed in to law on December 27, 1974.
Methods of Land Acquisition
All three of the above mentioned national recreation areas have provisions in their enabling legislation for federal purchase of rather substantial tracts of land. Ensuing congressional debate over subsequent funding for the proposed purchases slowed the progress of urban parks for several years. Then in 1978 four more national recreation areas near urban areas were created. However, during that space of time, several "new" ideas of land acquisition were being considered and incorporated into the new plans.
These so-called new ideas are actually different techniques of land acquisition, some of which have been in use since the 1920’s and some of which have been used successfully in other countries. Among these methods are the concepts of acquisition of development rights or easements, purchase of land in fee simple, and subsequent leaseback or resale with restrictions on development and what has come
10


to be known as the "string of pearls" concept, where land or the right of certain usage is purchased in narrow corridors or trails to tie together larger parcel that are owned outright. This last technique is also called the "greenline park" or "area of national concern," and its intent is to create a sort of park that is composed partly of public land and partly of private land under unusually protective land-use controls.
These new tools offer a wide range of possibilities for the preservation of open space in and around large urban areas, where the economic value of land would tend to preclude the outright acquisition of the type of large parcels generally developed.
The greenline park concept is applicable in cases concerning cooperation between governmental agencies. This cooperation is viewed not only as agreements between different federal agencies, but also as working relationships between federal, state, county and city agencies whose jurisdictions overlap.
Another area of growing concern deals with getting the recreational resources into the inner city.
11


This stems from the premise that the inner city-dweller is not merely trapped inside his city, but even inside his neighborhood. In such a case, a national park near the urban area would be as inaccessible as one a thousand miles away. This neighborhood park idea has stirred enough action to generate federal funding for cities that want to rehabilitate inner area parks and recycle underused buildings. Several cities, including Boston, San Francisco and Minneapolis have developed plans that not only strive to open up the recreation resources of the inner city, but have also managed to tie these interior projects together and then to exterior open space by means of greenline corridors that interconnect.
One of the three main land acquisition methods used by public agencies, the traditionally used technique of fee simple, has involved acquiring title to the land, either through purchase or donation. In the rapidly escalating land market currently present, however, the high cost not only of the acreage itself, but also of maintenance of the property once it is purchased, is causing many agencies to consider alternative types of resource protection.


One strategy that is gaining recognition in this country is the technique of land banking. Land banking has been practiced for decades in some European countries, England, Sweden and France most notably, and can take many forms. The main concept consists of the public purchasing large areas of land at rural use values, and then selling or leasing the land for development purposes as needed.
\
Or, the government may retain much of the land for open space, although the case may be that resale or lease of the land, with certain restrictions on its development potential is more economically feasible.
In effect, land banking extends the concepts of purchase and sale or lease with restrictions to larger/planning dimensions. Some of the benefits of land banking include:
. land acquired before it is needed, is usually purchased at a lower price
. financial gains from its development accrue to the public as a whole, rather than to a few private landowners
. land can be offered for development at appropriate times for orderly development
13


. if the land is leased, the public can continue to benefit from its increasing value
•
In one of the newest national recreation areas,
Santa Monica Mountains, near Los Angeles, California, land values in the area are increasing so rapidly that a variation of land banking is being considered.
The suggestion has been made that the National Park Service purchase parcels of land as they become available, then hold the parcels until their price escalates to a certain level, and eventually sell those for a price that will cover the cost of the expensive, threatened portion of the resource.
Another acquisition method that is beginning to appear economically interesting is less-than fee-acquisition or the purchase of development rights. Easements have been used in the National Park System since the 1930's when the National Park Service acquired 1,200 acres for the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North Carolina, and 5,000 acres for the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. These particular easement purchases have not proven completely successful for
14


the Park Service. It appears that the primary
weaknesses with these early easements were in three
main areas, the first being that many property
owners did not fully understand exactly what restrictions
had been put on their land. The second involved
the transfer of some of the land to second and
third owners, after the easements were acquired,
who were unaware that their land was subject to an
easement. Many landowners, in the third case, had
never -had reason to question the concept that "a
man can do whatever he wants with his property,"
since zoning, building permits, or other regulations
on development are unknown in many of these rural
areas.
There are cases where easements have been quite successful. These cases are all much more recent and have generally involved areas such as the Piscataway Park area of Maryland, where the population is more informed and accustomed to restrictions on land use imposed by zoning and building regulations.
The problem of enforcing these easements can often be eased considerably by educating the property owners involved, both at the time of easement acquisition and also when the land is transferred.
15


Also to be considered within the easement debate is thf difference between the two legally recognized types of easements. An appurtenant easement is one in which the owner of the easement also owns some adjoining land in fee simple and thus, through the easement, obtains some benefit for his land held in fee. An example of this in practice is the "string of pearls" concept. The second type involves an easement in gross, where the holder of the easement does not own land adjacent to the land subject to easements, and thus, his property does not benefit directly from the easement restrictions. An additional factor to be considered between these types of easements pertains to the relative ease of transfer from original owner to subsequent owners. Appurtenant easements are simpler to transfer and less debatable than easements in gross.
Two more land acquisition strategies are the right of preemption and compensable regulation. The right of preemption deals with an approach addressing the question of when to acquire interests in land.
Since conservation values are primarily preserved
16


as long as the land is kept in rural uses, it does not matter whether it is owned by the public or a private owner. Thus, it does not become necessary for the public to acquire a parcel of land for conservation purposes unless it is in dange.r of being developed and removed from rural uses. When the right of preemption is used, the public waits for the land in question to come on the market and then the government may choose to substitute itself for the private interest who has made an offer for it. In effect, the government may act to preempt the sale. If the government proceeds with the purchase, it may then resell or lease the land with restrictions on its use. This method, since the public purchases only some of the properties which come on the market, allows that only a portion of the properties in the area of interest might to ever be acquired and the transactions are likely to be over a long period of time. In some land markets this could be a great advantage, unless the land values have appreciated substantially before the properties were put on the market, in which case the cost to the government might be considerably
17


greater than if all properties were initially-acquired by land banking.
The method of compensable regulation allows the public to purchase rights only from landowners who feel that they cannot continue to use their land for specified open uses and who wish to sell.
Under this strategy, regulations are placed on the designated land limiting it to open space conservation uses.. Then, whenever an owner sells, the government guarantees to make up the difference, if any, between the selling price and the appraised value of the land prior to the attachment of the restrictions on use.
Two additional factors must be considered in a discussion of land acquisition: availability of funds and the private landowner's position and opinions. Much of the money for National Park Service land acquisition comes from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, enacted by Congress in 1965. As the legislation for each park is developed, certain amouirts of funding are authorized. However, when the time comes for the actual purchase of
18


designated areas the amount, of money appropriated for that purpose is frequently considerably less than the sum authorized, often due to an.economy-minded Congress. This necessitates a search for new ways, such as easements, of preserving as much land as possible, as cheaply as possible; particularly with land prices rising so rapidly and with Congress in the mood to cut back spending.
Yet the cost of land acquisition is not the principal strain. The "hidden cost" is that of developing and managing the property acquired. Rangers must be hired to protect land and meet visitors. Planning staffs must be organized to hold public meetings and prepare development strategies. In urban national recreation areas in particular, transit systems must be planned and may be quite costly to construct. Historic structures which must be restored and preserved may also be located in these urban areas. The money for these functions must come from the main Park Service operating budget.
This budget, while appearing relatively steady or even increasing, is actually decreasing, in terms of the large increase in numbers of visitors served
19


and amount of acreage acquired.
The economic considerations bring up again the concept Of less-than-fee involvement. Areas that can be tied together through the use of scenic easements and trail corridors, with the bulk of the land area remaining in private control but under well-enforced restrictive zoning, could prove financially beneficial for resource preservation.
The regulation of this private land is the weakest link in this chain of authority, as it often requires cooperative enforcement by the different agencies involved in heavily urbanized areas.
The greenline, string-of-pearls type parks are obviously less expensive per acre than those traditional, large area parks owned outright. This leaves more money for acquisition of special sites -- which become the "pearls." In addition, these sites are less costly to manage, with only certain portions open to the public and subject to the costs public useage entails. With much of the land remaining in restricted private ownership, the parks can cover much larger areas than any agency could hope to
20


actually purchase. An additional positive aspect is the fact that greenline parks disturb local patterns much less than traditional parks do. Many small communities that want only to be left alone would find it easier to adapt to a more loosely structured park style than to becoming an enclave within an expanse of public ownership.
On the topic of private landowners involved, a relatively recent amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965., contained a section outlining the intention of the National Park Service to purchase all of the remaining land still in private holdings within the boundaries of all national parks established since 1960. The subsequent attempts on the part of the Park Service to carry out this program have resulted in hard feelings between the residents of some inholder communities, in Yosemite, Grand Teton, and Olympic, particularly, and their encompassing parks. So much so that people from these different communities joined together to create a group they called the National Park Inholders Association. This group of inholders hopes to prevent the Park Service from negotiating
21


the purchase of the remaining private acres. While the inholders maintain that their communities are hurting no one, Park Service officials say the
a
acquisition program, although painful to inholders, was designated to eliminate what they call a class of "special privilege" persons--enjoying living inside a national park while all others are denied that privilege. The Park Service is acquiring the property on what it terms a "willing-buyer, willing-seller" basis with hopes that the restrictions on development, part of the program, will prevent the creation of expensive structures that eventually would be purchased by the government. However, the government may institute eminent domain proceedings to protect the area from the threat of a new or expanded use that is incompatible with the primary purpose for which the area was established. Condemnation proceedings are used only as a last resort, when all reasonable efforts of negotiation have failed.
The inholders of communities inside the parks do hold a unique position. The problem is one that is not likely to be easily solved as long as they
22


want to live there and the Park Service is mandated to buy their land. Perhaps by strictly observing the willing-seller, willing-buyer guideline, the Park Service can soothe the inholders' ruffled feelings.
23


PART TWO
CASE STUDIES:
GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA


The following table provides a summary of the acreage statistics involved in the three national recreation areas used as case studies. The two areas established earlier,- Gateway and Golden Gate are shown to have considerably less area in both private holdings and less-than-fee federal holdings. This is indicative of the developing trend away from large scale federal ownership, toward more cooperative systems of management.
TABLE I
GATEWAY CUYAHOGA VALLEY GOLDEN GA'
ACREAGE 26,172.00 32,460.19 38,676.59
Federal 20,391.00 9,104.35 21,992.01
Federal Fee 20,389.26 9,070.91 21,990.35
Federal Less Than Fee 1.74 33.44 1.66
Non-Federal 5,781.00 23,355.84 16,684.58
Other Public 5,378.00 6,152.34 11,‘547.21
Private 403.00 17,203.50 5,137.37
25


GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
Along with Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Gateway National Recreation Area has the distinction of being the first recreation area located near a major metropolitan center for the purpose of serving that center. Consisting of five units: Jamaica Bay, Breezy Point, Staten Island,
Hoffman-Swinburne Island, and Sandy Hook; Gateway lies virtually at the doorstep of 12 million people in eluding a million families with annual incomes of less than $5,000 each. Many residents of the New York Metropolitan Area have neither the time nor the means to visit nearby Long Island beaches or the Jersey Shore, but can take an occasional subway ride to Coney Island. Conditions are often overcrowded and when the 3.4 mile beach is jammed with up to a million people, the average sized person has no room to lie down. Much of New York's other 15 miles of public beach is only marginally safe for use or not conveniently served by public transportation. Some beaches are closed because of polluted water.
26


Gateway National Recreation Area is a coalescence of several
parks established by the City of New. York and New York
State. In the late 1960's, when the city began
feeling a financial pinch, the money for these
parks was quickly effected. Secretary of the
Interior, Walter J. Hickel had the idea of creating
the pair of "gateway" national parks and the time
seemed right for the National Park Service to step in
and take over management of the troubled New York
urban parks. The locations of the five separate units
that comprise the park provide access for visitors
throughout the metropolitan area, as the units are
essentially ringed around the entrance and sides of
the harbor of New York. Certain portions of the park
are accessible by mass transit; however, the primary
means of conveyance currently being used is the automobile.
This use of the car automatically dictates use of the
park by those urbanites able to afford a car.
Such significant numbers of people residing in the New York Metropolitan Area do not own cars and are dependent on public transportation, automobiles cannot and should not dp the job. Auto access would only aggravate
27


the already overtaxed highways in and near the recreation area. Additional auto transportation would not only create access problems, but also produce a parking problem. Gateway lands are too valuable as recreation areas to permit conversion to roads and parking lots.
In order to assure that recreation at Gateway would be
available to all of the people living in the area, as
well as millions of other visitors, a low-cost transportation
system will be required. A ferry system linked with
the existing subway and rail lines and key highway
junctions is proposed to transport visitors to the
five units of the recreation area. This would help
keep automobiles to a minimum within the area, in
order to preserve its environmental quality and to
save vital acres for recreation and open space.
Another aspect of the transportation/access problem, at Gateway is the development of "territories" in areas frequented by particular groups. The Jamaica Bay area, through which passes an existing subway line, attracts large numbers of visitors from nearby Brooklyn and Queens, including Brownsville and Bedford-Stuyvesant.
28


The Staten Island unit visitors are predominantly Staten Islander family groups who are regular park users; while another section, Canarsie Pier, is frequented primarily by elderly visitors who live nearby.
Perhaps the largest problem at Gateway is its constant battle with severe forms of air, water, and noise pollution. The paradox of Gateway is that the advantages of location are largely offset by the extreme environmental stresses that the park's lands and waters have undergone because of proximity to the densely populated and -highly urbanized area. However, even with these stresses, Gateway's barrier beaches, marshes, upland forests, and bay provide an unparalleled experience with a natural coastal system.
Though conceived primarily for recreation, Gateway National Recreation Area eventually may find some of its most far-reaching benefits through its environmental education program. Generations of school children, teachers, Scout troops, youth groups, scientists and average Gateway vistiors would learn of man's abuse of
29


his environment and perhaps be stirred sufficiently to take action to clean the air and waters and to plan healthy and attractive communities.
Thus, although the stated purpose .of Gateway is to preserve outstanding natural and recreational features, inherent in this purpose is the need to revitalize the natural landscape so that it can be enjoyed by present and future visitors, and also to encourage new and harmonious expressions of urbanism throughout the greater metropolitan area that will allow the perpetuation and use of Gateway's unique resources.
Gateway, in addition to its unique situation as the first large urban-oriented park, is noteworthy because of its position at the beginning of a transitory period in Park Service history. The National Park idea began in response to the needs of the time --preserving American wilderness. Yellowstone, the first National Park was born of the idea of preserving pieces of primitive America in which man is a visitor. Gateway was created from the leavings of a throw-away society, and so is born of obsolescence. Forts and
30


airfields were tossed out with the refuse of the city.
With these remnants and the seeds of nature, we stand
at the beginning of a distinctly new era, when it is
«
clear that there is no longer enough to throw out, and no place to throw it.
In another sense, the time is passing when there are vast new natural wonders that need National Park status to protect them for future generations. Practically all Of the "crown jewels" have been discovered and protected by some form of regulation. Thus it is the smaller areas, the remaining wild areas near the urbanized centers that will be attracting growing interest as areas of recreation and nature conservation and education.
The acquisition of the land involved in Gateway National Recreation Area dealt almost entirely with the transfer of already publicly owned lands to another public agency. Of the over 26,000 acres of land involved in the Gateway area only 403 acres are in private ownership. Aside from the political bickering that raged between the various levels of the public
31


regime (which agency was giving up how much and to whom), there are two private entities with which to deal. .
One of these is a largely seasonal residential community of more than 2,700 units, the 403 acre Breezy Point Cooperative, a beach club. The portion of the Breezy Point Unit that includes the Cooperative is scheduled for long range development, at least twenty-five years in the future. The other community, comprised of approximately 1,050 residential and 160 commercial structures, lies in the south-center of Jamaica Bay and is presently operating under a five-year use permit with the City of New York, which owns the 320 acres Broad Channel Community occupies.
The feature of almost total public ownership is one that is increasingly less likely to occur. The availability of undeveloped areas within easy reach of our country’s large urban areas is rapidly diminishing. That the lands which have become part of Gateway National Recreation Area, should not only be so lightly developed, even if they are severely affected by
32


pollution from the surrounding development, but also predominantly owned by local public agencies was quite a stroke of luck. This writer believes that this fact sets Gateway apart as a hallmark in the tradition of the Park Service. Gateway can be.viewed as the balance point between the old-time parks that are, to a large degree, totally owned and managed by the Park Service; and the parks and recreation areas of the future, that may have a central governing body, but will primarily be composites of several public agencies and zones of private land unified by a cooperative agreement on a common goal of conservation and recreation
Gateway was created from the leavings of an opulant society, and it is these remnants that suggest we stand on the threshold of a distinct new era with regard to the national park idea. Gateway is a response to the needs of 20th Century persons -- providing open space for recreation within the boundaries of everyday environment. Gateway, hopefully, will demonstrate that human beings are an integral part of the environment If successful, Gateway will symbolize the beginning of what might be termed a value revolution.
33


GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
Established the same day as Gateway in New York and New Jersey, Golden Gate National Recreation Area was created:
"In order to preserve for public use and enjoyment
certain areas of Marin and San Francisco Counties,
California, possessing outstanding natural,
historic, scenic, and recreational values, and in
order to provide for the maintenance of needed
recreational open space necessary to urban
3 /
environment and planning....". —
With its original emphasis centered primarily on San Francisco's colorful waterfront, Golden Gate was soon enlarged to encompass a strip of undeveloped land through Marin County which tied Golden Gate National Recreation Area to Point Reyes National Seashore. The park encompasses shoreline areas of San Francisco and Marin Counties, including ocean beaches, redwood forests, lagoons, marshes, ships of the National Maritime Museum, historic military properties and a cultural center at Fort Mason, and Alcatraz Island.
35


Several of parcels of land incorporated into Golden Gate National Recreation Area were previously owned by various public agencies. Most of the lands in San Francisco County were publicly owned, and some, but not all of the lands in Marin County were publicly owned. Such areas as the Presidio, Fort Point, Alcatraz and Fort Funston were already federal properties and connect with San Francisco City Park-Golden Gate, while Muir Woods National Monument and Point Reyes National Seashore are federal properties in Marin County that were, respectively, incorporated into Golden Gate National Recreation Area or are located adjacent to it. Two state parks, Mount Tamalpais, and Samuel P-. Taylor are either included or adjacent, as well as a couple of public beaches, Stinson and Muir.
With all of the historic features of downtown San Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area has several built-in attractions. These historic and cultural resources offer a natural base on which to build many recreational and educational programs. However, even with all of its positive aspects,
36


Golden Gate still has problems that have to be considered. Several areas of concern were explored at a series of public workshops attended by members of various groups in the San Francisco area. The workshops were used to explain the planning process and provide the public with a chance to express ideas and opinions.
The first workshop examined the problem of park access and the car vs. public transit. After discussion on a variety of topics ranging from monorail systems to limited access systems using tolls, some basic recommendations were agreed upon by general concensus: first, considering a potentially large number of commuters, a bus rapid-transit system of some sort would be necessary, with routes to be determined when areas of probable highest use had been delineated. It was determined that transportation could also be a part of the recreational experience, recognizing the different needs of different groups. In addition to areas of high user density, the transportation route planning must be tied in with land use plans which in turn must be based on a study of the existing resources. Also to be considered is that provision of transportation in and of itself does not bring people ouc of their turf. Attempts to bus
37


inner-city residents to wilderness areas can be failures without a complete
recreational/educational program to complement the experience.
Workshop Number Two examined the intricacies of providing facilities for special interest groups --the young, the aged, and the handicapped. The participants discussed such subjects as adaptive use of existing facilities, creation of programs to reflect the diverse needs of potential users, and environmental use and protection in the development of programs to expand the recreational and environmental education of the urban population.
Another workshop discussed developing guidelines for intensity of use and holding capacity. The areas of concern included development of a classification scheme to designate use intensities of each area.
This designation should be based upon present uses, the fragility of the environment and the amount of alterations necessary for a particular use. Emphasis was placed on preservation of present values such as
38


isolated and wild areas, the hills, the animals, historic values, and special use areas. The impact of other people on the enjoyment of each activity was also discussed as the social carrying capacity of an area for an activity. A final consideration was the possibility that the environment or the activity could lose value from over-use, and whether limitation of use, such as waiting lists would be appropriate.
"Extending the recreation area into the city" was the topic of another group's discussions. The workshop leader presented a brief background of common inner-city pastimes, which are predominantly dependent on interaction between individuals with a lot of spare time and minimal recreation equipment. Two important points brought out in the discussion were:
"1. Due to lack of experience with the wilderness, being in nature reminds many non-white, nonmiddle class urbanites of nothingness. Thus, the wilderness itself has meaning to very few people in these groups.
39


2. The familiar use of spare-time by non-white,
non-middle class Americans involves contact
4 /
with others with minimal objects." —
The discussions continued by considering the kinds of facilities that would meet the requirements. It was determined that facilities must be cheap and available, and designed for activities that are familiar to these groups. The main idea would involve creating a place where' people can use their spare-time in a way with which they are comfortable, thereby attracting various use groups in an environment not completely new and strange. The location of these facilities, however, must be selected carefully. The location should be planned so that activities held in these facilities are compatible with other forms of recreation taking place in the same area. One suggestion was that these facilities could be located on the periphery of the park and serve as a transitional area for the inner city dwellers while providing a buffer zone for those seeking a wilderness experience farther into the heart of the park. Another recommendation suggested that transportation should be provided that would directly
40


link these recreational facilities to non-middle class, non-white neighborhoods in San Francisco, possibly even tying the transportation 'into a total recreational experience.
Another workshop dealt with creating an "environmental ethic" for urban citizens. Three main ways of developing environmental awareness in people were discussed. The first and fundamental point is to let the people in the city know about the recreation area and then provide opportunities for them to become actively involved in its natural setting. Secondly, there must be some sort of orientation or resource centers so that people are not thrust into the recreation area without knowing what is there and how to make use of it. Third, there must be an adequate staff available throughout the park and at specific sites to interpret and be of service to park users. Using these three guidelines, specific policies and facilities can be
v
implemented to carry the plans out. One other aspect that is vital to development of an environmental ethic deals, once again with the topic of transportation --as long as the automobile dominates the scene, it would be difficult to achieve a clear sense of environmental values.
41


It is certainly true that at least some of the inhabitants of San Francisco and Marin Counties know that Golden Gate National Recreation Area exists and they are quite interested in helping the park achieve its purpose of bringing recreation to the urban population. The problems faced in Golden Gate are similar to those encountered in Gateway in New York and New Jersey with the exception that in San Francisco there seems to be a more positive outlook for the immediate future of the park. This variance in "attitude" could be the product of the larger number of political jurisdictions involved in Gateway lands, or it could be the result of different attitudes on the part of the people trying to organize all of the different resources. Another possible cause of attitudinal differences is the supply vs. demand factor, the proportional recreation demand at Gateway being considerably higher per acre than at Golden Gate where there is more recreation space per inhabitant. Nonetheless, in spite of the transportation and educational difficulties, it is encouraging to find these parks alive and trying to cope with the recreation needs of the urban centers.
42


CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
The Cuyahoga, a short, gentle river, rises near the Pennsylvania State line and flows to Lake Erie through Akron and Cleveland. It has a national reputation as the stream that did the impossible. In the summer of 1969, so thick was its coating of oil and pollutants, the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire. The cleanup sessions that were implemented soon thereafter were actually the culmination of many years of growing public concern for lessening environmental quality.
There are numerous examples of public involvement in river cleanup'projects. From 1969 through 1971, the Village of Mantua on the Upper Cuyahoga held 18 earth-day cleanup sessions, with many local and area groups participating. At.nearby Kent, beyond removing the natural and unnatural debris, students and teachers planted over 200 trees along the waterway. A public meeting held in June of 1971 sought to air the people's views on local problems and needs for the area of the river around Mantua. The Mayor, Robert Thomas, made several specific recommendations including:
44


"Thorough, effective restrictions against dumping of industrial wastes and untreated sewage into the river.
Rigid enforcement of the Ohio Anti-Stream Dumping Law.
Brushing and snagging of the river and its banks.
Debris removal and clearing of channel from Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Bridge to State Route 44.
Establishment of a wildlife preserve in at least a portion of the swamp area at the southeastern section of Mantua Village.
Creation of a 'Nature's Edge' of approximately 20 feet width along both sides of the river to beautify the river banks through plant and tree planting projects and provide a natural habitat for wildlife."—^
45


At the same meeting another speaker brought up two important points. This speaker's first concern was the need for coordination and avoidance of%conflict among the several ongoing or planned programs affecting the river. Her other point involved the importance of using a comprehensive approach to the river system.
She stressed that local communities must help develop their region as part of a total land and river-use plan for the watershed.
Through the course of several public meetings held in the area concerned with the Cuyahoga River, the general concerns expressed included flooding, pollution, aesthetics, and fish and wildlife. The specific interests were in renewing water quality by wastewater purification and control of municipal and industrial discharges, and in eventually redeveloping some fish and wildlife habitats.
When the first interim report on restoration of the Cuyahoga was compiled the river could not be used for recreation on anything approaching a large-scale. Many of the lower reaches were polluted to such an extent that any body contact was unhealthy and the smell was
46


so bad that even streamside use was impossible. The upper basin, although somewhat- affected by pollution, was clean enough for canoeing, partial body contact, and streamside use.
Aesthetically speaking, at the same time, the upper section of the river, in spite of its proximity to Cleveland and Akron, has a distinctly rural character and even then was considered highly attractive. The river, from the vicinity of Kent downstream to Cleveland, however, was generally offensive to smell and frequently offensive to view because of its serious water pollution, deposits of sediments, careless development on the shore and valley walls, and accumulation of junk and covered by a maze of bridges and plied by large lake ships. There was also a great deal of oil and debris in the channel, masked here, however by the urban and industrial activity. All areas of the river lacked the aesthetic quality they could have if developed, though the nature of the development would have to differ in the different areas.
In the late 1960's, the State of Ohio, recognized the tremendous value of the Valley for recreation and open
47


space and began a study to evaluate the potential of the Valley. The next step came at the time the Akron and Cleveland Metropolitan Park districts joined with the State in recognition of the need to preserve the Valley. Investment of public funds in the acquisition of land was begun in 1969 with the initial application for Land and Water Conservation Funds by the Akron Metropolitan Park District. The study and initial acquisition helped provide the impetus for private organizations to join with the state, the two park districts, and area legislators led by Congressmen Seiberling, Vanik and Regula in requesting the National Park Service to recognize the Cuyahoga Valley as a National Park. The Cuyahoga Valley Park Federation, an association representing 53 organizations, was a major force in efforts to establish Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area.
After a National Park Service study team reported that there were significant historical, natural, and recreational values in the Cuyahoga Valley, in 1972, the National Park Service initiated a detailed planning study to determine the feasibility of a National Park. During this period, the State of Ohio committed more than 5
48


million dollars to purchasing land in the project area. The State purchased 1,445 acres of land with 3 major goals in mind: stopping incompatible, commercial or residential development, expanding existing publicly-owned lands; and tying together areas of public or quasi-public ownership.
Legislation to establish a federal park within this area was introduced initially into the 92nd Congress by the Ohio Delegation and interested co-sponsors. Hearings were held on the Valley by both the House and the Senate in 1974. In late 1974, both the House and the Senate passed legislation providing for the establishment of the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. On December 28, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed the bill into law. The boundaries of the federal park include approximately 30,000 acres of land, and as a result of the legislation, it is now the objective of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to provide an orderly transition for management from the State's planning and acquisition activities to those of the federal government.
49


Cuyahoga, with its citizen-backed beginnings, presents a slightly different future than Gateway or Golden Gate. In contrast to the two gateway parks, that already enjoyed some park areas, the Cuyahoga River was essentially saved by its people for its people.
50


CONCLUDING STATEMENTS


The three case studies presented in this report serve to illustrate common attributes and problems to be found within the urban parks program. The fact that all three are within reasonably short travel time for the several million inhabitants of their respective metropolitan centers is of vital importance to their function as urban recreation areas. Another similarity is the proximity to water resources enjoyed by all three areas. They also share areas of historic, scenic, natural and recrea- â–  tional values that have been recognized as having -national significance.
Gateway, Golden Gate, and Cuyahoga also share an affliction that will undoubtedly be involved in any large recreation area near any metropolitan center: plitical jurisdictions. The pattern usually evolves that first no one is interested in the area because it doesn't really fall under their specific jurisdiction, and later, when the recreation area starts looking like a positive factor, economically as \vell as recreationally, everyone wants a piece of the pie.
This jurisdictional debate often includes conflicts
53


of overlapping political interest, the cases in all three of these urban parks involve overlaps of city, county, state and federal interests.
With their greater acreage of government-owned land, Gateway and Golden Gate are in the process of working out donations and transfers to solidify the property under federal park management. Cuyahoga, however having approximately two-thirds of its land under other than federal control is having to develop more extensive cooperative agreements between agencies and private land owners.
Part of the .urban park debate that needs further examination deals with the dual problem of serving inner-city inhabitants and developing low cost mass transit to improve mobility throughout the urban core. In 1977 Congress asked the Park Service and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to make a joint study of recreational needs in major cities. When the studies were completed in 1978, the results labeled the situation as intolerable in most of the seventeen metropolitan areas considered. Typically, there are shortages of recreation land for eveyone; the
54


closer the area to the center of the city, the greater the shortage.
The major factor in making the large urban parks on the metropolitan fringe work for -the inner city population is improved transportation. Even expanded transit services, however, will probably not totally satisfy the need for inner city recreation space.
The provision of open space for these core parks should have its base in local agencies planning and recreation guidelines. The urban recreation study mentioned above suggested a massive program of grants to cities to help them rebuild and restore old and run-down recreational areas. President Jimmy Carter endorsed this "Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program," and Conress quickly enacted it as part of the 1978 Omnibus Parks Act -- "Title X." The act provides money to cities for planning, for rehabilitating park systems and for such innovative projects as recycling underused buildings. Cities must apply for funds and only the best projects will be funded. To qualify, projects must involve: adequate citizen participation in planning and
55


development phases, state and city commitment to improvingparks, and a demonstrated record of past success.
Many of the proposed urban recreation areas are of a size and national significance to actually merit federal involvement. However, many small local parks are being offered for federal takeover due to the decline in local funds. For example, the passage of Proposition 13 in California has had a dramatic effect on parks and recreation budgets throughout the state.
This cutback in funds has made it difficult for the local agencies to maintain the parks already established, not to mention to acquire and develop any new areas.
Because of the American tradition of viewing land
as a commodity to be bought and sold for the turn
of a profit, there will always be landowners who
view any restrictions placed on their land as un-American,
communist controls. Howrever, as our resources continue
to diminish, we are going to find ourselves either restricting
land use in "critical natural areas or losing these
areas forever. The price of land continues to spiral
56


upward and the closer the land is to a major metropolitan area, the higher its price tag is likely to be, not only for the actual purchase, but also for the required maitenance. The price of preserving these resources will no doubt continue to rise, but in looking back over the history of American parks, it is hard to find a purchase price that was not regarded as extravagant when it was made -- and impossible to find a case where the purchase was later regretted.
That two of the areas discussed, Gateway and Cuyahoga, have been plagued by pollution and have required extensive clean-up operations is, unfortunately indicative of things to come, unless some steps can be taken soon to develop at least toe-holds for recreation areas and open space in and near our major metropolitan centers. It has become apparent that the efforts taken by the local public agencies, while definitely a great starting place, are not going to be entirely sufficient. Jurisdictional boundaries conflicts can make regional planning very difficult for any.but a comprehensive governmental
57


agency. Perhaps through better cooperation between local agencies, coordinating with federal agencies such as the National Park Service, we can expand the growing public awareness of our•shrinking resources and continue to develop'new areas of national concern, meshing public and private ownership.
My view of the National Park Service role in developing urban parks and open space is one of an integrated program of professional support for local recreation programs and actual investment in areas of national significance. This partnership would easily adapt to the creation of greenbelt-string-of-pearls type parks in which the Park Service would manage several areas of natural or cultural importance and the local recreation authorities would be responsible for managing the linking open spaces. These open corridors would be easy to develop along rivers or streams, or any natural lanes that traverse the metropolitan areas.
58


These greenbelt corridors could then be led on to tie in with large urban fringe recreation areas and recreation programs which could include attractions ranging from subsidized transportation to environmental education. Although each metropolitan area would have its own set of environmental constraints, and each park its particular approach to these constraints, I believe this type of cooperative arrangement would work well to meet the needs for urban recreation and open space.
59


FOOTNOTES
Management Policies, National Park Service II,
p. 1-1
U.S. Recreational advisory Council, Federal Executive Branch Policy Governing the Selection, Establishment, and Administration of National Recreation Areas, (Policy Circular No. 1,
March 26, 1963
Public Law 92-589, 92nd Congress, H.R. 16444, October 27, 1972
Discussion led by Russ Ellis on Wednesday, May 16, 1973, as a part of a "Public Forum on the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco and Marin Counties, California
"Cuyahoga River, Ohio-Restoration Study,
First Interim Report, September 1971, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District


REFERENCES
GENERAL
Changing Rural Landscapes, edited by E^vin H. Zube and Margaret J. Zube, the University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1977
Federal Register, Part IV, Department of the Interior,
National Park Service, Revised Land Acquisition . Policy, Thursday, April 26, 1979
Lincoln Law Review; Vol. VI, Dec. 1970, No. 1,
"National Recreation Areas: Evolving Legislative Answer to Land Use Conflicts," by David G. Knibb, pp. 1-22
Management Policies, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1978
Outdoor Recreation Planning, by Allan Jubenville,
published by W.G. Sanders Co., Philadelphia, London, Toronto, 1976
"Parks for the People, the National Debate," by John Hart, excerpted from "San Francisco's.
Wilderness Next Door," Presidio Press, 1979
The Heart of Our Cities, The Urban Crisis: Diagnosis and Cure, by Victor Gruen, Published, by Simon and Schuster, New York, 1964
"The Use of Less-Than-Fee Acquisition for the Preservation
of Open Space," by R.E. Coughlin and Thomas Plant RSRI Discussion Paper, Series: No. 101, Dec. 1977
CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
"Cuyahoga River Basin, Ohio, Restoration Study, First Interim Report," prepared by Department of the Army, Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers, September 8, 1971
Public Law 9-3-555, Dec. 27, 1974, "An Act to Provide for
the Establishment of the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. 88 Stat. 1784


"Technical Report for the Cuyahoga River Valley Park Study," Vol. One, prepared by Mosure-Fok and Syrakis, Co., Ltd., Land Design/Research, Inc., Jack McCormick and Associates, Inc.
Telephone Interview on November 28, 1979, with Skip
Snow, National Park Service Planner, concerning his work on the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area.
"The Cuyahoga Valley Between Akron and Cleveland," by Dr. H. W. Pfanz, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, historic preservation project
GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
"Gateway National Recreation Area: A Proposal," prepared by the National Park Service and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Gateway National Recreation Area, Interpretive Prospectus, recommended by Superintendent Herbert S. Cables, June 26, 1978, approved by Deputy Regional Director Denis P. Galvin, July 18, 1978
Public Law 92-592, Oct. 27, 1972, "An Act to Establish the Gateway National Recreation Area in the States of New York and New Jersey and for Other Purposes," 86 Stat. 1308
"Transportation Access Study, Gateway National Recreation Area," prepared by Transportation and Regional Planning Division of the New York City Planning Department, April 1975
GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA
"Historic Resource Study, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California," by Erwin N. Thompson,
Denver Service Center, Historic Preservation Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado, May 1979


Interview with Doug Cornell, Planner, Western Planning Team, National Park Service, Denver Service Center, November 27, 1979, concerning his work with land acquisition, Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Interview with Nancy Fries, on November 27, 1979,
"National National Park Service planner, Western Team, concerning her work on Golden Gate National Recreation Area Planning Team Parks and Urban America: Results of a Public Forum on the Golden Gate National Recreation Area," sponsored by Continuing Education in City, Regional and Environmental Planning, University Extension, University of California, Berkeley, edited by Ruthann Corwin
Public Law 92- 589 , Oct. 27, 1972, "An Act to Establish' the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the State of California, and for Other Purposes, 86 Stat. 1299


Full Text

PAGE 1

URBAN PARKS AND THE ROLE OF THE NATION PARK S ERVICE "But to de mand a clean-minted urban image from the work of a single architect, or even a single generation, is to misunderstand the essentially cumulative nature of the city its development requires many creative life times." The Urban Prospect, Lewis Mumford, 1956 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AURARIA LIBRARY

PAGE 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PART ONE: INTRODUCTION The Role of the National Park Service in Preserving Urban Open Space Methods of Land Acquisition PART TWO: CASE STUDIES . PAGE 1 10 Gateway National Recreation Area 26 Golden Gate National Recreation Area 35 Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area 44 PART THREE: CONCLUSIONS 53

PAGE 3

. ._ PART ONE PROBLEM STATEMENT, INTRODUCTION . AND BACKGROUND

PAGE 4

As the United States has grown through the last two decades, partially.as a result.of the ecology movement, there has been an increasing public awareness of the need to preserve our natural resources. This has been accompanied by acknowledgement of escalating pressures for provision of accessible open space, preferably near our larger metropolitan areas. The economic demands to develop these remaining open areas into new industrial parks or spreading suburbs increases daily. The question that stands at the forefront of this controversy is how the land should be protected and by whom. This report concerns the role of a federal agency, the National Park Service, in preserving urban open space. The problem of providing open space is constantly debated by public agencies and private development concerns. Since the provision of funds in the Planning Assistance Act of 1954, in urban areas of every size, committees, commissions and panels have been formed to consider proposals and approve plans in the communities' best interests. Public planning agencies have been charged with developing plans and guidelines on which these groups can base their

PAGE 5

decisions. Many of our larger metropolitan areas are composed of several political entities, cities, counties, or even states. This jurisdictional complexity can compound _the problem due to the fact that each political entity has .its own land use planning staff, concerned with its particular problems. In addition, various federal agencies may be involved, each with its own planning staff and management plan. As each community contains its own unique resources and priorities foi useage, each urban area along with its groups of agency planners must deal with this multifaceted problem in its own fashion. This individualism has both positive and negative sides. A local example of positive action by an individual community is the greenbelt plan that the City of Boulder, Colorado, is implementing. The plan is based on a city charter amendment, passed in 1967, imposing a cent sales tax to create a fund for open space and major thoroughfares. The greenbelt is designated on the city master plan as certain areas around the urban core and includes provisions to not allow building above a 2

PAGE 6

certain elevation in the foothills on their western edge. Many people laud this plan for its attempts to preserve open space and to avoid the pollution" associated with urban clutter on the mouritainside. On the side, others have been critical of the plan, saying Boulder is trying to stop growth and wall itself off from development. As this is a fairly recent plan, it is difficult to make judgements concerning the desirability of the program. There is room for further research into the subject. Many planning agencies 1n a region have been organized to try to some of the interurban conflicts that can arise from different solutions (by different political jurisdictions) to a common regional problem. These regional councils of government may also serve as clearinghouses for local projects involving application for federal funding. Thus, although these councils rarely have any real political power they often serve as the link between local planning and federal planning. This can be very helpful to a federal agency that is trying to plan a project near one of these large_ urban areas. The National Park . :2i

PAGE 7

Service, in its growing role of urban open space and recreation is finding itself involved in areas of complex political The National Park Service, from its inception, has been vitally concerned with preserving the natural and cultural resources of our country . "With the establishment of Yellowstone National Park over 100 years ago, the Congress of the United States enunciated and institutionalized a land use ethic recognizing that the scenic, scientific, and natural wonders of our country have value to the whole people to be kept free from exploitation and held in trust for the people by the Government for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Within a few years of Yellowstone's establishment, the same concept was applied to the cultural resources of our country. Today, the National Park System contains over 300 areas, and over 90 nations around the world have established their own national parks or equivalent preserves." !/ 4

PAGE 8

When the first large national parks were established, they were primarily located in remote areas, and there were few if any conflicts with private land < holdings. However, as the larger and more extraordinary natural areas have come to be protected, attention has turned more toward preserving the shrinking resources.near populated areas. Reflecting this shift in interest, the inclination of the National Park Service has become to place more emphasis upon accessibility and active involvement, than on the traditional emphasis upon somewhat passive observation of remote areas. These new park service are consequently designited as national recreation areas (N.R.A.) in contrast to the restrictive designations of national park or monument. Several newly established recreation areas include: Gateway National Recreation Area, located in New Jersey and New York, serving the New York metro area. Golden Gate National Recreation Area, located in northern California, serving San Francisco. 5

PAGE 9

Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation located in Ohio serving the Greater Cleveland metro area. This designation of national recreation areas is one of several new phases in land resource preservation and is indicative of the growth of outdoor recreation as a national phe nomenon. Studies done by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in 1965, predicted that by the year 2000, hiking and camping activities alone will have increased by over 200 percent from their level in 1965. The spread of urban areas, and multitudinous industries is, at the same time, reducing available recreation lands at a comparable rate. These inverse factors have placed public and private landowners in a situation of spiraling demands for new recreation areas. Therefore, many areas which, while they outstanding scenically, are neither sufficiently unusual for National Park status no r sufficiently primitive for wilderness designation, are being identified as national recreation areas. These areas are usually easily accessible to the public and have traditionally been receiving heavy outdoor recreation use. 6

PAGE 10

Ironically, this accessibility has oten resulted from transportation routes of a previous, often -resource-degrading use, such as mining or logging. Such access may also be the result of inappropriate zoning. The resource's attributes may be compromised because of accessibility, public and private and disagreement about management priorities. The designation of these areas as national recreation areas is viewed hopefully asa way to reconcile these conflicting demands of wanting . -to extract the economic goods of these resources and simultaneously preserve the resource as a recreation area. The actual creation of the title of national recreation area within the National Park System occurred in 1963 when: "A Recreation Advisory Council composed of the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior and other Federal cabinet officials issued a policy statement relating to selection, creation and management of national recreation areas. This statement recognized that seashores, 7

PAGE 11

riverways and other areas administered predominantly for recreation use served the same func.tional purpose and the different designations.simply reflected the ' physical resource base of those areas. The council identified criteria for selection of spch areas on the basis of xecreational carrying capacity, proximity to urban centers, and degree of federal involvement. It specifically recommended that such areas be establshed 2/ by acts of congress."-Although the above idea was first elaborated upon in 1963 and the first city-linked park was created in 1966 (Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore), it was the late sixties before the idea of urban-oriented national parks was seriously considered. Secretary of the Interior, Walter J. Hickel focused the idea 1n the phrase "Parks to the people!". At the top of Hickel's list was a proposal for a pair of "gateway" parks. One was Gateway National Recreation Aria, in New York and the second was Golden Gate National Recreation Area, in San Francisco. President Nixon, gave enthusiastic backing to these first two areas, stating: 8

PAGE 12

"The rugged grandeur of mountains a thousand miles away means nothing to a city child who is not able to get to them. The boy sitting on the' steps of a ghetto tenement deserves and needs a place where he can discover that the sky is larger than the little piece he is able to see through the buildings." Richard M. Nixon October 18, 1968 With this additional support, the idea had gained sufficient momentum for the enabling legislation to create Gateway and Golden Gate National Recreation Areas was passed by Congress on October 27, 1972. After.the 1972 elections presidential interest dropped, _but the parks were already established. As there was no real political impetus behind the urban national parks idea, the primary catalysts for development were the cities themselves or, actually, in the case of the Cuyahoga Valley in Ohio, local conservationists who generated their own park plans and publicized them. Congressional 9

PAGE 13

Representative, John F. Seiberling, proposed the bill for a Cuyahoga National Recreation Area and it was passed in to law on December 27, 1974. Methods of Land Acquisition All three of the above mentioned national recreation areas have provisions in their enabling legislation for federal purchase of rather substantial tracts of land. Ensui_rig congressional debate over subsequent funding for the proposed purchases slowed the progress of urban parks for several years. Then in 1978 four more national recreation areas near urban areas were created. However, during that space of time, several "new" ideas of land acquisition were being considered and incorporated into the new plans. These so-called new ideas are actually different techniques of land acquisition, some of which have been in use since the 1920's and some of which have been used. successfully in other countries. Among these methods are the concepts of acquisition of development rights or easements, purchase of land in .fee simple. and subsequent leaseback or resale with restrictions on development and what has come 10

PAGE 14

to be known as the "string of pearls" concept, where land or the right of certain usage is purchased in narrow corridors or trails to tie together larger parcel that are owned outright. This last technique is aLso called the "greenline park" or "area of national .concern," and its intent is to create a sort of park that is composed partly of public land and partly of private land under unusually protective land-use controls. These new tools offer a wide range of possib1lities for the preservation of open space .in and around large urban areas, where the economic value of land would tend to preclude the outright acquisition of the type of large parcels generally developed. The greenline park concept is applicable in cases concerning cooperation between governmental agencies. This cooperation is viewed not only as agreements between different federal agencies, but also as working relationships between federal, state, county and city agencies whose jurisdictions overlap. Another area of growing concern deals with getting the recreational resources into the inner city. 11

PAGE 15

This stems from the premise that the inner city dweller is not merely trapped inside his citj,_ but even inside his neighborhood. In such a ,case, a national park near the urban area would be as inaccessible as one a thousand miles away. This neighborhood park idea has stirred enough action to generate federal funding for cities that want to rehabilitate inner area parks and recycle underused buildings. Several cities, including Boston, San Francisco and Minneapolis have developed plans that not only strive to open up the recreation resources of the inner city, but have also managed to tie I . these interior projects together and then to exterior open space by means of greenline corridors that interconnect. One of the three main land acquisition methods used by public agencies, the traditionally used technique of fee simple, has involved acquiring title to the land, either through purchase or donation. In the rapidly escalating land market currently present, however, the high cost not only of the acreage itself, but also of maintenance of the property once it is purchased, is causing many agencies to consider alternative types of resource protection. 1 7

PAGE 16

One strategy that is gaining recognition in this country is the technique of land banking. Land banking has been for in some European countries, England, Swederi and France most notably, and can take many forms. The main concept consists of the.public purchasing large areas of land at rural use values, and then selling or leasing the land for development purposes as needed . . Or, the government may retain much of the land for open space, although the case. may be that resale or lease of the land, with certain restrictions on its development potential is more economically feasible. In effect, land banking extends the concepts of purchase and sale or lease with restrictions to. dimensions. Some of the benefits of land banking include: land acquired before it is needed, is usually purchased at a lower price financial gains from its development accrue to the public as a whole, rather than to a few private landowners land can be offered for development at appropriate times for orderly development 13

PAGE 17

if the land is leased, the public can continue to benefit from its increasing value In one of the newest national recreation areas, Santa Monica Mountains, near Los Angeles, California, land values in the area are increasing so rapidly that a variation of land banking is being considered. The suggestion has been made that the National Park Service purchase parcels of land as they become available, then hold the parcels until their price escalates to a certain leveli and eventually sell those for a price that will cover the cost of the expensive, threatened portion of the resource. Another acquisition method that is beginning to appear economically interesting is less-than feeacquisition or the purchase of development rights. Easements have been used in the National Park System since the 1930's when the National Park Ser.vice acquired 1,200 acres for the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia and North Carolina, and 5,000 acres for the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. These particular easement purchases have not proven completely successful for 14

PAGE 18

the Park Service. rtappears that the primary weaknesses with these early easements were in three main areas, the first being that many property ' . .. owners did not fully understand exactly what restrictions had been put on their land. The second involved the transfer of some of the land to second and third owners, after the easements were acquired, who were unaware that their land was subject to an easement. Many landowners, in the third case, had never had reason to question the concept that "a man can do whatever he wants with his property," since zoning, building permits, or other regulations on development are unknown in many of these rural areas. There are cases where easements have been quite successful. These cases are all much more recent and have generally involved areas such as the Piscataway Park area of Maryland, where the is more informed and accustomed to restrictions on land use imposed by zoning and building regulations. The problem of enforcing these easements can often be eased considerably by educating the property . . owners involved, at the time of easement acquisition and also when the land is transferred. 15

PAGE 19

Also to be considered within the easement debate is between the two :legally recognized types of An appurtenant easement is one in which the owner of the easement also owns some adjoining land in fee simple and thus, through the easement, obtains some benefit for land held in fee. An example of this in practice is the "string of pearls" concept. The second type involves an easement in gross, where the holder of the easement does not own land adjacent to the land subject to easements, and thus, his property does not benefit directly from the easement restrictions. An additional factor to be considered between these types of easements pertains to the relative ease of transfer from original owner to subsequent owners. Appurtenant easements are simpler to transfer and less debatable than easements in gross. Two more land acquisition strategies are the right of preemption and compensable regulation. The right of preemption deals with an approach addressing the question of when to acquire interests in land. Since conservation values are primarily preserved 16

PAGE 20

as long as the land is kept in rural. uses, it does not matter whether it is owned by the public or a private owner. Thus, it does not become necessary for the public to acquire a parcel of land for conservation purposes unless it is in dange. r of being developed and removed from uses. When the right 6f preemption is used, the public waits for the land in question to come on the market and then the government may choose to substitute itself for the private interest who has made an offer for it. In effect, the government may act to preempt the sale. If the government proceeds with the purchase, it may then resell or lease the land with restrictions on its use. This method, since the public purchases only some of the properties which come on the market, allows that only a portion of the properties in the area of interest might to ever be acquired and the transactions are likely to be over a long period of time. In some land markets this could be a great advantage, unless the land values have appreciated substantially before the properties were put on the market, in which case the cost to the government might be considerabiy 17

PAGE 21

greater than if all properties were initially acquired by land banking. • The method of compensable regulation allows the public to purchase rights only from landowners who feel that they cannot continue to rise their land for specified open uses and who wish to sell. Under this strategy, regulations are placed on the designated land limiting it to open space conservation uses • . Then, whenever an owner sells, the government guarantees to make up the difference, if any, between the selling price and the appraised value of the land prior to the attachment of the restrictions on use. Two additional factors must be considered in a discussion of land acquisition: availability of funds and the private landowner's position and opinions. Much of the money for National Park Service land acquisition comes from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, enacted by Congress in 1965. As the legislation for each park is developed, certain amounts of funding are authorized. However, when the time comes for the actual purchase of 18

PAGE 22

designated areas the amount. of appropriated for that purpose is frequently considerably iess than the sum authorized, often due to an, economyminded Congress. This necessitates a search for new ways, such as easements, of preserving much land as possible, as cheaply as possible; particularly with land prices rising so rapidly and with Congress in the mood to cut back spending. Yet the cost of land acquisition is not the principal strain. The "hidden cost" is that. of developing and managing the property acquired. Rangers must be hired to protect land and meet visitors. Planning staffs must be organized to hold public meetings and prepare development strategies. In urban national recreation areas in particular, transit .systems must be planned and may be quite costly to construct. Historic structures which.must be restored and preserved may also be located in these urban areas. The money for these functions must come from the main Park Service operating budget. This budget, while appearing relatively steady or even increasing, is actually decreasing, in terms of the large increase in numbers of visitors served 19

PAGE 23

and amount of acreage acquired. The economic considerations bring .up again the concept of less-than-fee involvement. Areas that can be tied together through the use of scenic easements and trail corridors, with.the bulk of the land area remaining in private control but under well-enforced restrictive zoning, could prove financially beneficial for resource preservation. The regulation of this private land is the weakest link in this chain of authority, as it often requires cooperative enforcement by the different agencies involved in heavily urbanized areas. The greenline, string-of-pearls type.parks are obviously less expensive per acre than those traditional, large area parks owned outright. This leaves more money for acquisition of special sites -which become the "pearls." In addition, these sites are less costly to manage, with only certain portions open to the public and subject to the costs public useage entails. With much of the land remaining in restricted private ownership, the parks can cover much larger areas than any agency could hope to 20

PAGE 24

actually purchase. An additional positive aspect is the fact that greenline parks disturb local patterns much less than traditional do. Many small communities that want only to be left alone would find it easier to adapt to q more loosely structured park style than to becoming an enclave within an expanse of public ownership. On the topic of private landowners involved, a relatively recent amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of contained a section outlining the intention of the National Park Service to purchase all of the remaining land still in private holdings within the boundaries of all national parks established since 1960 . . The subsequent attempts on the part of the Park Service to carry out this program have resulted in hard feelings between the residents of some inholder communities, in Yosemite, Grand Teton, and Olympic, particularly, their encompassing parks. So much so that people from these different communities joined together to create a group they called the National Park Inholders Association. This group of inholders hopes to prevent the Park Service from negotiating 21

PAGE 25

the purchase of the remaining private acres. While the inholders maintain that their communities are hurting no one, Park Service officials say the • acquisition program, although painful to inholders, was designated to eliminate what they call a class of "special privilege" persons--enjoying living inside a national park while all others are denied that privilege. The Park Service is acquiring the property on what it terms a "willing-buyer, willingsellert' basis with hopes that the restrictions on development, part of the program, will prevent the creation of expensive structures that eventually would be purchased by the government. However, the government may institute eminent domain proceedings to protect the area from the threat of a new or expanded use that is incompatible with the primary purpose for which the area was established. Condemnation proceedings are used only as a last resort, when all reasonable effoits. of negotiation have failed; The inholder:S of communities inside the parks do hold a unique position. The problem is one that is not likely to be easily solved as long as they 22

PAGE 26

want to live there and the Park Service is mandated to buy their land. Perhaps by strictly observing the willing-seller, willing-buyer guideline, the Park Service can soothe the inholders' ruffled feelings. 23

PAGE 27

0 PART THO CASE STUDIES: GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA

PAGE 28

The following table provides a summary of the acreage statistics involved in the three national recreation areas used as case studies. The two areas established ' earlier,. Gateway and Golden Gate are shO\m to have considerably less area in both private holdings and less-than-fee federal holdings. This is indicative of the developing trend away from large scale federal ownership, toward more cooperative systems of management. ACREAGE Federal Federal Fee Federal Less Than Fee Non-Federal Other Public Private GATEWAY 26,172.00 20,391.00 20,389.26 1.74 5,781.00 5,378.00 403.00 TABLE I 25 CUYAHOGA VALLEY 32,460.19 9,104.35 9,070.91 33.44 23,355.84 6,152.34 17,203.50 GOLDEN GA' 38,676.59 21,992.01 21,990.35 1. 66 16,684.58 11 , s4 7. 21 5,137.37

PAGE 29

GATEWAY NATIONAL R ECREATION AREA Along with Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Gateway National Recreation Area has the distinction of being the first recreation area located near a major metropolitan center for the purpose ofserving that center. Consisting of five units: Jamaica Bay, Breezy Point, Staten Island, Hoffman-Swinburne Island, and Sandy Hook; Gateway virtually at the doorstep of 12 million people in eluding a million families with annual incomes of less than $5,000 each. Many residents of the New York Metropolitan Area have neither the time nor the means to visit nearby Long Island beaches or the Jersey Shore, but can take an occasional subway ride to Coney Island. Conditions are often overcrowded and when the 3.4 mile beach is jammed with up to a million people, the average sized person has no room to lie down. Much of New York's other 15 miles of public beach is only marginally safe for use or not conveniently served by public tJansportation. Some beaches are closed because of polluted water. 26

PAGE 30

Gateway National Recreation Area is a coalescence of several parks established by the City of New.York and New York State. In the late 1960's, when the began • feeling a financial pinch, the money for these parks was quickly effected. Secretary of the Interior, Walter J. Hickel had the idea of creating the pair of "gateway" national parks and the time seemed right for the National Park Service to step in and take over management of the troubled New York urba? parks. The locations of the five separate units that comprise the park provide access for visitors throughout the metropolitan area, as the units are essentially ringed around the entrance and sides of the harbor of New York. Certain portions of the park are accessible by mass transit; however, the primary means of conveyance currently being used is the automobile. This use of the car automatically dictates use of the park by those urbanites able to afford a car. Such significant numbers of people residing in the New York Area do not own cars and are dependent on public transportation, automobiles cannot and should not dp the Auto access would only aggravate 27

PAGE 31

the already overtaxed highways in and near the recreation area. Additional auto transportation would not only create access problems, but also produce a parking problem. Gateway lands are too valuable as recreation areas to permit conversion to roads and parking lots. In order to assure that recreation at Gateway would be available to all of the people living in the area, as well as millions of other visitors, a low-cost transportation system will be required. A ferry system linked with the existing subway and rail-lines and key highway junctions is proposed to transport visitors to the five units of the recreation area. This would help keep automobiles to a minimum within the area, in order to preserve its environmental quality and to save vital acres for recreation and open space. Another aspect of the transportation/access problem at Gateway is the development of "territories" in areas frequented by particular groups. The Jamaica Bay area, through which passes an existing subway line, attracts large numbers of visitors from nearby Brooklyn and Queens, including Brownsville and 28

PAGE 32

The Staten Island unit visitors are predominantly Islander family groups who are regular park users; while another section, Canarsie Pier, is . . frequented primarily by elderly visitors who live nearby . . Perhaps the largest problem at Gateway is its constant battle with severe forms of air, water, and noise pollution. The paradox of Gateway is that the advantages of location are largely offset by the extreme environmental stresses that the p ark's lands and waters have undergone because of proximity to the densely and -highly urbanized area. However, even with these stresses, Gateway's barrier beaches, marshes, upland forests, and bay provide an unparalleled experience with a natural coastal system. Though conceived primarily for recreation, Gateway National Recreation Area eventually may find some of its most far-reaching benefits through its e n vironmental education program. Generations of school children, teachers, Scout troops, youth groups, scientists and average Gateway vistiors would learn o man's abuse of 29

PAGE 33

his environment and perhaps be stirred sufficiently to take action to clean the air and waters and to plan healthy and attractive communities. Thus, although the stated purpose _of Gateway is to . . preserve outstanding natural and recreational features, inherent in this purpose is the need to revitalize the natural landscape so that it can be enjoyed by present and future visitors, and also to encourage new and harmonious expressions of urbanism throughout the greater metropolitan area that will allow the perpetuation and use of Gateway's unique resources. Gateway, in addition to its unique situation as the first large urban-oriented park, is noteworthy because of its position at the beginning of a transitory period in Park Service history. The National Park idea began in response to the needs of the time --preserving American wilderness. Yellowstone, the first National Park was born of the idea of preserving ' pieces of primitive America in which man is a visitor. Gateway was created from the leavings of a throw-away society, and so is born of obsolescence. Forts and 30

PAGE 34

airfields were tossed out with the refuse of the city. With these remnants and the seeds of nature, we stand at the beginning of a distinctly new when it is . clear that there is no longer enough to throw out, and no place to throw it. In another sense, the time is passing when there are vast new natural wonders that need National Park status to protect them for future generations. Practically all Of the "crown jewels" have been discovered and protected by some form of regulation. Thus it is the smaller areas, the remaining wild areas near the urbanized centers that will be attracting growing interest as areas of recreation and nature conservation and education. The acquisition of the land involved in Gateway National Recreation Area dealt almost entirely with the transfer of already publicly owned lands to another agency. Of the over 26,000 acres of land involved in the Gateway area only 403 acres are in private ownership. Aside from the political bickering t4at raged the various levels of the public 31

PAGE 35

regime (which agency was giving up how much and to whom), there are two private entities with which to deal. One of these is a largely seasonal residential community of more than 2,700 units, the 403 acre Breezy Point Cooperative, a beach club. The portion of the Breezy Point Unit that includes the Cooperative is scheduled for long range at least twenty-five years in the future. The other community, comprised of approximately 1,050 residential and 160 commercial structures, lies in the south-center of Jamaica Bay and is presently operating under a five-year use permit with the City of New York, which owns the 320 acres Broad Channel Community occupies. The feature of almost total public ownership is one that is increasingly less likely to occur. The availability of undeveloped areas within easy reach of our country's large urban areas is rapidly diminishing. That the lands which have become part of Gateway National Recreation Area, should not only be so lightly developed, even if they are severely affected by 32 :

PAGE 36

pollution from the surrounding development, but also predominantly owned by local public. agencies was quite a stroke of luck. This writer believes that this fact sets Gateway apart as a hallmark in the tradition of the Park Service. Gateway can be.viewed as the balance point between the old-time parks that are, to a large degree, totally o wned and managed by the Park Service; and the parks and recreation areas of the future, that may have a central governing body, but will primarily be composites of several public agencies and zones of private land unified by a cooperative agreement on a common goal of conservation and recreation. Gateway was created from the leavings of an opulant society, and it is these remnants that suggest we stand on the threshold of a distinct new era with regard to the national park idea. Gateway is a response to the needs of 20th Century persons --providing open space for recreation within the boundaries of everyday environment. Gateway, hopefully, will demonstrate that human beings are an integral part of the environment. If successful, Gateway will symbolize the beginning of what might be termed a value revolution. 33

PAGE 37

GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA Established the same day as Gateway in New York and New Jersey, Golden Gate National Recreation.Area was created: "In order to preserve for public use and enjoyment certain areas of Marin and San Francisco Counties, California, possessing outstanding natural, historic, scenic, and recreational values, and in order to provide for the maintenance of needed recreational open space necessary to urban environment and planning .... ". 'i/ With"its original eciphasis centered primarily on San Francisco's colorful waterfront, Golden Gate was soon enlarged to encompass a strip of undeveloped land through Marin County which tied Golden Gate National Recreation Area to Point Reyes National The park encompasses shoreline areas of San Francisco and Marin Counties, including ocean beaches, redwood forests, lagoons, marshes, ships of the National Maritime Museum, historic military properties and a cultural center at fort Mason, and Alcatraz Island. 3s

PAGE 38

Several of parcels of land incorporated into Golden Gate National Recreation Area were previously owned by various agencies. Most of the in San Francisco County were publicly owned, and some, but not all of the .lands in Marin County were publicly owned. Such areas as the Presidio,-Fort Point, Alcatraz and Fort Funston were already federal properties and connect with San Francisco City Park-Golden Gate, while Muir Woods National Monument and Point Reyes National Seashore are federal properties in Marin County that were, respectively, incorporated-into Golden Gate National Recreation Area ar are located adjacent to it. Two state parks, Mount Tamalpais, and Samuel Taylor are either included or adjacent, as well as a couple of public beaches, Stinson and Muir. With all of the historic features of downtown San _Francisco, Golden Gate National Recreation Area has several built-in attractions. These historic and cultural resources offer a natural base on which to build many recreational and educational programs. However, even with all of its positive aspects, 36

PAGE 39

Golden Gate still has problems that have to be considered. areas of concern were explored at a series of public workshops attended by members of various groups in the San Francisco area. The workshops were used to explain the planning process and provide the public with a chance to express ideas and opinions. The first workshop examined the problem of park access and the car vs. public transit. After discussion on a variety of topics ranging from monorail systems to limited access systems using tolls, some basic recommendations were agreed upon by general concensus: first, considering a potentially large number of .commuters, a bus rapid-transit system of some sort would be necessary, with routes to be determined when areas of probable highest use had been delineated. It was determined that transportation could also be a part of the recreational experience, recognizing the different needs of different groups. In addition to areas of high user density, the transportation route planning must be tied in with land use plans which in turn must be based on a study of the existing resources. Also to be considered is that provision of transportation in ana of itself does not bring people of their turf. Attempts to bus 37

PAGE 40

f' • inner-city residents to wilderness areas can be failures without a .complete recreational/educational program to comRlement the experience. Workshop Number Two examined the intricacies of providing facilities for special interest groups the young, the aged, and the handicapped. The participants discussed such subjects as adaptive use of existing facilities, creation of programs to reflect the diverse needs of potential users, and envirorimental use and protection in the development of programs to expand the recreational and environmental education of the urban population. Another workshop discussed developing guidelines for intensity of use and holding capacity. The areas of concern included development of a classification scheme to designate use intensities of each area. This designation should be based upon present uses, the fragility of the environment and the amount of alterations necessary for a particular use. Emphasis was placed on preservation of present values such as 38

PAGE 41

. . isolated and wild aieas, the hills, the animals, historic values, and special use areas. The impact of other people on the enjoyment of each activity was also discussed as the social carrying capacity of an area for an activity. A final consideration was the possibility that the environment or the activity could lose value from over-use, and whether limitation of use, such as waiting lists would be appropriate. "Extending the recreation area into the city" was the topic of another group's discussions. The workshop leader presented a brief background of common inner pastimes, which are predominantly dependent on between individuals with a lot of spare time and minimal recreation equipment. Two important points brought out in the discussion were: "1. Due to lack of experience with the wilderness, being in nature reminds many non-white, nonmiddle class urbanites o! nothingness. Thus, the wilderness itself has meaning to very few people in these groups . 39

PAGE 42

2. The familiar use of spare-time by non-white, non-middle class Americans-involves contact with others with minimal I The discussions continued by considering the kinds of facilities that would meet the requirements. It was determined that facilities must be cheap and available, and designed for activities that are familiar to these groups. The main idea would involve creating a place people can use their spare-time in a way with I which they are comfortable, thereby attracting various use groups in an environment not completely new and -strange. The location of these facilities, however, must be selected carefully. The location should be planned so that activities held 1n these facilities are compatible with other forms of recreation taking place in the same area. One suggestion was that these facilities could be located on the periphery of the park and serve as a transitional area for the inner city dwellers while providing a buffer zone for those seeking a wilderness experience farther into the heart of the park. Another recommendation suggested that should be provided that would directly 40

PAGE 43

link these recreational facilities to non-middle class, non-white in San Francisco, possibly even tying the transportation total recreational experience. Another workshop dealt with creating an "environmental ethic'' for urban citizens. Three main ways of developing environmental awareness in people were discussed. The first and fundamental point is to let the people in the city know about.the recreation area and then provide opportunities for them to become actively involved in its natural setting. Secondly, there must be some sort of orientation or resource centers so that_people are not thrust into the recreation area without knowing what is there and how to make use of it. Third, there must be an adequate staff available throughout the park and at specific sites to interpret and be of service to park users. Using these three guidelines, specific policies and facilities can be ' implemented to carry the plans out. One other aspect that is vital to development of an environmental ethic deals$ once again with the topic of transportation as long as the automobile dominates the scene, it would be difficult to achieve a clear sense of environmental values. 41

PAGE 44

It is certainly true that at least some of the inhabitants of San Francisco" and Marin Counties khow that Golden Gate National Recreation Area exists and they'are quite interested in helping the park achieve its purpose of bringing recreation to the urban population. The problems faced in Golden Gate are similar to those encountered in Gateway in New York and New Jersey with the exception that in San Francisco there seems to be a more positive outlook for the immediate future of the park. This variance in "attitude" could be the product of the larger number of political jurisdictions involved in Gateway lands, or it could be the result of different attitudes .on the part of the people trying to. organize all of the different resources. Another possible cause of attitudinal differences is the supply vs. demand factor, the proportional recreation demand at Gateway being considerably higher per acre than at Golden Gate where there is more recreation space per inhabitant. Nonetheless, in spite of the transportation and educational difficulties, it is encouraging to find these parks alive and trying to cope with the recreation needs of the urban centers. 42 I •

PAGE 45

CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA The Cuyahoga, a short,. gentle river, rises near the Pennsylvania State line and flows to Lake Erie through and Cleveland. It has a national reputation as the stream that did the impossible. In the summer of 1969, so thick was its coating of oil and pollutants, .the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire. The cleanup sessions that were implemented soon thereafter were actually the culmination of many years of growing public concern for lessening environmental quality. There are numerous examples of public involvement in river cleanup.projects. From 1969 through 1971, the Village of Mantua on the Upper Cuyahoga held 18 earthday cleanup sessions, with many and area groups participating. At.nearby Kent, beyond removing the natural and unnatural debris, students and teachers planted over 200 trees along the waterway. A public meeting held in June of 1971 sought to air the people's views on local problems and needs for the area of the river around Mantua. The Mayor, Robert Thomas, made several specific recommendations including: 44

PAGE 46

''Thorough, effective restrittions against dumping of industrial wastes and untreated sewage into the river. Rigid enforcement of the Ohio Anti-Stream Dumping Law. Brushing and snagging of the river and its banks. Debris removal and clearing of channel from Erie-Lackawanna Railroad Bridge to State Route 44. Establishment of a wildlife preserve in at least a portion of the swamp area at the section of Mantua Village. Creation of a 'Nature's Edge' of approximately 20 feet width along both sides of the river to beautify the river banks through plant and tree planting projects and provide a natural habitat for 45

PAGE 47

At the same meeting another speaker brought up two important points .. This speaker's first concern was the need for coordination and avoidance of.conflict among the several ongoing or planned programs affecting the river. Her other point involved the importance of using a comprehensive approach to the river system. she stressed that local communities must help develop their region as part of a total land and river-use plan for the watershed. Through the course of several public meetings held in the area concerned with the Cuyahoga River, the general concerns expressed included flooding, pollution, aesthetics, and fish and wildlife. The specific interests were in renewing water quality by wastewater purification and control of municipal and industrial discharges, and in eventually redeveloping some fish and wildlife habitats. When the first interim report on restoration of the Cuyahoga. was compiled the river could not be used for recreation on anything approaching a large-scale. Many of the lower reaches were polluted to such an extent that any bod was unhealthy and the smell was 46

PAGE 48

so bad that even streamside use was impossible. The upper basin, although somewhat affected by was clean for canoeing, partial body contact, and streamside use. Aesthetically speaking, at the same time, the upper section of the river, in spite of its proximity to Cleveland and Akron, has a distinctly rural character and even then was considered highly attractive. The river, from the vicinity of Kent downstream to Cleveland, however, was g enerally offensive to smell and frequently offensive to view because of its serious water pollution, deposits of sediments, careless development on the shore and va11ey walls, and accumulation of junk and covered by a maze of bridges and plied by large lake ships. There was also a great deal of oil and debris in the channel, here, however by the urban and industrial activity. All areas of the river lacked the. aesthetic quality they could have if developed, though the nature of the development would have to differ in the different areas. In the late 1960's, the State of Ohio, recognized the tremendous value of the Valley for recreation and open 47

PAGE 49

space and began a study to evaluate the potential of the Valley. The next step came at the time the Akron and Cleveland Metropolitan Park joined with the State in recognition of the need to the Valley. Investment of public funds in the acquisition of land was begun in 1969 with the initial application for Land and Water Conservation Funds by the Akron Metropolitan Park District. The study and initial acquisition helped provide the impetus for private orgatiizations to join with the state, the two park districts, and area legislators led by Congressmen Yanik and Regula in requesting the National park Service to recognize the Cuyahoga Valley as a National Park. The Cuyahoga Valley Park Federation, an association representing 53 organizations, was a major force in efforts to establish Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. After a National Park Service study team reported that there were significant historical, natural, and recreational values in the Cuyahoga Valley, in 1972, the National Park Service initiated a detailed planning study to th.e feasibility of a National Park. During this period, the State of Ohio committed more than 5 48

PAGE 50

million dollars to purchasing land in the project area. The State purchased 1,445 of land with 3 major goals in mind: stopping incompatible, or residential development, expanding existing publicly owned lands; and tying together areas of public or quasi-public ownership. Legislation to establish a federal park within this area was introduced initially into the 92nd Congress by the Ohio Delegation and interested co-sponsors. Hearings were held on the Valley by both the House the Senate in 1974. In late 1974, both the House and the Senate passed legislation providing for the establishment of the Cuyah .oga Valley National Recreation Area. On December 28, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed the bill into law. The boundaries of the federal park include approximately 30,000 acres of land, and as a result of the legislation, it is now the objective of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources to provide an orderly transition for management from the State's planning and acquisition activities to those of the federal government. 49.

PAGE 51

Cuyahoga, with its citizen-backed beginnings, presents a slightly different future than Gateway. or Golden Gate. In contrast to the two gateway parks, that already enjoyed some park areas, the Cuyahoga River was essentially saved by its people for its people. so

PAGE 52

CONCLUDING STATEMENTS •

PAGE 53

The three case studies presented in this report serve to illustrate common attributes and problems to be found within the urban parks program. The fact that all three are within reasonably short travel time for the several million inhabitants of their respective metropolitan centers is of vital importance to their function as urban recreation areas. Another similarity is the proximity to water resources enjoyed by all three areas. They also share areas of historic, scenic, natural and recreational values that have been recognized as having .national significan-ce. Gateway, Golden Gate, and Cuyahoga also share an affliction that will undoubtedly be involved in any large recreation area near any metropolitan center: plitical jurisdictions. The pattern usually evolves that first no one is interested in the area because it doesn't really fall under their specific jurisdiction, and later, when the recreation area starts looking like a positive factor, economically as well as recreatiqnally, everyone wants a piece of the pie. This jurisdictional debate often includes conflicts 53

PAGE 54

of overlapping political interest, the cases in all three of these urban parks involve overlaps of city, county, state and federal interests. With their greater acreage of land, Gateway and G6lden Gate are in the process of working out donations and transfers to solidify the property under federal park management. Cuyahoga, however having approximately two-thirds of its land under other than federal control is having to develop more extensive cooperative agreements between agencies and private land owners. Part of the .urban park debate that needs fHrther examination deals with the dual problem of serving inner-city inhabitants and developing low cost mass transit to improve mobility throughout the urban core. In 1977 Congress asked the Park Service and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to make a joint study of recreational needs in major cities. When the studies were completed in 1978, the results labeled the situation as intolerable in most of the seventeen metropolitan areas considered. Typically, there are shortages of recreation land for eveyone; the 54

PAGE 55

closer the area tb the center o the city, the greater the shortage. The major factor in making the large urban parks on the metropolitan fringe work for-the inner city population is improved transportation. Even expanded transit services, however, will probably not totally satisfy the need for inner city recreation space. The provision of open space for these core parks should have its base in local agencies planning and recreation guidelines. The urban recreation study mentioned above suggested a massive program of grants to cities to help them rebuild and restore old and run-down recreational areas. President Jimmy Carter endorsed this "Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program," and Conress quickly enacted it as part of the 1978 Omnibus Parks Act "Title X." The act provides money to cities for planning, for rehabilitating park and for such innovative projects as recycling underused buildings. Cities must apply for : funds and only the best projects will be funded. To qualify, projects must involve: adequate citizen participation in planning and 55

PAGE 56

phases, state and city commitment to improv.ingparks, and a demonstrated record of past success. Many of the proposed urban recreation areas are of a size and national significance to actually merit federal involvement. However, many small local parks are being offered for federal takeover due to the decline in local funds. For example, the passage of .Prop-osition 13 in California has had a dramatic effect on parks and recreation budgets throughout the state. This cutback in funds has. made it difficult for the local agencies to maintain the parks already established, not to mention to acquire and develop any new areas. Because of the American tradition of viewing land as a commodity to be bought and sold for the turn of a profit, there will always be landowners w ho view any restrictions placed on their land as un-American, communist controls. However, as our resources continue to diminish, we are going to find ourselves either restricting land use in natural areas or losing these areas forever. The price of land continues to spiral 56

PAGE 57

upward and the closer the is to a major metropolitan area, the higher its price tag is . . likely to be, not only for the actual purchase, but also for the The price of preserving these resources will no doubt continue to rise, but in looking back over the history of American parks, it is hard to find a purchase price that was not regarded as extravagant when it was made -and to find a case where the purchase was later regretted. That two of the areas discussed, Gateway and Cuyahoga, have been plagued by pollution and have required extensive clean-up operations is, unfortunately indicative of things to come, unless some steps can be taken soon to develop at least toe-holds for recreation areas and open space in and near our major metropolitan centers. It has become apparent that the efforts taken by the local public a gencies, while definitely a great starting place, are not going to be entirely sufficient. Jurisdictional boundaries conflicts can make regional planning very difficult for any.but a comprehensive governmental 57

PAGE 58

agency. Perhaps through better cooperation. between local agencies, coordinating with federal agencies such as the National Park Service, we can expand the growing public awareness of our-shrinking resources andcontinue to developnew areas of national concern, meshing public and private ownership. My view of the National Park Service role in developing urban parks and open space is one of an integrated program of professional support for local recreation programs and actual investment in areas of national significance. This partnership would easily adapt to the creation of greenbelt-string-of-pearls type parks in which the Park Service would manage several areas of natural or cultural importance and the local recreation authorities would be responsible for manag1ng the link'ing open spaces. These open corridors lvould be easy to develop along rivers or streams, or any natural lanes that traverse the metropolitan areas . . 58

PAGE 59

These greenbelt corridors could then be led on to tie . . . in with large urban fringe recreation areas and recreation programs which could include attractions ranging from subsidized transportation to environmental education. Although each metropolitan area would have its own set of environmental constraints, and each park its particular approach to these constraints, I believe this type of cooperative arrangement would work well to meet the needs for urban recreation and open space. 59

PAGE 60

!I 4/ FOOTNOTES Management Policies, National Park II, p. l-1 U.S. Recreational advisory Cpuncil, Federal Executive Branch Policy Governing the Selection, Establishment, and Administration ofNational Recreation Areas, (Policy Circular No. 1, March 26, 1963 Public Law 92-589, 92nd Congress, H.R. 16444, October 27, 1972 Discussion led by Russ Ellis on Wednesday, May 16, 1973, as a part of a "Public Forum on the Golden Gate National Recreation Area, San Francisco and Marin Counties, California ''Cuyahoga River, Ohio-Restoration Study, First Interim Report, September 1971, U.S. Army torps of Engineers, Buffalo District

PAGE 61

REFERENCES GENERAL Changing Rural Landscapes, . edited by H. Zube and Margaret J. Zube, the University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, 1977 Federal Register, Part IV, Department of the Interior, Nat1onal Park Service, Revised Land Acquisition . Policy, Thursday, April 26, 1979 Lincoln Law Review; Vol. VI, Dec. 1970, No. 1, "Nat1onal Recreation Areas: Evolving Legislative Answer to Land Use Conflicts," by David G. Knibb, pp. 1-22 Management Policies, U.S. Department of the Interior, . Nat1onal Park Service, 1978 Outdoor Recreation Planning, by Allan Jubenville, published by W.G. Sanders Co., Philadelphia, London, Toronto, 1976 "Parks for the People, the National Debate," by John Hart, excerpted from "San Francisco's. Wilderness Next Door," Presidio Press, 1979 The Heart of Our Cities, The Urban Crisis: Diagnosis and Cure, by Victor Gruen, Published by S1mon and Schuster, New York, 1964 "The Use of Less-Than-Fee Acquisition for the Preservation of Open Space," by R.E. Coughlin and Thomas Plant RSRI Discussion Paper, Series: No. 101, Dec. 1977 CUYAHOGA VALLEY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA "Cuyahoga River Basin, Ohio, Restoration Study, First Interim Report," prepared by Department of the Army, Buffalo District, Corps of Engineers, September 8, 1971 Public Law 9-555, Dec. 27, 1974, "An Act to Provide for the of the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. 88 Stat. 1784

PAGE 62

"Technical Report for the Cuyahoga River Valley Park Study," Vol. One, prepared by Mosure-Fok and Syrakis, Co., Ltd., Land Design/Research, Inc., Jack McCormick and Associates, Inc. Telephone Interview on November 28, Skip Snow, National Park Service Planner, concerning his work on the Cuyahoga Valley National .Recreation Area. "The Cuyahoga Valley Between Akron and Cleveland," by Dr. H. W. Pfanz, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, historic preservation project GATEWAY NATIONAL RECREATION AREA "Gateway National Recreation Area: A Proposal," prepared by the National Park Service and the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Gatewa National Recreation Area, Inter retive Prospectus, recommende by Superintendent Herbert S. Cables, Jr., June 26, 1978, approved by Deputy Regional Director Denis P. Galvin, July 18, 1978 Public Law 92-592, Oct. 27, 1972, "An Act to Establish the Gateway National Recreation Area in the States of New York and New Jersey and for Other Purposes," 86 Stat. 1308 "Transportation Access Study, Gateway National Recreation Area," prepared by Transportation and Regional Planning Division of the New York City Planning Department, April 1975 GOLDEN GATE NATIONAL RECREATION AREA "Historic Resource Study, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California," by Erwin N. Thompson, Denver Service Center, Historic Preservation Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Denver, Colorado, May 1979

PAGE 63

Interview with Doug Cornell, Planner, Western Planning Team, National Park Service , Denver Service Center, November 27, 1979, concerning his work with land acquisition, Golden Gate National Recreation Area Interview with Nancy Fries, on November 27, 1979, National Park Service planner, Western Team, concerning her work on Golden Cate National Recreation Area Planning Team "National Parks and Urban America: Results of a Public Forum on the Golden Gate National Recreation Area," sponsored b y Continuing Education in Regiona l and Environmental Planning, University Extension, University of California, Berkeley, edited by Ruthann Corwin Public Law 92-589, Oct. 27, 1972, "An Act to Establish the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in the State of California, and for Other Purposes," 86 Stat. 1299