Historic PAS Report Series

PAS published its first Information Report in 1949. To celebrate this history, each month we're presenting a new report from the archives.

We hope you enjoy this fascinating snapshot of a planning issue of yesteryear.

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANNING OFFICIALS

1313 EAST 60TH STREET — CHICAGO 37 ILLINOIS

Information Report No. 14 May 1950

Urban Land Use

Download original report (pdf)

Mapping and a statistical description of existing land uses are generally considered to be prerequisite to the planning for a locality. It is often hoped that by comparing land use statistics of a community with those of other communities, an "average" pattern will emerge. The "average" may be considered to be the "correct or "optimum" distribution of land uses. Those who turn to comparative summary land use statistics for indications of optimum land use patterns, generally translate land use figures into ratios of area to population. Thus, land use statistics are often expressed as a certain number of acres to be devoted to commercial use per 100 persons. Or this formula may be reversed, and a city, for example of 25,000 population is urged to devote a certain percentage of its land area to commercial use.

The idea of possible optimum land use patterns is tantalizing. Indications of such optimum patterns do not emerge from existing data. Possibly when the methods employed in making land use surveys and the definition of land use categories are standardized, and when communities can be classified as to social, economic, and functional types, it may be possible to discover certain trends and derive optimum land use patterns. For example, after grouping together information for each social, economic and functional type of community, it may be found that high-income residential suburban communities, dependent upon cities of over one million population, reveal certain similar characteristics. On the basis of these similar characteristics it might be possible to abstract the best existing ratio of land uses to people, and to project such uses to similar communities under similar conditions. The bulk of the research in this field remains to be done. The Harvard City Planning Studies, Volume IV, Urban Land Uses, by Harland Bartholomew, which was published in 1932, was the first major comparative study.

At present, however, as may be seen quickly from the following tables, which are classified in three major population groups, there are almost no general conclusions that may be drawn from the grouping of communities of roughly the same population size. Therefore, no attempt was made to "average" the data within each table, and to condense the data to figures expressing, for example, the "average" park area of fifteen cities of under 50,000 population. Also, no attempt was made to translate the data into a ratio of land use per 100 population, or other such standard. Not only do "optimum" land use patterns not emerge from the data, but we have been hesitant to strive for a further summarization or averaging of the summary data. A striking fact that may be observed from the data is the wide variation of the use of land within communities of roughly the same population size. Also, it will be noted that there are no valid distinctions between the population groups.

The value of the summary statistics included in the tables in this report lie in the fact that communities of different types, population sizes and geographic location were included. Firstly, the data give insights into the particular communities. Although one may know in general that Greenwich, Connecticut, is a residential community, it is interesting to note that 50 percent of the total area was reported devoted to residential use — which is higher than for any other city included in the tables. Only six percent of the area is reported devoted to streets. One of the items to be investigated would be to see whether most of the town stems from a main highway (which may not be included in the community's total area). Similarly, in Duluth, Minnesota, generally considered to be an industrial community, 10.3 percent of its total area is reported devoted to parks, and only 3.5 percent of its total area is devoted to industrial use. These items of attention-attraction also serve to caution the planner to investigate the possibility that, for example, in Duluth., the bulk of the industry is outside incorporated limits of the city.

Secondly, because communities of different types, population sizes and geographic locations are represented in this report, it is possible to select from the tables for the purposes of comparison the community (or communities) which resembles that being studied locally, and to compare these land use patterns.

The study of existing land use is a necessary part of the evaluation of existing zoning provisions. A community may find that, although 10 percent of its area is zoned for commercial development., only a fraction of that anticipated amount has been used for commercial purposes. Overly optimistic zoning for commercial and industrial purposes has led to haphazard scattered development, precluding such use for well-planned residential or other purposes. On the other hand, some communities have under-zoned for industrial purposes, have delegated the community area to other purposes, and thus have left no large vacant sites available for new industrial construction. Sometimes, if measured in quantitative terms, the amount of land zoned for industrial purposes appears to be large, but upon examination, the area is found to be in no way suitable for development. One of the reasons suggested for the growth of blight has been the disparity between the areas zoned for certain types of development, and the actual amount and location of such development. A comparison of actual land uses and areas zoned for such uses in communities is of much value. A future PLANNING ADVISORY SERVICE Information Report may be issued on that subject and supplementary to this report.

The comparative study of existing land use should be of help in shaping future policy determination It may be found., for example, that there is practically no area devoted to multi-family residential construction. Housing market analysis may reveal the need for such facilities. Or, study of existing land use may reveal a large percentage of vacant land which might be developed, or held vacant for future development.

Land use data may be used to measure existing land utilization against certain criteria of community development For example, standards for recreation — the amount of land considered to be necessary for recreational purposes — may be compared to the amount of land now being devoted to parks, playgrounds, and other similar uses.

Although a summary inventory of existing land use gives clues to the value placed on particular uses in a community insofar as it shows that other uses did not compete successfully for such limited spatial resources, the data do not indicate the location of uses, the intensity of the use of the land, the grouping of the uses, etc. For example, summary data on land use, as are usually given in the published reports of planning commissions, do not distinguish between commercial areas in central business districts, in neighborhood areas, along major streets, and in outlying shopping districts. Much greater specificity of the data would lead to more meaningful comparisons. Also, floor area devoted to particular uses, as well as land area, may be of much value. The commercial development in the central business district of a community may occupy only a fraction of the land area, but because of multi-storied buildings, may actually be utilizing much more "area" than in all other commercial land uses combined.

Most land use summary statistics are published for the area within the corporate boundaries of the community. Without knowledge of the land use on the fringes of the community (and in the metropolitan area of the community if the city is in the upper population brackets), a distorted view of the community may be obtained from study of the land use statistics for the city alone. Often industrial development or residential suburbs, or outlying shopping districts may be located on the periphery of the community. Park areas or open country on the outskirts of a community markedly affect the need for and the resulting provisions for park and recreation areas within that community. These are only a few examples of the necessity of interpreting land use data for a community in terms of a metropolitan setting.

Data for the incorporated city and for suburban Greensboro, North Carolina, are given in Table II, and for the metropolitan area and incorporated City of Winnipeg, Canada, in Table III. The Los Angeles Metropolitan Area is also represented in Table III.

A major difficulty in comparing summary land use statistics is that the terminology used by communities varies greatly. Without uniform terminology and standardized classifications, it is possible only to make general comparisons. For example, "vacant land" in one community might exclude land on which shacks, billboards, and other "temporary" structures were erected, and yet another community might include such land in its "vacant" category. As another example, the method of determining whether land not built-upon but contiguous to industrial construction and under the same ownership as the industrial plant, is industrial or vacant, varies considerably.

The American Society of Planning Officials has established a Committee on Terminology to propose uniform definitions of terms which may be acceptable to the planning profession. The American Institute of Planners is also interested in this problem, and the efforts of these national groups, plus the thinking of interested individuals may lead to the compilation of more readily comparable data. At present, however, it must be borne in mind that methods of conducting land use surveys and summarizing data differ greatly, as do the definitions of terms, and the classifications into which uses are grouped.

A Guide to the Tables

The data presented in Tables I, II and III were assembled from published planning reports, usually issued by the local planning commission for the particular community. The data were accepted as given in these reports. Whenever acreage figures were given in the report from which the data was extracted, but percentage figures were not, the acreage figures were translated into percentage figures. When only percentage figures were given, PLANNING ADVISORY SERVICE supplied a total acreage figure from census reports, but did not transpose the percentages into acreage.

The categories into which the data were classified were selected by examination of each community's land use summary, and then selecting the most generally used classifications. Explanations of these categories are given below. Whenever it was evident that the statistics for the community deviated from these categories, a footnote explanation was given. For example, in Seattle, Washington (Table III), no information is given for the category "railroad," but the figure for "heavy industry" is footnoted, and the explanation indicates that "railroads" are included under "heavy industry."

Blank spaces in the table indicate that no information for that category was given in the report from which the data were extracted. The X's indicate that information was not given for that category, although logically such categories would apply to the community: for example, no information was given for Little Rock, Arkansas (Table II), for the land use devoted to "streets." Presumably some area must be devoted to streets, and the data, including the percentages, should be interpreted in view of the items that are missing from the table.

In reading the percentage columns, care must be taken to check whether the percentage includes all applicable items, and whether it is expressed in terms of total developed area (excluding the vacant portions), total land area (excluding water area) or total area (including water and land area within corporate boundaries). Here again, the data were accepted as given in the reports from which the information was compiled. If the percentage figures were expressed in detail greater than to one-tenth of one percent, the figures were "rounded" to one-tenth of one percent. In some cases, as for example, Greenwich, Connecticut (Table I), it may be assumed that the report from which the data were taken "rounded" the figures to one percent.

To conserve space, short descriptions are used in the tables to indicate the use categories. These categories are described more fully below. Since there are no standard definitions, there may be variations in the data due to inter-city differences in definitions. Wherever possible, such differences have been footnoted.

RESIDENTIAL – This category gives the total of all residential uses. Sub-totals for one, two, and multi-family use are given where they were available.

MULTI-FAMILY – Includes all residential forms not included in 1- and 2-family uses, such as 3–4 family dwellings, apartments, hotels, boarding houses, rooming houses, tourist courts, etc.

COMMERCIAL – Includes all retail and wholesale offices, business offices, whether located in central or outlying districts.

INDUSTRIAL – This is a total of light and heavy industrial use totals, which are subtotaled where information was available. It does not include railroad use, unless so footnoted.

RAILROAD – Includes acreage occupied by railroad tracks and yards.

PARKS – Includes all public parks and playgrounds, swimming pools, athletic fields, etc.

STREETS – Includes all city streets and alleys, boulevards and parkways.

PUBLIC, SEMI-PUBLIC – Includes all public schools, municipal buildings, and other public property not included among "parks." Also privately owned institutions such as private schools, hospitals, churches, and cemeteries are included, as are utilities (unless otherwise footnoted), private recreational facilities such as private park golf courses, etc.

OTHER – Agricultural uses mainly comprise this category.

TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA – Includes the sum of all above uses.

VACANT – Includes undeveloped land.

TOTAL LAND AREA – Includes total developed area plus undeveloped land.

WATER – Includes rivers and riverways, lakes and other bodies of water within the city boundaries.

TOTAL AREA – This is the total of all above uses, usually called "total city area" in the reports from which data were extracted. There is probably some variation in the definition of this area by different cities, depending on whether water areas and suburban areas are included in "total city area."

YEAR – Unless otherwise noted, this is the year of publication of the report in which the figures were found. Care was taken to select reports published after 1940, with the main emphasis on the last half of the decade. In some cases, where the data were published early in the '40's , it is possible that the land use survey was made in the late '30's. This applies to Des Moines, Iowa, and Seattle, Washington.

TABLE I: URBAN LAND USE STATISTICS FOR CITIES UNDER 50,000 POPULATION (1940 CENSUS)

Use Albert Lea, Minnesota Decatur, Alabama Fairfield, Connecticut Greenwich, Connecticut
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Residential 492 36.7 426 10.9a   10.3   50
1-family 405 30.3            
2-family 67 5.0            
Multi-family 20 1.4            
Commercial 29 2.1 37 1.0   0.6   1
Industrial 48 5.2 217 5.5   0.7   2
Light Industry 35 2.6 55 1.4        
Heavy Industry 13 1.7 162 4.1        
Railroad 94 7.0 177 4.5b        
Parks 27 2.0           d
Streets 312 23.3 452 11.6       6
Public, Semi-public 41 3.0 108 2.8   9.6   8
Other 7 0.4       78.8    
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA 1054              
Vacant 272 20.3 2487 63.7   c   30
TOTAL LAND AREA 1326 100.0 3904 100.0   100.0    
Water 365             3
TOTAL AREA 1691       7680   32,512* 100
Year 1949 1942 1948 1944

 

Use Harrison, New York Manchester, Massachusetts Maplewood, New Jersey (T) Mason City, Iowa
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Residential 9060 64.3 1860 97.8f 1167 56.7 941 11.8
1-family             866 10.9
2-family             51 0.6
Multi-family             24 0.3
Commercial 21 0.3 35 1.8g 70 3.4 57 0.7
Industrial 1 0.01 2.5 0.2 29 1.4 467 5.9
Light Industry 1 0.01 2.5 0.2     85 1.1
Heavy Industry             382 4.8
Railroad         24 1.3 358 4.5
Parks       h 46 2.2 41 0.5
Streets 1480 10.5   h 362 17.6 880 11.0
Public, Semi-public 1336 9.7   h 231 11.2 268 3.3
Other 2182 15.3e            
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA     1900 100.0     3012 37.7
Vacant         131 6.3 4885 61.1
TOTAL LAND AREA         2060 100.0    
Water             98 1.2
TOTAL AREA 14080 100.0         7995 100.0
Year 1948 1949 1949 1940

 

Use Meridian, Mississippi Montclair, New Jersey (T) Patchogue, New York Petaluma, California
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Residential 1611 25.7i 2155 54.6   37.0 505 49.0
1-family     1862 47.1     425 41.2
2-family     142 3.6     49 4.8
Multi-family     151 3.9j     31 3.0
Commercial 149 2.4 89 2.3   3.5 70 6.7
Industrial 231 3.7 34 0.8   xk 107 10.4
Light Industry                
Heavy Industry                
Railroad 112 1.8 67 1.7   xk   l
Parks 27 0.4 231 5.9   xk 74 7.2
Streets 1020 16.3 628 15.9   15.0 218 21.1
Public, Semi-public 338 5.3 290 7.4   xk 58 5.6
Other             x  
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA         880 64.0 1350 100.0
Vacant 2730 43.5 449 11.4   36.0 317  
TOTAL LAND AREA         1382 100.0 1667  
Water 54 0.9     202      
TOTAL AREA 6274 100.0 3943 100.0        
Year 1940 1946 1940 1948

 

Use Petersburg, Virginia

 

Port Huron, Michigan

 

Quincy, Illinois

 

Acres % Acres % Acres %
Residential   34.3 1284 26.9 1599 42.0
1-family     1172 24.5 1276 33.6
2-family     77 1.6 246 6.4
Multi-family     35 0.8 77 2.0
Commercial   1.9 81 1.7 87 2.3
Industrial   7.7 191 4.0 214 5.7
Light Industry     84 1.8 127 3.4
Heavy Industry     107 2.2 87 2.3
Railroad   3.9 109 2.3 62 1.7
Parks   17.0 151 3.2 183 4.8
Streets   22.4 1151 24.1 987 26.0
Public, Semi-public   12.8 205 4.3 167 4.4
Other     89 1.9    
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA   100.0 3171 66.4 3299 86.9
Vacant     1519 31.8 497 13.1
TOTAL LAND AREA     4780 100.0    
Water     3256      
TOTAL AREA 3200*   8306   3796 100.0
Year 1948 1947 1949

TABLE I FOOTNOTES

a. Decatur, Ala.
Residences – White, 352 acres; Colored, 74 acres

b. Decatur, Ala.
Includes "Transport and Public Utilities"

c. Fairfield, Conn.
Included under "Other"

d. Greenwich, Conn.
Included under "Public, Semi-public"

e. Harrison, N.Y.
Includes "Farming and Miscellaneous"

f. Manchester, Mass.
Residential – year round, 769 acres; summer homes, 1091 acres

g. Manchester, Mass.
Includes 18.6 acres of' "Business with Residence"

h. Manchester, Mass.
The official land use survey does not include data for these categories. It is possible that they do not apply for Manchester.

i. Meridian, Miss.
Residences – White, 1122 acres (17.9%); Colored, 490 acres (7.8%)

j. Montclair, N.J.
Rooming and boarding houses – 50 acres (1.3%)

k. Patchogue, N.Y.
No data is available for the following: Industrial, Railroad, Parks, and Public, Semi-public uses. Since 8.5% of the total developed land is not accounted for, it must be assumed to apply to one or more of these categories.

l. Petaluma, Calif.
Included under "Streets"

* From the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Areas of the U.S., 1940.

x Unknown

T Town


TABLE II: URBAN LAND USE STATISTICS FOR CITIES WITH 50,000 to 250,000 POPULATION (1940 CENSUS)

Use Charleston, West Virginia Des Moines, Iowa Duluth, Minnesota Fort Wayne, Indiana
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Residential   19.3 7523 21.2 3600 9.0 3890 33.4
1-family     7035 19.8 3000 7.5 3377 29.0
2-family     111 0.3 400 1.0    
Multi-family     377 1.1 200 0.5 520 4.4
Commercial   1.5 416 1.2 300 0.7 238 2.1
Industrial   18.0 647 1.8 1375 3.5 1053 9.0b
Light Industry   2.0 229 0.6 775 2.0    
Heavy Industry   16.0 418 1.2 600 1.5    
Railroad   3.5 949 2.7 400 1.0    
Parks     1004 2.8 4100 10.3    
Streets   15.0 4450 12.5 5000 12.5 2990 25.7
Public, Semi-public   4.5 2807 7.9 1466 3.7 1212 10.4
Other                
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA     17796 50.1 16241 40.7    
Vacant   38.2 17734 49.9a 23600 59.3 2262 19.4
TOTAL LAND AREA                
Water                
TOTAL AREA 5440* 100.0 35530 100.0 39841 100.0 11652 100.0
Year 1948 1939 1941 1948

 

Use Fort Worth, Texas Greensborough, North Carolina Little Rock, Arkansas
City Limitsd Suburban Acrese
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Residential 5834 20.3 2881 24.8 1356 3.8 2723 24.4
1-family 5583 19.5 2521 21.7 1341 3.8 2568 23.0
2-family 125 0.4 167 1.4 12 0.03 96 0.9
Multi-family 126 0.4 193 1.7 3 0.01 59 0.5
Commercial 239 0.8 133 1.2 91 0.4 161 1.4
Industrial 936 3.0 401 3.4 265 0.8 371 3.3
Light Industry 384 1.3 191 1.6 73 0.2 109 1.0
Heavy Industry 552 1.7 210 1.8 192 0.6 262 2.3
Railroad 1199 4.2         283 2.5
Parks 1461 5.1         x x
Streets 6453 22.4 1660 14.2 1437 4.1 x x
Public, Semi-public x 5.2c 1409 12.1 1465 4.1 x x
Other         25773 73.3    
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA             6855 61.4
Vacant 11194 39.0 5103 44.0 4516 12.8 4334 38.6
TOTAL LAND AREA 28707 100.0            
Water     30 0.3 252 0.7    
TOTAL AREA     11617 100.0 35157 100.0 11189 100.0
Year 1940 1948 1948 1941

 

Use Schenectady, New York Stockton, California Tacoma, Washington Waterloo, Iowa
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Residential 1869 28.1 1498 23.6 5622 18.3 2231 25.3
1-family 1055 15.8 1271 20.0 5307 17.3    
2-family 650 9.8 89 1.4 165 0.5    
Multi-family 164 2.5 138 2.2 150 0.5    
Commercial 205 3.1 135 2.1 295 1.0 175 1.9
Industrial 554 8.3 569 9.0 850 2.8 302 3.4
Light Industry 131 1.9 310 4.9 299 1.0    
Heavy Industry 423 6.4 259 4.1 551 1.8    
Railroad 218 3.3 233 3.7 1182 3.8 401 4.6
Parks 427 6.4 244 3.8 1180 3.8 500 5.7
Streets 1072 16.2 1537 24.1 6452 21.0 1947 22.1
Public, Semi-public 739 11.1 327 5.2 1437 4.8 485 5.5
Other         13671 44.5h    
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA     4543 71.5     6041 68.5
Vacant 1472 22.2 1819 28.5   i 2384 27.0
TOTAL LAND AREA     6362 100.0        
Water 87 1.3 257       400 4.5
TOTAL AREA 6643 100.0 6619   30689 100.0 8825 100.0
Year 1946 1944 1947 1946

TABLE II FOOTNOTES

a. Des Moines, Iowa
Includes 684 acres of river area

b. Fort Wayne, Ind.
Includes railroads

c. Fort Worth, Tex.
Estimate (figure not given)

d. Covers area within city limits.

e. Covers area outside city limits; suburban section only.

f. Norfolk, Va.
This includes: Manufacture, 697 acres (3.1%); Navy & Maritime, 4623 acres (20.7%)

g. Norfolk, Va.
Includes "Railroads and Public Utilities"

h. Tacoma, Wash.
Includes "Vacant Property and Farmland"

i. Tacoma, Wash.
Included under "Other"

* From U.S. Bureau of the Census, Areas of the U.S., 1940

x Unknown


TABLE III: URBAN LAND USE STATISTICS FOR CITIES OVER 250,000 POPULATION (1940 CENSUS)

Use Detroit, Michigan Kansas City, Missouri Minneapolis, Minnesota Portland, Oregon
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Residential 27059 30.2 10377 26.2 13500 36.8 9408 22.9
1-family 20018 22.3 9329 23.6 12500 34.1 8879 21.6
2-family 5343 6.0 477 1.2c 700 1.9 218 0.5
Multi-family 1698 1.9 571 1.4d 300 0.8 311 0.8
Commercial 3400 3.8 1128 2.9 600 1.6 844 2.0
Industrial 4105 4.6a 1344 3.4 900 2.5 1412 3.4
Light Industry         900 2.5 434 1.0
Heavy Industry             978 2.4
Railroad 1700 1.9 1972 5.0 2500 6.8 1226 3.0
Parks     2880 7.3 2471 6.8 1177 2.9
Streets 24790 27.5 7240 18.3e 6912 18.9 9275 22.5
Public, Semi-public 8075 9.0 1223 3.1 2722 7.5 1634 4.0
Other 254 0.3b            
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA         29605 80.9 24976 60.7
Vacant 19989 22.3 13329 33.8 7000 19.1 16164 39.3
TOTAL LAND AREA 89732 100.0 39493 100.0        
Water     781          
TOTAL AREA     40274   36605 100.0 41140 100.0
Year 1943 1946 1941 1941

 

Use Providence, Rhode Island St. Louis, Missouri Winnipeg, Canada
        Metropolitan Area "City of Winnipeg" Area
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Residential 3247 24.8 11925 29.6 5060 32.3 3086 38.5
1-family 1410 10.8 6813 16.9 4668 29.8 2730 34.0
2-family 1099 8.4 2564 6.4 93 0.6 66 0.9
Multi-family 738 5.6 2538 6.3 299 1.9 290 3.6
Commercial 635 4.9 1724 4.2 280 1.9 237 2.9
Industrial 1158 8.8 3116 7.7 1065 6.8 577 7.2
Light Industry 988 7.5 1387 3.4 498 3.2 375 4.7
Heavy Industry 170 1.3 1729 4.3 567 3.6 202 2.5
Railroad   f 1757 4.3 2400 15.3 655 8.2
Parks 1153 8.8 2557 6.3 2275 14.5 1062 13.2
Streets 2648 20.2 8803 21.8 3747 23.9 1945 24.2
Public, Semi-public 2375 18.1 4218 10.4 818 5.2 453 5.7
Other                
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA 11216 85.6 34100 84.3 15645 100.0 8015 100.0
Vacant 1882 14.4 6361 15.7        
TOTAL LAND AREA                
Water                
TOTAL AREA 13098 100.0 40461 100.0        
Year 1941 1941 1946

 

Use Los Angeles County, California
Acres %
Residential 81291 29.8
1-family 76552 28.0
2-family    
Multi-family 4739 1.8
Commercial 7203 2.6
Industrial 10501 5.5
Light Industry 2424 0.9
Heavy Industry 8077 3.0
Railroad 4497 1.6
Parks 12188 4.5
Streets 65929 24.1
Public, Semi-public 11662 4.3
Other    
TOTAL DEVELOPED AREA 193271 70.8
Vacant 79803 29.2
TOTAL LAND AREA    
Water    
TOTAL AREA 273074 100.0
Year 1941

TABLE III FOOTNOTES

a. Detroit, Mich.
Includes Primary Industry, 3793 acres; Industrial Auto Parking, 132 acres; Warehousing, 180 acres

b. Detroit, Mich.
Includes 254 acres for airports

c. Kansas City, Mo.
Described as "duplex"

d, Kansas City, Mo.
Described as "apartments"

e. Kansas City, Mo.
Includes 944 acres (2.4%) of "Boulevards and Parkways"

f. Providence, R.I.
Included in "Light Industry" and "Commercial" figures

g. Seattle, Wash.
Includes – Railroads

* These figures are for the "Metropolitan Area".

** These figures are for the "City of Winnipeg".

*** Thirty statistical areas, Los Angeles County, Calif. Master Plan of Land Use, County of Los Angeles, 1941, p. 98a. These 30 areas define the metropolitan area of the county.

x Unknown


APPENDIX I: PUBLIC AND SEMI-PUBLIC LAND USE FOR SELECTED CITIES

Use Albert Lea, Minnesota Detroit, Michigan Fairfield, Connecticut Harrison, New York
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Public, Semi-public 41 3.0 8075 9.0   9.6 1336 9.7
Schools 17 1.3       0.3 56 0.4
Other Public Buildings 4 0.3         181 1.3
Misc. Public Property 15 1.1            
Utilities     840 0.9   4.6    
Churches 5 0.3a       0.1 114 0.8b
Cemeteries     1166 1.3   0.4    
Institutions     2097 2.3d   1.1    
Recreation*           3.1 985 7.3
Other Semi-public                

 

Use Maplewood, New Jersey Port Huron, Michigan Winnipeg, Canada
Metropolitan Area City of Winnipeg
Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres %
Public, Semi-public 231 11.2 205 4.3 818 5.2 453 5.7
Schools 57 2.8 14.4 0.3 240 1.5 126 1.6
Other Public Buildings 23 1.1 36 0.7        
Misc. Public Property                
Utilities                
Churches     18 0.4 94 0.6 54 0.7
Cemeteries     133 2.8 367 2.3 227 2.8
Institutions         117 0.7 46 0.6
Recreation*     4 0.1        
Other Semi-public 151 7.3c            

# This table gives more detailed information about the category "Public, Semi-public," which is summarized in Tables I–III. This data is available for only a few cities. Since all but two (Detroit and Winnipeg) are cities under 50,000, no division by size of city has been made in this table.

*Includes semi-public recreational facilities, golf clubs, private parks, etc.

a. Albert Lea, Minnesota – Includes "Churches, Institutions"

b. Harrison, New York – Includes "Churches and Cemeteries"

c. Maplewood, New Jersey – Semi-public uses not broken down further

d. Detroit, Michigan – Includes "Public and Semi-public Institutions"


APPENDIX II: PERCENTAGE OF DEVELOPED AREA OCCUPIED BY MAJOR URBAN LAND USES#

48 self-contained cities*

Use Less than 50,000
17 cities
50,000 to 150,000
20 cities
150,000 and over
11 cities
Total
48 cities
% of developed area % of developed area % of developed area % of developed area
Single-family residence 32.86 35.42 32.49 33.53
Two-family residence 3.29 3.23 4.39 3.88
Multiple dwelling 1.75 1.52 3.26 2.51
Commercial use 2.60 2.54 3.24 2.93
Public & semi-public use 11.25 7.61 9.87 9.24
Parks and playgrounds 5.07 6.40 8.10 7.21
Light industrial use 4.19 2.29 3.17 2.97
Heavy industrial use 2.63 3.38 3.75 3.51
Railroad use 4.09 4.75 4.69 4.65
Streets and alleys 32.27 32.86 27.04 29.57
Total developed area 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

# From: "Urban Land Use – 1949," by Eldridge Lovelace, in Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. XV, No. 2 (Summer 1949) p. 27.

*Some of the cities studied by Lovelace are:

Cape Girardeau, and Springfield, Missouri

Carlsbad, Roswell, and Santa Fe, New Mexico

Centralia, Illinois

Davenport and Mason City, Iowa

Greenville, South Carolina

Hamilton, Ohio

Hutchinson, Kansas

Knoxville, Tennessee

Muskogee, Oklahoma

Petersburg., Portsmouth, and Williamsburg, Virginia

St. Petersburg, Florida

San Angelo, Texas

Schenectady and Troy, New York

Vancouver, British Columbia


© Copyright, American Society of Planning Officials, May 1950