Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
In planning for urban leisure facilities, Pentz (2002) identified changing patterns of
leisure provision, reflecting many of the issues discussed in Chapter 2. The effect of
changing trends has been specific spatial requirements for leisure facility locations
including
• agglomeration of urban leisure facilities in nodes or centres
• links between education/social facilities to create shared facilities
• increased emphasis on capital intensive facilities such as stadiums
• rising numbers of spectators at sporting events
• overcrowding at some sports venues due to common leisure periods (late afternoons and
weekends)
• a range of small-scale suburban facilities that no longer meet modern-day needs
• disparities between small and large urban areas in the funding and development of
capital projects
• gaps in the hierarchy of provision of urban leisure facilities.
In terms of a hierarchy of urban leisure facilities, different standards exist in different
countries including the USA, UK and South Africa as shown in Table 5.6.
Table 5.6 highlights one of two distinct approaches which exist in planning urban
leisure and recreation: a more traditional approach, where quantitative measures based on
minimum standards regardless of quality, need and locality. In contrast, more innovative
approaches are local needs based and less dependent upon the space standards. The latter
approach has become a
Table 5.6:
Open space standards
USA
Facility
Minimum space (ha) Total population it should serve
Playlot 0.020 1,000
Playground 1.5 3,000-5,000
Local park 1 3,000-10,000
Community park 15 10,000-50,000
Urban park 45 40,000
Regional park 450 city-wide
Average provision 3-7.5 ha per 1000 people
UK: National Playing Fields Association Standards
Facility
Ha per 1000 people
Children's playground 0.68
General park
0.90
Sport ground
1.10
Average provision
4.5
South Africa: Natal
Ha per 1000 people
Playlets
0.4
Active recreation
1.6
