NATIONAL PARK SERVICE Park and Recreation Structures

A DISCUSSION of the lay-out of organized camps is only ventured in a compilation devoted to structures and facilities because lay-out plays such a vital part in determining just what structures and facilities are requisite in a camp and what the details of these shall be. Very definitely the number and size of the camp buildings and the relationship between them are the camp lay-out in fact, and any discussion of the buildings individually is difficult without some preliminary consideration of them as a whole.

There is no intention here to examine the structural needs of all kinds of camps, or even of organized camps of every size. It is chosen to limit detailed consideration to the structural requisites of organized camps in that capacity range which embraces the overwhelming majority of organized camps—those accommodating not less than 25 and not more than 100 campers.

There are organized camps of lesser and greater capacity, justified, it is admitted, under special conditions. Weekend or other short-term accommodation of groups of less than 25 persons will be briefly touched on later. Larger camps accommodating several hundred campers exist and are deemed by some to be successful. There is a growing realization, however, that camps of more than 125 persons, ranging say to capacities of 200, 300, or 500, in a sense cease to be true camps and become mere cantonments or concentrations where the things that are of the essence of camping somehow cannot be done.

There is now almost general acceptance of the principle that any camp for more than 32 persons should be broken down into groups of 16, 24, or at a maximum, 32 campers. Camps so planned have come to be known as unit camps. A central area provides facilities for general administration; dining; medical examination, care, and isolation; and for the mass recreational and cultural activities of all the campers on the area. Outlying a short walking distance from this central area are the units, each of which is a colony of sleeping cabins or tents for campers and their leaders, centering around a unit lodge which is the recreational and social rallying point of the group. A unit washhouse and latrine completes the unit lay-out.

One figure of speech has the central area the "hub" and the units the radiating "spokes" of a wheel. Another has the units as outlying "hamlets" suburban to a "village" in which the mutual interests of all the units in orderly government, food supply, medical care, and recreational and cultural pursuits center.

Camps laid out in units allow for the variations that exist in all human beings. In children's and young people's camps, a break-down into small units permits a logical grouping of campers of the same age and physical ability, similar interests and experience. In these small groups children and adolescents are given opportunity to find themselves, while in "mass camping" they experience a hardly avoidable regimentation and a sensation of being lost in a crowd. Small groups permit a high degree of personal attention on the part of the counselors, while large groups mean a less personal leadership or exhaustion of the counselors who attempt too much.

From a health point of view, there are also sound arguments in favor of small groups in camp. Children in large groups easily become over-stimulated, and the possibilities for fatigue are greatly increased when a large number of children eat, sleep, and generally live in close quarters. Should a communicable disease develop in a camp laid out in units, it is less likely to spread through the whole camp.

THE BREAK-DOWN OF A CAMP into units or groups does not mean that each is wholly independent of the others. Many recreational and cultural activities are participated in simultaneously by all groups. But the deadly institutionalism toward which mass camping can tend is avoided through the individualism fostered by the recreational activities and intimacies of the small unit, "on its own" much of the time.

Because many youth groups which go in for camping are organized into squads or patrols of eight, or troops of 16, 24, or 32, there is good reason for laying out camp units in multiples of eight. Units of 24 campers are considered both practical and desirable. There can be an efficient supervision of groups of 24, which escapes being either repressive or insufficient. Units of 16 are perhaps more desirable than practical, for in order to accommodate a given number of campers there must, of course, be a greater number of units, resulting in a more extended camp and increased costs of construction and operation. Units of 32, on the contrary, are probably more practical than desirable, for while such concentrations mean some reduction in the costs of construction, maintenance, and operation, the supervision will tend to be inadequate and the groups to be unwieldy for a properly unified leadership. All things considered, units of 24 seem to be the happy mean. It is assumed that the logic back of units which accommodate 16, 24, or at the most, 32 persons will lead to most camps being laid out in units of one or another of these sizes.

Camps, ranging roughly from 25- to 100-camper capacity, laid out in multiple-of-eight units, seem to group into three sizes. There is the small camp accommodating 24 to 32 persons. Although generally a single unit, it may be broken down into two units of 16 where rigid economy is not a weighing factor.

There is next the medium-sized camp of 48- to 64-capacity which embraces camps of two units of 24 or 32 campers. We may also include in this category camps composed of three and four units of 16, if these more ideal standards are economically supportable.

The large camp accommodates from 72 to 96 campers and may be made up of three groups of 24 or 32, or four groups of 24, campers. It, too, may be broken down into units of 16, but the resulting increase in construction and supervisory costs and the probable unavailability of five or six suitable unit campsites, properly central to the administration area, will be deterrent influences. It is sometimes felt necessary to stretch the capacity of a large camp to accommodate more than 100 campers, but 125 is a recommended maximum, and capacity in excess of that is almost invariably to be discouraged.

The distances desirable between the several units composing a camp and between these units and the administration or central area cannot be arbitrarily stated. In selecting the location for any camp, privacy is a consideration as primary as the availability of safe drinking water and the suitability of the soil for sewage disposal. Likewise, a proper degree of privacy is of first importance for the component units of the camp. Studies of a group of camps have revealed an average distance of 600 feet between units. It does not follow, however, that 600 feet or any other given distance may be fixed for spacing units from each other and from the administrative group. The distance necessary for a suitable privacy depends in each case on existing site conditions, among which topography and cover are controlling elements.

In the cabin unit the spotting of campers' cabins in relation to one another, to sun and shade, and to dependencies of the group deserves a word. It is desirable that they be exposed to sunlight a part of the day, preferably in the forenoon, so that clothes and bedding may be sunned and aired. Shade in the late afternoon is equally desirable in warm climates so that the cabins will be comfortable for sleeping at the early hour campers usually go to bed. The distances between cabins are naturally subject to site conditions, but 50 feet is the recommended maximum for age group camps where supervision is an important consideration. Family cabins can string out with greater space between them, for, in groups of these, supervision is limited or even unnecessary. No sleeping cabin in a children's camp should be more than 150 feet distant from the latrine. Cabins for a youth group or a family may exceed this distance somewhat, but more than 200 feet is not good practice.

THE LAY-OUT OF A CAMP, before stated to be synonymous with the number of buildings, their size, and the relationships between them, is governed by a variety of considerations.

Probably foremost is capacity as dictated by the needs of the community to be served. Whether to undertake a small, medium-sized, or large camp, or a camp which falls outside the 25- to 100-range, hangs in any case on carefully analyzed need.

Second and inevitable influence is the availability of funds. Consideration of this may not stop with capital investment in site, buildings, and equipment. It must anticipate all details of supervision, and foresee the extent of the supervisory staff and the full complement of lesser employes required for a proper functioning of the camp in operation There is opportunity for grievous error in miscalculating the scale on which camp operation may be economically carried on. Overestimate of an economically supportable personnel results in a waste of capital funds to construct some buildings which are not long used. On the other hand, if an essential staffing is underestimated, unfortunate overcrowding of facilities is certain to follow. Operating and maintenance costs must therefore be taken into account when funds for construction, and the physical plant such will provide, are undergoing preliminary examination.

Another set of conditions which has all-important bearing on the camp plan includes site factors such as topography, natural features, and climate. A rugged topography may force a sprawling lay-out or a very concentrated one, both of which are non-typical and short of ideal. Sparseness of cover will suggest a wide separation of units. Because most camps are so largely centered around swimming, the natural feature or man-made facility which will serve for this activity will directly govern the lay-out. A steep lakeshore or river bank may make it necessary to string out the camp in a plan that departs from the typical. If the site is a small peninsula, the lay-out will recognize the peculiar advantages this offers. If the site is along a stream, dammed to create a small pondlike "swimming hole", the camp development along both banks will find a different expression. If the hub of activity is a formal swimming pool, the camp and its component units will be arranged in still another pattern. A mild, dry climate may permit a minimum number of buildings and a light, inexpensive construction. A rainy climate will call for considerable space under roof for enforced indoor recreation. In northern areas a better grade of construction will probably be employed, aimed to lengthen a short camping season or even to make winter camping possible.

If a projected camp is to be built on public lands as a public or semipublic undertaking, the sponsorship indicated for it is an important consideration in the planning. When it seems definitely assured that a single organization can be relied on to assume continuous responsibility, there might be some minor warping of typical lay-out to meet particular needs of the single using agency. Naturally, a camp planned exclusively for families could differ in some of its details from one planned for occupancy at one and the same time by boys and girls, or young men and young women. Similarly such co-recreational camps would not with logic duplicate camps planned to be continuously occupied by very small children, mothers with infants, or crippled children. But if, as is often the case, the use of the publicly or semipublicly owned camp is to be divided among several using agencies, it follows that any departures from a typical lay-out in the interest of one of them will be likely to handicap the program of the others. A generally typical arrangement represents a nice balance between extremes that should prove practical and satisfactory to the great majority of all potential users. Obviously, the restrictive factor of multiple sponsorship and use does not involve the designing of private camps on privately owned lands. Neither will the lay-out of private camps be forced to acknowledge the claims of other competing recreational interests which very often affect the planning of camps built on publicly owned lands.

Whether the public or private camp under single sponsorship will be occupied by one group of campers for its entire season of use or by successive groups for short-term periods will also influence the lay-out. There are items, almost essential for full-season occupancy, which for short camping periods may be foregone.

THE STRUCTURES AND FACILITIES which make up an organized group camp may be classified on the basis of function in categories which broadly parallel the groupings of park structures and facilities as these have been hereinbefore presented.

One group embraces structural facilities identified with administration and the basic services, among which the administration building, infirmary, unit washhouse and latrine, and central hot shower and laundry building are the principal items. Another includes facilities which further recreational and cultural activity—the unit lodge, recreation building, accessories to water sports, museum, craft shop, and campfire ring. A third deals with construction that provides for the preparation and serving of meals dining lodge and kitchen with related dependencies, as well as the outdoor kitchen occasionally favored. Finally, there is the group which embraces sleeping quarters for the campers, the staff, and the employes.

There is also purpose in classifying organized camp structures and facilities on the basis of need. There are those deemed essential, or essential under certain conditions. Others rate as desirable though not essential, and there are varying degrees of desirability determined by a host of influences such as availability of funds, competence of leadership, the age and sex of the campers, co-recreational occupancy, and many another.

The plates which follow show ideal unit camp lay-outs on hypothetical sites, conjectured to illustrate the variety of topographic conditions likely to be encountered in problems of camp planning. It has also been sought to show the differences in relationships between buildings and between units which logically come about in camps of different sizes. There is furthermore an attempt to differentiate between essential construction and items, sometimes desirable but nonessential.

It will be observed that the ideal location for the administrative center is one easily reached by automobile from the outside and by foot from the rest of the camp. It should not be assumed, however, that the administration center is of necessity the exact geographical center of the camp. The entrance road to the camp should penetrate a minimum distance, to a small parking area for automobiles near the administration building. It is well to supplement this with an overflow parking area on the approach road further removed from the camp. From the termination of the entrance road a strictly service drive should lead to the service area, which, in most cases, is the kitchen wing of the dining lodge. The garage is the only other building necessarily served by a road, and, if properly located, is in the immediate vicinity of this terminal point. There is no purpose in an actual roadway to the other camp buildings. Should there be occasional need to reach other buildings to collect rubbish, for instance, or to distribute any heavy equipment at the opening and closing of a camp, a cleared truck or wagon trail, treated merely as a widened foot trail, under all but the most unusual conditions, will suffice. In laying out and clearing a roadway for use during the construction of the camp, it is farsighted to anticipate any service trail travel needs in the finished camp, so that the two purposes can be served by the one operation.

To build the service road between the parking area and the kitchen wing so that it invites travel other than by delivery trucks is a tactical error. It is undramatic in the extreme to lead campers and visitors, on the occasion of their first entry into the camp, right up to the kitchen door, after perhaps passing the incinerator and help's quarters en route. First impressions still remain important, and it is an obligation in camp lay-out to arrange the stage so that the setting for the first act of a camping experience will disclose something more romantically thrilling than its backyard operations. A more effective approach will be a well-laid-out foot trail from the parking area to the administration building and on beyond to views that reveal more favorably the campsite and its buildings and activities.

The distance between the campsite and the place of water-front activity is important in the planning of the organized camp. The temptation to indulge in unsupervised swimming, despite the fact that it is outlawed in every well-conducted camp, is great. Particularly are employes, busy during the day, inclined to disregard this first of camp commandments and go swimming at night. The desirable thing, of course, is by moral suasion to make unsupervised swimming unthinkable to everyone in camp. Where it is felt that this attitude can be attained 100 percent, the camp buildings can be on the water-front. The cynical planner may see fit to reinforce moral restraint with physical distance and spot the structures from 1,000 to 2,000 feet from the swimming beach.

When the swimming facility is a constructed pool, there is need for close relationship with the shower house, which will mean locating the pool centrally in the camp. Likewise, in a large camp a naturalized swimming hole, contrived by damming a small stream, must be in the heart of the camp if the recommended relationships between the several units are to obtain. Formal pools and shallow millponds, however, are without some of the hazards to swimmers that exist in large lakes and in river currents.

There are other desirable, if less important, relationships in lay-out. These will be mentioned as the different structures of the organized camp are discussed in detail.

Not for any bearing on plan, but because they are of very general nature, some further details should not go unremarked. Important and commendable as is a determination to limit modification of the site and surroundings of camp buildings to a minimum, it sometimes occurs that vegetation, particularly low growth, in the immediate vicinity of the buildings is retained to the detriment of other, not less important, considerations. Too dense cover up to the very walls of the buildings tends to produce damp and unhealthful conditions by obstructing sunlight and movements of air. To insure against such conditions, the less desirable cover near the buildings should be judiciously thinned out, but in such a manner that there is a smooth transition to the unmodified cover beyond. The menace of fire should be recognized and guarded against in the planning and construction of camp buildings in such reasonable degree as available funds allow. To this end it is desirable to provide continuous enclosing masonry foundations under the building. If this is not possible by reason of its cost, the alternative of setting the floor construction high enough off the ground that dead leaves and other combustibles can be raked out from under the buildings should be adopted. There should be no slighting of well-recognized fireproofing measures in the building of chimneys and the installation of stoves. Electric wiring should conform with approved standards. The construction of the camp buildings can contribute only to the prevention of fires; once fire appears, fighting it is a matter of equipment and action.

There are some recommendations general to camp buildings that, however trite, still bear repetition. For health and comfort in the majority of locations, most of the structures should be completely screened against insects. If wall construction is not insect-tight, as is likely to occur when waney-edged siding or green lumber has been used, it becomes necessary to line the interior with some type of building board or other material to make the cabin insectproof. Types of floor construction which do not allow for a circulation of air between the cabin floor and grade, such as concrete or masonry laid on the ground, are unsatisfactory, and in a long spell of damp weather become a health hazard.

• Plate III H—1 — Plate III H—7