Playground design is such a wickedly cool subgenre of architecture. One of the things that makes me sad as I visit New York's playgrounds with my one-year-old is noticing how many wildly fun things have vanished from the playgroundosphere over the last twenty years, removed by city officials nervous about lawsuits. I remember back in the late 70s, when the first wave of playground-revitalization hit Canada, and bland monkeybars-and-swings play areas were replaced with trippy, massive wooden constructions: Tree-fort-style houses on stilts, connected up by long platforms, bridges, and day-glo plastic tubes. A few blocks from my house there was something even crazier: A massive jumble of telephone-pole-like wooden pillars, all leaning at crazy angles together as if a giant had tried to cram them into the ground straight but they'd fallen all over one another. It was a total blast to clamber around it; you could go straight to the core and hide in the nooks created by the pillars (superb for distant-planet fantasy play, lemme tell you), or climb out to the edge of an individual pillar, which might jut out 10 feet in the air at a 60-degree angle. It was gloriously fun, infinitely creative -- and, of course, a total deathtrap. At some point, a Toronto lawyer clapped his eyes on this thing, envisioned a million-dollar lawsuit from some kid paralyzed during a play-session, and the thing, alas, was promptly razed to the ground.
The sad thing is that some of the most dangerous playground toys also induced superb play. Remember the see-saw? I used to spend hours at my Canadian cottage playing on my uncle's massive, 12-foot-long see-saw. Seesaws were the best training in basic physics you could possibly imagine, because you could scoot up and down the seesaw to figure out where precisely you needed to sit to be able to counterbalance a lighter child. Or you could stack a bunch of smaller kids on one side and see how much bigger a kid you could lift in the air. You learned, in essence, Archimedes' insight about lever dynamics: "Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world."
But you can't find a single seesaw anywhere in New York any more, because there's no way they could survive liability claims. Sure, seesaws are a superb mechanism for producing the sort of veritiginous play that ludologist Roger Caillois called "illinx" -- the act of voluntarily and joyfully discombobulating your senses. But any activity that produces illinx eventually produces physical injuries, too, and there are more lawyers than taxis in Manhattan. Back in the day, in fact, we often intentionally assaulted each other with seesaw pranks, such as getting the other kid high in the air -- then jumping off and letting him crash to the ground. Ouch! I'll sue!
Even though I have no desire to have my kid suffer massive headwounds, it's a little sad that he won't be able to experience the same physics-experiment aspect of seesaws. So if there's any way Rockwell can produce an outdoor playspace that recaptures any of this spirit, I'm in favor of it. Give kids a fun enough playground and you can move the world.
Posted by Clive Thompson at January 10, 2007 11:13 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt3/mt-tb.cgi/1610
Clive,
Let's not forget the few Toronto playgrounds that had zip lines. I recall sensing that there was something deeply unsafe about them even as a child.
Perhaps that's why I'd force my parents to make massive detours to find parks that had one (IE - the playground around Central Tech at Bloor and Bathurst).
If you're feeling really old school, take a gander at this ontario place clip from '85 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=5eW3BWHOJcc
Posted by: garth breaks at January 10, 2007 1:10 PM
I remember reading somewhere (and unfortunately, I have no idea where) that kids actually have a pretty finely tuned sense of the safety of playground activities. When a playground is made "safer," they find new ways to use it, generally keeping the rate of playground-induced injuries pretty constant. For example, when bouncy rubber is installed under the climbing structure to prevent injuries from falls, they start competing to see who can do the best belly-flops onto the rubber.
Posted by: Elizabeth Nugent at January 10, 2007 1:30 PM
Ooooo -- zip lines! Injurytastic! Yeah, Ontario Place was the most incredibly fun place back in the day, and thus obviously a legal quagmire too.
Elizabeth, that is totally interesting. If you find any links to stories about that please post 'em here!
Posted by: Clive at January 10, 2007 2:07 PM
Clive, the basic theory is called risk homeostasis. I've not heard the 'children on playgrounds' version; the two examples that are commonly cited is that the rates of injury in automobile accidents are largely unchanged despite advances in safety equipment, and that rugby and football have similar injury rates even though one of them has helmets and padding.
Posted by: debcha at January 10, 2007 4:22 PM
It's an interesting looking project, but one other important thing to note: this particular project also talks about how they'll have 'trained staff on hand' to show the children how to play. I wasn't aware that children had difficulty with this! It was stated in the article that the architect, Mr. Rockwell, has in the past developed many 'adult play areas' such as at resorts and the likes, and I might suggest that there is a world of difference between child and adult play. Indeed, I think that we could learn a thing or two from watching our children at play in unstructured environments.
I would also agree with a couple of the earlier posts. Here in Toronto, there was literally an overnight slash-and-burn of much of the cities' play structures a few years back, owing to perceived liability issues in the school system. It took some years to replace the structures, mostly with super-safe climbing systems that children immediately took to either ignoring or challenging in unorthodox and supremely dangerous ways.
If you do live in TO, though, make your way down to the small park to the south of Mary MacCormack community centre (dundas/dufferin roughly) where you can still see and use a real, live, extraordinarily dangerous old-school mary-go-round!
Posted by: goofibulator at January 11, 2007 10:49 AM
Debcha, superb -- I wasn't aware of that concept, and a quick Google search led me to a very cool Malcolm Gladwell piece from 1996 in which he used the idea!
Goofibulator, yeah, I sort of brushed past the whole "play trainers" as self-evidently ridiculous -- what otherwise healthy kid needs to be trained in how to play? Quite the opposite, as you point out. I did not know that about the Mary MacCormack center ... I'll check that out the next time I'm in Toronto!
Posted by: Clive at January 11, 2007 11:41 AM
Cheers, Clive. FYI, when you have a sec and want to read a bit about local park/play politics, take a gander at the 'playground' page of our local park site, and make sure you visit when you come up... http://dufferinpark.ca/play/wiki/wiki.php . We're pretty serious about play!
Posted by: goofibulator at January 11, 2007 12:52 PM
"But you can't find a single seesaw anywhere in New York any more, because there's no way they could survive liability claims." Well, I live a block away from Riverside Park on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where my wife and I take my 4-year old son weekly to the River Run Playground to play on the...(wait for it)...seesaws. Having lost an adult front tooth on a seesaw when I was 8 in Florida where I grew up (my brother flipped me off the thing), I'm a bit leery of letting my boy alone on the seesaw but I don't forbid him from it either.
Posted by: Stephen Francoeur at January 11, 2007 11:10 PM
In these ever-vigilant, hyper-alert times, the measures taken often cause more problems than prevented.
Some of my fondest - and also one of my scariest - memories of schoolyard play as a kid are of the "merry-go-round." But those are now deemed too unsafe and there's not a single one to be found around.
Aren't there some valuable lessons to be learned by kids' experiencing and evaluating risk, and learning how much is fun or tolerable? If we don't let them make a few mistakes while they're young and malleable, how will they be equipped to handle the more costly mistakes they'll no doubt encounter later in life? In our rush to make everything so safe and politically-correct, we're robbing children of opportunities to teach themselves about personal responsibility.
Our society is developing such a heightened sense of insecurity that we're crippling ourselves in defense. Sure, we'd be foolish to throw caution to the winds, but isn't there a better balance to be had?
Posted by: Rob O. at January 12, 2007 8:23 AM
It saddens me that this and future generations of kids will grow up without seesaws or teeter-tooters. What on earth will pass the time at the drive-in while you're frolicking around in your jammies, waiting for the movie to start?
I live in Europe where they seem to have a healthy combo of playground equipment. You've got your traditional swings and seesaws but you also see zip lines, excavation machines, and some have building supplies so that you can construct a temporary structure. Here in Amsterdam, the city employs people to take care of the playgrounds. These guys also put out real toys and ride-on vehicles for the kids to play on. Now that's progress!
Posted by: See Jayne Blog at January 12, 2007 12:11 PM
While in my heart of hearts, I share the opinion of most of the folks who have written here (I'd love my kids to experience the same things I found fun as a kid), I thinks we're OK. As I watch my toddler grow, I have full faith in her creative ability to make any object -- no matter how carefully engineered to be safe -- deadly to herself and others.
There's a similar article with some interesting comments here: KaBOOM.org: Wiffle Ball, Walking Come Under Attack . You might find it interesting.
Posted by: amyklee at January 12, 2007 1:18 PM
Posted by: amyklee at January 12, 2007 1:27 PM
I read in the article that the guy (Rockwell) has kids, but it sounds to me like he doesn't play with them much... I've yet to hear a kid telling another kid to stop pretending on the monkey bars and get on with his physical development, but I've heard a lot of kids saying "you touched the middle bar that's made of lava and now you're on fire"... Also "you can't go down that side because that's where the sharks are"... future rule-breakers all... I can just hear some "play worker" (I kid you not, that is the NYC job title) yelling at some kid to stop screwing around and get on with hauling sand from one side to the other because he's holding up everyone else's "play"
Posted by: mooseo at January 12, 2007 5:02 PM
I am in the process of designing an outdoor playspace for the childcare center which I direct. Space contraints have turned me away from equipment-based playgrounds (huge fall zones) to a more natural playspace. Check out Ron King's website http://www.naturalplaygrounds.com/ to see another creative alternative.
Posted by: memlili54 at March 5, 2007 9:14 AM
Clive,
Let's not forget the few Toronto playgrounds that had zip lines. I recall sensing that there was something deeply unsafe about them even as a child.
Perhaps that's why I'd force my parents to make massive detours to find parks that had one (IE - the playground around Central Tech at Bloor and Bathurst).
If you're feeling really old school, take a gander at this ontario place clip from '85 - http://youtube.com/watch?v=5eW3BWHOJcc
Posted by: garth breaks![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 10, 2007 1:10 PM
I remember reading somewhere (and unfortunately, I have no idea where) that kids actually have a pretty finely tuned sense of the safety of playground activities. When a playground is made "safer," they find new ways to use it, generally keeping the rate of playground-induced injuries pretty constant. For example, when bouncy rubber is installed under the climbing structure to prevent injuries from falls, they start competing to see who can do the best belly-flops onto the rubber.
Posted by: Elizabeth Nugent![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 10, 2007 1:30 PM
Ooooo -- zip lines! Injurytastic! Yeah, Ontario Place was the most incredibly fun place back in the day, and thus obviously a legal quagmire too.
Elizabeth, that is totally interesting. If you find any links to stories about that please post 'em here!
Posted by: Clive![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 10, 2007 2:07 PM
Clive, the basic theory is called risk homeostasis. I've not heard the 'children on playgrounds' version; the two examples that are commonly cited is that the rates of injury in automobile accidents are largely unchanged despite advances in safety equipment, and that rugby and football have similar injury rates even though one of them has helmets and padding.
Posted by: debcha![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 10, 2007 4:22 PM
It's an interesting looking project, but one other important thing to note: this particular project also talks about how they'll have 'trained staff on hand' to show the children how to play. I wasn't aware that children had difficulty with this! It was stated in the article that the architect, Mr. Rockwell, has in the past developed many 'adult play areas' such as at resorts and the likes, and I might suggest that there is a world of difference between child and adult play. Indeed, I think that we could learn a thing or two from watching our children at play in unstructured environments.
I would also agree with a couple of the earlier posts. Here in Toronto, there was literally an overnight slash-and-burn of much of the cities' play structures a few years back, owing to perceived liability issues in the school system. It took some years to replace the structures, mostly with super-safe climbing systems that children immediately took to either ignoring or challenging in unorthodox and supremely dangerous ways.
If you do live in TO, though, make your way down to the small park to the south of Mary MacCormack community centre (dundas/dufferin roughly) where you can still see and use a real, live, extraordinarily dangerous old-school mary-go-round!
Posted by: goofibulator![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 11, 2007 10:49 AM
Debcha, superb -- I wasn't aware of that concept, and a quick Google search led me to a very cool Malcolm Gladwell piece from 1996 in which he used the idea!
Goofibulator, yeah, I sort of brushed past the whole "play trainers" as self-evidently ridiculous -- what otherwise healthy kid needs to be trained in how to play? Quite the opposite, as you point out. I did not know that about the Mary MacCormack center ... I'll check that out the next time I'm in Toronto!
Posted by: Clive![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 11, 2007 11:41 AM
Cheers, Clive. FYI, when you have a sec and want to read a bit about local park/play politics, take a gander at the 'playground' page of our local park site, and make sure you visit when you come up... http://dufferinpark.ca/play/wiki/wiki.php . We're pretty serious about play!
Posted by: goofibulator![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 11, 2007 12:52 PM
"But you can't find a single seesaw anywhere in New York any more, because there's no way they could survive liability claims." Well, I live a block away from Riverside Park on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where my wife and I take my 4-year old son weekly to the River Run Playground to play on the...(wait for it)...seesaws. Having lost an adult front tooth on a seesaw when I was 8 in Florida where I grew up (my brother flipped me off the thing), I'm a bit leery of letting my boy alone on the seesaw but I don't forbid him from it either.
Posted by: Stephen Francoeur![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 11, 2007 11:10 PM
In these ever-vigilant, hyper-alert times, the measures taken often cause more problems than prevented.
Some of my fondest - and also one of my scariest - memories of schoolyard play as a kid are of the "merry-go-round." But those are now deemed too unsafe and there's not a single one to be found around.
Aren't there some valuable lessons to be learned by kids' experiencing and evaluating risk, and learning how much is fun or tolerable? If we don't let them make a few mistakes while they're young and malleable, how will they be equipped to handle the more costly mistakes they'll no doubt encounter later in life? In our rush to make everything so safe and politically-correct, we're robbing children of opportunities to teach themselves about personal responsibility.
Our society is developing such a heightened sense of insecurity that we're crippling ourselves in defense. Sure, we'd be foolish to throw caution to the winds, but isn't there a better balance to be had?
Posted by: Rob O.![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 12, 2007 8:23 AM
It saddens me that this and future generations of kids will grow up without seesaws or teeter-tooters. What on earth will pass the time at the drive-in while you're frolicking around in your jammies, waiting for the movie to start?
I live in Europe where they seem to have a healthy combo of playground equipment. You've got your traditional swings and seesaws but you also see zip lines, excavation machines, and some have building supplies so that you can construct a temporary structure. Here in Amsterdam, the city employs people to take care of the playgrounds. These guys also put out real toys and ride-on vehicles for the kids to play on. Now that's progress!
Posted by: See Jayne Blog![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 12, 2007 12:11 PM
While in my heart of hearts, I share the opinion of most of the folks who have written here (I'd love my kids to experience the same things I found fun as a kid), I thinks we're OK. As I watch my toddler grow, I have full faith in her creative ability to make any object -- no matter how carefully engineered to be safe -- deadly to herself and others.
There's a similar article with some interesting comments here: KaBOOM.org: Wiffle Ball, Walking Come Under Attack . You might find it interesting.
Posted by: amyklee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 12, 2007 1:18 PM
Sorry. The URL went wrong. Try this one: KaBOOM.org: Wiffle Ball, Walking...
Posted by: amyklee![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 12, 2007 1:27 PM
I read in the article that the guy (Rockwell) has kids, but it sounds to me like he doesn't play with them much... I've yet to hear a kid telling another kid to stop pretending on the monkey bars and get on with his physical development, but I've heard a lot of kids saying "you touched the middle bar that's made of lava and now you're on fire"... Also "you can't go down that side because that's where the sharks are"... future rule-breakers all... I can just hear some "play worker" (I kid you not, that is the NYC job title) yelling at some kid to stop screwing around and get on with hauling sand from one side to the other because he's holding up everyone else's "play"
Posted by: mooseo![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at January 12, 2007 5:02 PM
I am in the process of designing an outdoor playspace for the childcare center which I direct. Space contraints have turned me away from equipment-based playgrounds (huge fall zones) to a more natural playspace. Check out Ron King's website http://www.naturalplaygrounds.com/ to see another creative alternative.
Posted by: memlili54![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.collisiondetection.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at March 5, 2007 9:14 AM