Jump to content

      



























Photo

Playground


  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#1 Ms. B. Havin

Ms. B. Havin
  • Member
  • 5,052 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 10:13 AM

I wasn't sure whether to file this here, or under "public space, use of," but decided in the end it's an "outdoor rec" issue first: re-thinking the modern playground.

The New York Times had an article yesterday about David Rockwell (famous for designing indoor playgrounds for adults, like Nobu restaurant) and a current gig of his: [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/10/nyregion/10play.html?ex=1326085200&en=1b5ba382c90c37c8&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss:4f2d5]New York Tries to Think Outside the Sandbox[/url:4f2d5]. I came across the article via NY blogger Clive Thompson's blog, "collision detection." He covers the story in this entry, [url=http://www.collisiondetection.net/mt/archives/2007/01/_i_love_this_ne.html:4f2d5]New York developing a next-generation playground[/url:4f2d5].

He writes:

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.


I found one of the comments really interesting, namely that as you make the playground "safer," the kids naturally find a way to bring back danger, an insight based, as another reader noted, on "risk homeostasis." Well, whatever. Perhaps most damningly, however, was another reader's observation:

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.


Well, it's been a few years since my son's third concussion from playing -- the worst was probably the time he flew off a swing and landed forehead-first on a railroad tie (a kind of square log thing that people use to demarcate the mulched swing area from, say, a lawn area). But then he also fell head first from a shopping cart on to a cement floor -- I think I saw him bounce, actually. That's what comes of ignoring the child seat and straps in carts, but then kids just love to stand in the front of the cart, don't they?

Hmmm, risk homeostasis, eh? :)
When you buy a game, you buy the rules. Play happens in the space between the rules.

#2 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 10:27 AM

Well I think it is sad. Sure I remember taking a couple of painful wallups at the playgrounds of my youth, but I still went back and loved it. My parents never sued anyone and well life was easier. Now kids need to have playgounds made of nerf and the bikeride to school in the morning involves an idling minivan...

Sad :(

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#3 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 10:29 AM

I recently had the opportunity to climb around on a big plastic "double twist" strip thing at a suburban playground in Victoria. It was a pretty scary apparatus, in my opinion. The high sections were quite high, the footholds were very small and the plastic was rather slippery, so half the time I was hanging on for dear life. Dangerous playsets still exist.

Although I suppose the smaller your feet are and the lighter you are, the less trouble you'd have with it:



#4 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 11 January 2007 - 01:32 PM

^Hmm...a Mobius strip. Presumably cheaper to construct as it's only one-sided.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#5 renthefinn

renthefinn
  • Member
  • 571 posts

Posted 12 January 2007 - 01:59 AM

The playground I grew up by had a suspension bridge 5 metre's off the ground to a tree-house. In another area it had a (not sure exactly what to call it, like a hand dolly or something, it had handles you held on to and went down the hill (maybe 80m Horizontal and 5m Vertical) it had wheels and would ride on the cable and sometimes you'd be going so fast if you didn't help stop yourself at the pole that held up the end of the cable, with your feet, you'd lose your grip and fall about 8ft to the ground (after hitting the pole). There was also a pole that had tires bolted to it and you could climb 20-25 feet up. Everything else was pretty regular playground stuff.

I think it's cause we lived in a new rural area. They decided to build what they thought would be fun, but didn't consider injury or death.

#6 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,155 posts

Posted 12 January 2007 - 10:18 AM

Haha, that sounds similar to what I used to play on as a kid, too. But below this bridge was an everlasting puddle about a foot deep. Slip off the bridge and game over for the afternoon :lol:

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#7 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 12 January 2007 - 10:24 AM

I don't know if that's a playground or Marine Boot Camp.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#8 ressen

ressen
  • Member
  • 539 posts

Posted 18 February 2007 - 04:14 PM


Here is some old school play equipment. These balls used to be behind the Juan De Fuca rec center.






These are modern examples.


#9 Jada

Jada
  • Member
  • 383 posts

Posted 18 February 2007 - 04:31 PM

There is a section of playground at the Crystal pool that is meant to be for children ten and older. This section of the playground is deliberately more dangerous, to encourage older kids to use the playground.

#10 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 18 February 2007 - 07:28 PM

Growing up in the late 80's and early 90's mine was the first generation to really see the dumbing down to playgrounds. I remember this big wooden "tower" (ok it was probably only 2-3m tall, but it was a tower to us kids!). There was a slide off of it which was quite fun, and we loved to just jump off the top, slide down the fireman's pole, and climb up the tire-net draped on one side. It was kinda old and you'd have to watch out for splinters and such. Finally they replaced it with some of those big colourful plastic deals. Of course it wasn't tall, it was more of a fat-scaper. The slide was maybe 1m off the ground, but the whole thing had a little plastic pitched roof.

In the name of making things safer, they actually made things more dangerous. Jumping from the wooden tower was fun and safe since you had good footing. Now we were forced to climb up onto the slippery plastic roof. The climb was kinda tough and the roof was always quite slippy. A lot of times you'd go to jump and just slip, we were falling off as oposed to jumping off.

Kids will always utilise these things the way they want to. The more direction you give kids, the more you try to guide and force them to play a certain way, the more kids will try to figure out totally unconventional play methods.

It came to a point when I was leaving elementary school that there had to be staff on hand all the time to make sure we played the 'right' way. We would constantly rebel and wait for them to do their rounds, then the fun began. Sometimes kids got hurt, but that's part of life. Kids are tough, made of rubber. A whack on the head or even a broken limb as a kid heals up fast and teaches important lessons. And kids who can't have exciting play on a playground will turn their energy on other activities, they always find a way.
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#11 G-Man

G-Man

    Senior Case Officer

  • Moderator
  • 13,800 posts

Posted 18 February 2007 - 09:17 PM

There is a section of playground at the Crystal pool that is meant to be for children ten and older. This section of the playground is deliberately more dangerous, to encourage older kids to use the playground.


If you mean the moving balance beam and stuff that just took all of that stuff out and added some new gear thanks to Steve Nash.

Visit my blog at: https://www.sidewalkingvictoria.com 

 

It has a whole new look!

 


#12 Holden West

Holden West

    Va va voom!

  • Member
  • 9,058 posts

Posted 18 February 2007 - 09:59 PM

^The Steve Nash hair-styling bench and the Marxist-Leninist reading-go-round was a nice touch.
"Beaver, ahoy!""The bridge is like a magnet, attracting both pedestrians and over 30,000 vehicles daily who enjoy the views of Victoria's harbour. The skyline may change, but "Big Blue" as some call it, will always be there."
-City of Victoria website, 2009

#13 Jada

Jada
  • Member
  • 383 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:15 PM

Do you guys remember the old playground at Beacon Hill Park, way back in the 80's? There was this slide that had to be 4 stories tall, with absolutely no safety bars to prevent kids from falling to their death. That was the best playground ever. I remember spraining my ankles many a time at the playground, but of course this was years before any parents would ever consider suing the city for such injuries.

Good times. :)

#14 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 12:36 PM

4 stories!?!?!?! Remember, you were shorter when you were a kid.

I remember there were a few diagonal poles for sliding down around the city. Those were always a death trap.

#15 Jada

Jada
  • Member
  • 383 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 01:11 PM

Well, I have been known to exagerate from time to time. It was pretty freakin tall, they don't make them that high any longer.

#16 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 20,649 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 01:16 PM

You're right, it was definitely taller than your average tall slide. But as Dylan says it probably wasn't as tall as we thought it was. I'm going to guess the top level was 12 feet off the ground.

#17 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 01:20 PM

Perhaps Jada was three feet tall at the time?

#18 Jada

Jada
  • Member
  • 383 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 01:26 PM

I'd like to see a diagram made of that slide. I remember it was quite tall, and the slide was built into a tower which had two levels, the slide being on the top level. There was a bump in the middle and you'd get massive air. Willows Beach also had an awesome slide, but it always had a puddle at the bottom of it.

The best playground in Victoria hands down is Cadboro Bay. I love that it hasn't changed at all from what I can remember. I still can't climb to the end of the sea creature without falling off at least once. :)

#19 gumgum

gumgum
  • Member
  • 7,069 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 02:15 PM

Four stories would make it taller than South Park school!

#20 D.L.

D.L.
  • Member
  • 7,786 posts

Posted 19 February 2007 - 02:18 PM

well it probably had four levels. god only knows what the height limit is in Beacon Hill park.

You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users