The Science of Play: How to Build Playgrounds That Enhance Children's Development

University Press of New England

www.upne.com

© 2014 University Press of New England

All rights reserved

For permission to reproduce any of the material in this book, contact Permissions, University Press of New England, One Court Street, Suite 250, Lebanon NH 03766; or visit www.upne.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available upon request

ISBN 978-1-61168-611-1 (ebook)

for Bob

Life demands courage, endurance and strength,

but we continue to underestimate the capacity of children

for taking risks, enjoying the stimulation of danger,

and finding things out for themselves.

LADY ALLEN OF HURTWOOD

Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION

1 THE PROBLEM

2 RISK AND INDEPENDENCE

3 FAILING AND SUCCEEDING

4 EXECUTIVE FUNCTION

5 FRIENDSHIP

6 NATURE AND EXPLORATION

7 PATHS

CONCLUSION: PARADIGMS

NOTES

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

Plates

Acknowledgments

This book is a companion volume, in that it follows and expands my initial American Playgrounds: Revitalizing Community Space (2005). It is a pleasure to work again with my earlier publisher, University Press of New England. Their team, including editor-in-chief Phyllis Deutsch and director Michael Burton, has been diligent and supportive. I am fortunate to have such dedicated people overseeing this project. It is gratifying that Ellen Wicklum, formerly at UPNE and the person who acquired the first book, remains a cheerleader from afar.

Chip McGee, Grace Ong-Yan, Bob Solomon, and Audra Wolfe read all or parts of the manuscript. I am deeply thankful for their extensive help in shaping the final outcome. I regret and am saddened that Marvin Bressler, who read my previous book manuscripts, is no longer alive to offer his witty and profound comments.

Ellen B. H. Sandseter (Trondheim), Elger Blitz (Amsterdam), Naomi Pollock (Tokyo), Isami Kinoshita (Tokyo), Javier Malo de Molina (Madrid), and Helle Nebelong (Copenhagen) were especially kind in escorting me through their respective cities. I owe them all many thanks for helping me gain insights I could never have gotten in other ways.

I have badgered many people for information. No one disappointed me, and often they offered sager thoughts than I even knew to request. I humbly thank the following scientists, designers, art historians, librarians, play advocates, astute observers: Gamze Abramov, Yossi Abramov, Vito Acconci, Michel van Ackere, Monica Adams, Karen Adolph, Tim Ahern, Lisa Albin, Joan Almon, Robert Aspinall, Sarah Weidner Astheimer, Randi Augenstein, Russell Baldon, Connie Ban, Adrian Benepe, Amy Berlin, Jay Beckwith, Chris Berthelsen, Pål Bøyesen, Geir Brendeland, David Brownlee, Donne Buck, Jane Clark Chermayeff, Mark Christensen, Deborah Cordonnier, Amy Crews, Scott Dahlman, Sharon Gamson Danks, Richard Dattner, Adele Diamond, Judy Diamond, Patty Donald, Tim Ebikon, Iben Falconer, Alexander Filip and the staff of the CPSC, Karyn Flynn, M. Paul Friedberg, Svane Frode, Julie Gawendo, Lisa Gelfand, Cynthia Gentry, Tim Gill, Alex Gilliam, Phil Ginsburg, Jean Grossman, Denis Guzzo, Yashar Hanstad, Roger Hart, Marit Haugen, Teri Hendy, Joy Hendry, Peter Heuken, Mark Horton, Walter Hood, Pei Hsiang, Jennifer Isacoff, Masako Irie, Paige Johnson, Anna Kassman-McKerrell, Sekiichi Kato, Barbara Kaucky, Linda Keane, Rose Kelly, H. Nyunny Kim, Jeff Kingston, Eriko Kinoshita, Steven Koch, Carol Krinsky, Reinhard Kropf, James Lambiasi, Martin Van Der Linden, Charles MacAdam, Toshiko MacAdam, Shuto Machko, Nancy Gonzalez Madynski, John Medina, Shilpa Mehta. Jayne Merkel, Mary Miss, Jørgen Moe, Maki Onishi, Michiko Ono Paddock, Matt Passmore and Rebar Group, Césare Peeren, Jane Perry, Linda Pollak, Nancy Pressman, Todd Rader, Chris Reed, Brent Richter, Jackie Safier, Katherin Sauerwein, Martha Schwartz, Sherry Schweighardt, Martin Seligman, Ken Smith, Bernard Spiegal, Siv Helene Stangeland, Lisa Switkin, Sarah Tabata, Riho Tanaka, Takaharu Tezuka, Yui Tezuka, Karl-Chirstian Thies, Meredith Thomas, Martha Thorne, Nancy Thorne, Matt Urbanski, David Walker, Peter Walker, Sam Wang, Nicky Washida, Bill Whitaker, Robert Whitaker, Clément Willemin, Penny Wilson, Katie Winter, Rob Wilson, Carla Yanni, and Dan Zohar.

Amy Ogata, Nicholas Day, and Sam Abrams have each written works that set a context to make my job easier. Firestone Library at Princeton University has been my perfect haven in which to write.

My family continues to nurture me. I know that I can always—and do constantly—rely on Jon Solomon’s critical perceptions, shrewd sense of design, and capacity to bring people together for my benefit; Debra Solomon’s encouragement and insistence that I write a second playground book; Nicole Scheller’s insightful viewpoints from the vantage of a good teacher; and Gil Carmel’s smart assessments of computer games and play.

Grandchildren Maggie, Noa, and Adam show me the wonder that comes from well-crafted play sites. It is a thrill to spend time with them (on and off playgrounds) and satisfying to see how their parents are enabling them to have joyful childhoods.

I happily dedicate this book to my husband, Bob Solomon. He has cooked a lot of linguini with green beans when I have been away and taken superb photos when we have traveled together. I am lucky to have such an understanding, generous, and talented spouse.

Introduction

FORGET PLAY . Dismiss, for a moment, any belief that play is valuable for children. Ignore any of the places where it could occur. Put old notions aside so that we can take a fresh look at the American playground and use bold innovative strategies to improve it.

We need to think audaciously because current discussion about play, play value, and play spaces has reached an impasse. The definition of play remains fluid. It could be teachers guiding an open-ended and unstructured exercise. Or it could be pursuits that are engaging and that elicit pleasurable emotions.¹ It could be activities without goals, whimsical ways to participate in new actions.² Behavioral scientists support a definition that describes internal motivation without a specific purpose; the means have greater value than the end product.³ Play workers in the United Kingdom may have the most sustainable outlook, one that blends well with the reality of outdoor space. They maintain that play is action that is freely chosen, personally directed and intrinsically motivated.⁴

In contemporary American culture, play is either ignored or idealized.⁵ Assessments of play value sit on a broad spectrum: one play proponent holds that depriving children and youth of play turns them into mass murderers.⁶ On the opposite side are those who feel that play is expendable, especially from school-day activities. Play advocates may be overzealous in attributing benefits [to] play, while play deriders may be too swift to discount the usefulness of play.⁷ On both sides of the debate, anecdotes often take the place of evidence.

Even pronouncements from academic circles yield conflicting results. Play is contrasted with directives or school testing. The book Play = Learning, which published papers from an earlier conference of the same name, imparts comprehensive documentation of play theories and studies but leans toward guided play as the preferred prototype. We all want to believe that play bolsters language development, aids conflict resolution, and enhances the ability to understand others, but some researchers argue that any hard evidence for how play in itself contributes to many of these developments is not easy to provide.⁸ One diligent investigator says that the empirical record supporting the unequivocal value of play is weak.⁹ Play’s role in supporting problem solving and creativity, proposed in the 1970s, was not reproducible in double-blind experiments in the 1980s.¹⁰ Free play can be useful if it means that children can be independent and if it allows for social learning and physical exercise . . . [but the] educational (cognitive) benefits of free play with objects are probably exaggerated.¹¹ Play England, the remarkable advocacy and research association, issued a review of the literature that found a better link between play and motivation, emotion, and resilience than cognitive gain.¹²

The concept of play, with so many inconsistencies, can no longer be the sole justification for monetary expenditures on public spaces for children. Studying it exclusively is not rigorous enough to protect and enhance play spaces. Even Johan Huizinga’s magisterial Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture (1938, translated and published in English in 1949) is more philosophical than specific for our needs. We must shift the discussion so that people who commission playgrounds—and those who design them—will have suitable information with which to inform their decisions, and to extricate themselves from excessive worries about insurance costs or liability. To that end, this book makes an argument for American public play spaces, based on broad, systemic questions rather than nostalgia or wistful aspirations. What do kids need to thrive? What factors affect how children mature emotionally, socially, culturally? What type of experiences will help them become competent adults? How do we provide unpredictable daily occurrences that will enable kids to think through unexpected challenges? How can we prepare them to engage with a future we cannot envision?

Data drawn from the behavioral sciences (and, to a lesser degree, from the neurosciences) provide some useful starting points.¹³ Recent studies, some of which are just in their infant stage, hint at the experiences kids need so that they can mature. Underlying these investigations is the concept that the brain is more plastic and changeable, even in adulthood, than ever thought before.¹⁴ We know that nature and nurture are interconnected; these links, once limited to theory, now can be measured with precise tools or mapped with sophisticated imaging. There is an interactive flux, flowing in both directions, between biology and experience.¹⁵ These findings indicate that children should have as many varied and broad opportunities as possible.

This book, taking advantage of established and emerging information, integrates science and design so that any person—but particularly American urban policy-makers, designers, educators, and parents—will have a working knowledge of what kids might require to enhance their lives. The book provides a resource that illustrates what recent findings could look like when translated into real physical spaces. The goal is to apply new criteria to designs for children’s outdoor space and to let a broad audience see that exciting results are attainable, attractive, and affordable.

This book demonstrates how architects and landscape architects, particularly in Europe and Japan, have embraced and, in some cases, already incorporated scientific hypotheses into their designs. Some of these designers are aware of current scientific thinking; others have relied on their own backgrounds and histories to create progressive designs that mesh well with scientific thought. These solutions reflect notions of national identity and conceptions of childhood that encourage innovative solutions for children. They show how an overarching allegiance to a common good sustains a creative approach to play, one that promotes artists joining the design process.

While Americans tend to devise ways to protect children, we should be aware of options in other parts of the world and look to those models, which invest trust in young people, for approaches to children’s outdoor activities. Foreign solutions for public space often avoid the rigidity and predictability of traditional playground equipment. Their constructions are cost effective, usually sustainable and accessible, and frequently unique. By bringing attention to these success stories, this book hopes to fill voids that designers and patrons know exist. Architects and landscape architects need a framework to go to for advice on playgrounds. Patrons need a resource that encourages them to initiate innovative projects. This book hopes to satisfy both requirements, wherever possible using examples of universal design that are accessible and welcoming.

Time is of the essence. Large American cities, which frequently allocate $2 to $3 million to upgrade a playground, are currently getting very little return on their investment. The same is true in midsize cities and towns, where $400,000 to $750,000 has become the norm. Compared with the cost of erecting a school or library, the playground could be a bargain if these same sites were tools for stimulating children’s daily lives and forging stronger intergenerational communities. Unlike the school or library, most playground equipment is expected to last only fifteen years. This is a shockingly short life span. Our hope should be to find solutions that can be easily renewed or possibly last longer.¹⁶

American children inhabit a world that has shrunk to home, school, and planned activities. A proliferation of indoor pay-to-play businesses beckon. A focus on indoor activities has been visible for at least a decade. In 2004, Wisk laundry detergent helped to underwrite a careful survey of mothers’ and children’s outdoor play which found that 70 percent of the responding moms had played outdoors every day as children, whereas only 31 percent of their own children did.¹⁷ The soap maker, which allied its report with its own America Needs Dirt campaign, feared that kids were not playing outside and no longer getting dirty.

We offer children and their families few inducements to include public space in their rounds, and they become increasingly absent from the community.¹⁸ The physical state of American play areas deters visitors and aids the antiplay voices. Designs, endlessly replicated across America, suggest that kids are not doing anything constructive. To a certain extent, that is true. Spiffy recent installations contribute little to children’s maturity or their sense of independence. One or two pieces of bland metal or plastic equipment dominate the sites. These objects are often single-directional—forcing kids to go up, across, and down. A few additional supplements, such as low faux rocks or a restyled jungle gym that is close to the ground, do little to vary scenarios or offset the static ensemble. All the time we hear that children are living overly structured lives, yet we typically offer them close-ended play that reinforces the burden.¹⁹

The terrain of patronage is enlarging, thereby creating a shift that could alter the status quo. Parks departments in San Francisco and Chicago are expanding their mission to include adult exercise sections or dog runs adjacent to playgrounds. Both options enliven outdoor venues. New York is among a number of densely populated cities that are beginning to reopen schoolyards to the public during nonschool hours, saving valuable resources, providing more neighborhood-friendly locations for play, and setting a tone for valuing community street life.²⁰ Municipal transportation agencies are commissioning public spaces that include activities for children. The roof for the San Francisco TransBay Transit Center (Cesar Pelli, architect and PWP Landscape Architecture), a hub for trains, streetcars, and buses that will open in 2017, will cater to leisure and its plans include a dedicated play zone. This ecologically diverse five-acre park, sixty feet above ground, will be the center of a burgeoning residential and commercial scheme.

Play spaces can carry marketing cachet and economic potential. Midcentury shopping malls used to embed a few play pieces into a central interior space; even earlier, in the 1920s, department stores provided supervised play spaces.²¹ Recently some retail developers have taken advantage of adjacent exterior space to establish public play spaces that are attractive to a variety of ages and enhance the streetscape. Adults participate because these are disarming activities, not because parents feel that they must vigilantly watch their offspring. Toshiko Horiuchi MacAdam created a net structure (2012) for the retail district of Zaragoza, Spain. In Tokyo, local landscape firm Earthscape designed a multiage piece for the enormous Lazona Kawasaki Plaza (Ricardo Bofill Taller de Arquitectura) shopping mall. Located on a street corner and next to both a surface parking lot for the shopping center and its enclosed garage, the playground is a series of hard rubber folded planes. People of all ages run up to the top of one pyramid, then swoop down into another before starting another ascent; one surface is flat to allow sliding into sand at the bottom.

FIGURE I.1 | Earthscape Landscape Architecture, play space on edge of Lazona Kawasaki Plaza shopping mall (Ricardo Bofill Taller de Arquitectura), Tokyo, 2006. Author’s photograph, 2013.

Residential developers, who represent an industry that at times has resisted integrating child-friendly spaces into their projects, are now looking to playgrounds as a marketing tool. In San Francisco, a developer hired PWP Landscape Architecture to envision a public park adjacent to a proposed residential project. PWP drew a four-thousand-square-foot play garden with sculpted rocks, sand, and running water where children might climb, splash, or socialize. Similarly, the developers of Northshore Hamilton Park, a mixed-use development on the site of the old Brisbane (Australia) wharfs, commissioned artist Fiona Foley (through Urban Art Projects) to design a playscape. Their goal was to enrich community gatherings and to boost sales. In Gloucestershire (UK), purchasers of upscale houses made a ruckus when a promised playground irritated the aesthetic taste of neighbors and the developer closed it off until the company could repaint it. When the delay did not quickly end, some resident parents let it be known that the playground was one of the reasons they had purchased homes in this subdivision.²²

The healthcare industry is also taking notice. American pediatricians are finding themselves in a dual role as both advocates for and patrons of play spaces. Their professional association has issued major reports that urge parents to allow their children to have more unstructured free time. These reports recommend that pediatricians learn about the play resources in their communities so they can make recommendations to parents.²³ These are professionals who are familiar with the science of play; they grasp the significance of kids having opportunities for joyful nonacademic experiences. They are committed to increasing public play spaces, but they often have no idea of the implications for the built environment. They need to have more visual references, and they need to see what it would look like to apply their conclusions to groundbreaking designs.

In The Hague, in the Netherlands, a residential care facility (a type of assisted living mostly for elderly people) was built next to a public park (Billie Holiday Park, named for the adjacent street) that wasn’t attracting many users. Once the building complex was completed, the municipal authorities recognized that an upgraded playground for families would be suitable and useful. Design firm Carve (founded by Elger Blitz and Mark van der Eng) came up with a single, multigenerational structure that is the new heart of the neighborhood.²⁴ The designers smartly provided a constructed playhill with seating ledges, bicycle racks, swings, sand, climbing frame, embedded trampolines, and a six-foot-high climbing wall. These nestle into a continuous surface; users have many options, and the overall amorphous shape fits snuggly onto the land. Carve has shown how it is possible to create a striking object that appeals to children, offers them varied opportunities, and draws together a diverse population, all for a modest sum (less than half of what a small American city would pay for standard equipment and surfacing).²⁵ The park, once desolate, is now flourishing because so many people gravitate to this play piece.²⁶

FIGURE I.2 | Carve. Billie Holiday Park, The Hague, Netherlands, 2013. The materials for the play piece are reinforced concrete placed over geo-textile (for shape) and a metal frame. Courtesy of Carve.nl. Photograph by Marleen Beek, 2013.

Caveats and Confidence

This book comes with a few caveats and a lot of optimism. This is a book that is largely about outdoor urban spaces (the World Bank estimates that more than 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas), primarily but not exclusively for children, and how those spaces might be improved. There is observational evidence that kids play longer and more complexly when they are outside.²⁷ This book does not, for the most part, address sports, games (unless they are spontaneous), or organized recreation. Wherever possible, it searches for multigenerational solutions and for ones that tap into the skills of artists of all stripes, including architects and landscape architects.

Since there is concern that biologists and neuroscientists have been too quick to make a connection between mammalian and human behavior, this book does not rely on animal studies for evidence.²⁸ Nor does this book contain an exhaustive discussion about achieving healthy bodies, combating obesity, or handling bullying; those concerns raise other issues that demand separate books with nuanced investigations.²⁹ Similarly, and because this is a book about public venues, it does not dwell on conversations about how parents can love or be tender with their offspring. Other books investigate those issues.

Each chapter of this book highlights a different value that is missing in most playgrounds: risk, mastery (with the possibility to fail on the way to success), executive function (planning, problem solving, juggling working memory), friendship (including having pals of differing ages), possible exposure to nature, and rough-and-tumble play. These categories are not arbitrary or definitive; they represent some of the topics that are most prevalent in contemporary discussions of child development, ones that also are most adaptable to design programs. The choice of playground examples was more subjective. Most of the playgrounds shown here exhibit multiple characteristics; they represent a particular success but could easily fit into several of the categories. To highlight the most approachable play spaces, this book cites cases that have no admission cost; in a few instances, there is an entry charge, but the design could be a prototype for another free, local setting.

This is a positive moment for play spaces in America. There is a small but growing backlash, evident since 2000, against the current state of affairs: patrons, administrators, and parents are ready to listen to novel ideas. Having feared liability and insurance costs for too long, and realizing that playgrounds are fast becoming an overpriced resource that adds little to a community, some adults are willing to consider alternatives. Sales of Conn and Hal Iggulden’s The Dangerous Book for Boys and Gever Tulley’s and Julie Spiegler’s 50 Dangerous Things (You Should Let Your Children Do) evidence a deep yearning for less constriction in children’s lives.³⁰ Richard Louv’s Last Child in the Woods similarly hit a nerve. The greening schoolyards movement is gaining momentum.

We might be ready to hear a message that is relevant, even if it is almost thirty years old. In 1985, architect Aase Eriksen, who practiced in both Denmark and the United States, wrote a prescient book entitled Playground Design: Outdoor Environments for Learning