PLAYLINK / Free Play Network

Have some of the photographers actuall accompanied young children to a place for play?

After viewing the exhibition of photo's and comments it did make me question if infact many of the critics had in fact ever taken a group of young children to a play area. I am a mother of two preschool children who both love going to our local park which would most probably be classified in your WOE section. The ideals of no fencing, no age segregation and streams running through sound lovely in theory but in reality would be a nightmare when taking my children and their cousins alone as I often do. The softer surfacing may well be costly but gives me the peace of mind to allow my children the freedom to explore and climb as they feel confident to do so. I am all for more money and planning being invested in play for children but I would hope people with appropriate experience would be consulted.
Posted by: Jenni Boyd, Primary teacher, Bolton , -1 June 2020, 2-:19

Having provided a number of the photos of places of woe, I really must respond to this.

All the photos that I provided were of local places of woe that I know well, as I have been taking my child and his friends to these local parks for many years. There is no photographic trickery about this. These are genuine places of woe.

The irony is that many of these playgrounds are sited in otherwise lovely parks, but there are problems.

For example, the photo titled "Dull Cliche"
(http://www.freeplaynetwork.org.uk/playlink/exhibition/woepossibility/woe08.htm) is in a beautiful park, BUT, most of the park is given over to a golf course and the staff are sniffy about children coming near. It is in an isolated position, but there are no toilets or other facilities, making you feel as if you are in a bleak and vulnerable position.

Similarly the playground in "Health & Safety Executive Press Release" (http://www.freeplaynetwork.org.uk/playlink/exhibition/woepossibility/woe10.htm) might accurately be renamed Drug User Park. Although it is next to the local secondary school and is mainly used by secondary school age children it offers nothing for this age range. Doh.

Green Flag Award playground
(http://www.freeplaynetwork.org.uk/playlink/exhibition/woepossibility/woe09.htm)
is a truely dismal playground - the last resort of the desparate. This playground offers little, even for preschoolers. What were Green Flag thinking???

In some cases these playgrounds do provide a service of sorts for young children, although I would say that the opportunities that they provide are fairly limited and lacking in imagination.

In my experience most children become bored with these facilities between the ages of about 5 and 8. (Just the age when you really want them to be able to get out and about, not parked in front of the play station.)

As the Places of Possibility show there are good places for play out there. It can be done and it's what most parents and children want. Lets use these examples to push for more diverse and challenging play opportunities in our neighbourhoods, not just for pre-schoolers, but for all our children.
Posted by: Nicola Butler, Director, Free Play Network, -1 June 2020, 2-:19

Picking up Helen's point, one that is demonstrated in some of the photos in the Places of Woe: Places of Possibility Exhibition: there is no reason in principle why age ranges should be segregated, though this may be the right thing to do in particular circumstances - though the 'particular circumstances' will be significantly less prevalent than is now the case.

It is often no more than unthinking habit that the assumption is made that age ranges need as a matter of course to be segregated.
Posted by: Benard Spiegal, Principal, PLAYLINK, -1 June 2020, 1-:25

Yes.

I take my daughter (7) to our local playground - a busy but rather boring one and after she has done a few things there she likes to take me over the stream - which is in the park but outside the playground - and to her 'favourite tree' to climb - unless she's managed to get me to the cafe first!

Different ages play in only slightly segregated spaces at the Chatsworth playground - and I know people have to pay for this one but there's no REAL reason why we couldn't be providing these types of spaces elsewhere
Posted by: Helen Woolley, Senior Lecturer, University of Sheffield, -1 June 2020, 1-:24

On the Safer Surface issue. I am always alarmed by the numbers of children who tell me during play area consultations that they want "the rubber stuff so we want hurt ourselves". I'm sure that the numbers of broken arms and legs due to this misplaced reliance on the rubber actually makes it dangerous to have it there to give people peace of mind.

As regards fencing I still lean towards it on the grounds of keeping dogs out having had our seven year covered in dog poo on several occasions and feeling that is a major risk. However, having seen a play area in Christchurch where a fence was prohibited (due to it's being on the flood plain I believe) it did strike me as very free flowing and wonderful.
Posted by: Brian Evans-Johnson, Community Play & Recreation Facilitator, Our Space 2, -1 June 2020, 1-:14

In answer to Jenni's first point let me explain that Our project 'PlaySpaces' was set up to provide playworkers in outdoor places and these obviously include parks and play areas. What i would ask is to go and visit you local play area at around 4-5 pm when all the parents with preschool children have left and see who is playing there. In my experience the answer is Nobody. We often find that the play area just doesnt live up to the demands of the older (i'm talkin 8+ here)children, so much so that we have arrived at a seemingly empty play area to find groups of children playing (building dens etc.) in the Surounding scrub and woodland. Whilst i do agree that there is a place for soft surfacing (if only to give parents peace of mind enough to actually let thier play out)there is a great need out there for more adventurous, challenging and exciting places for children to play.
When my children were younger i to took them to my local play areas but i seem to recall they had a much happier time in the local woods, climbing trees and getting dirty.
Finaly on you last point, I whole heartedly agree that that people with appropriate expereince should be consulted, but i sometimes feel our parks and gardens department (who put in and look after most of these play areas) dont even know we exist.
Posted by: Paddy Mulligan, Outreach Play Development Officer, PlaySpaces, -1 June 2020, 1-:14

The points you make are perfectly reasonable - they also highlight areas of anxiety and misconceptions that too often prevent the creation of good places for play. I'll have a stab at responding to your points:

1. the places of possibility we show - some, not all, with no fencing, no age segregation,and a stream running though the area - are not fantasy places, but existing play places that children and adults visit and enjoy. This, at the very least, suggests that there is scope for thinking differently about what constitutes a good play place.

2. As indicated in the exhibition, the 'benefits' of softer surfacing are highly questionable. It may offer peace of mind, but that may be simply a source of false or mistaken comfort.

3. PLAYLINK's position is NOT that we should institute an alternative rule that says 'no fencing, no segregation, always a stream'. Our approach, and that of many of similiar persuasion, is something like this: establish general principles about what a good place for play should offer; in a public and open way discuss issues of risk and play and ask, for example, what exactly is a 'serious injury' in the context of play?'; apply general principles to particular situations - this will sometimes mean a fence, or partial fencing and so forth. But often not. Almost certainly, much more often not. But this approach is different from following a rule that is applicable in all cases.

Posted by: Benard Spiegal, Principal, PLAYLINK, -1 June 2020, 1-:12