67,000 page views and 37,000 unique visitors last month...hey, thanks! Especially since I remember how excited I was when the blog first hit 60,000 page views TOTAL. I'll do my best to keep you supplied with inspiring playscapes.
Above, the maze at the Dell Children's Hospital in Austin Texas (photo by peter tsai via flickr) and a temporary playground maze for a Renaissance Fair in Ohio [via bloggingohio].
One of the things we discussed at the playground chat in London was the idea of infinite vs. finite play. I've continued to think about that alot, along with the idea of autonomous vs. directed play, and how those are shaped by the built environment of the playground.
The Dell maze is impressive as an architectural construct but can't be reconfigured in any way. The temporary maze, on the other hand, can be reconfigured just by moving the fabric panels, so that the experience is always new; it moves more towards the infinite.
But probably only the grown-up mazekeeper (is there such a thing as the mazekeeper? Veery cool job title) is allowed to make changes in the walls of the maze, so it scores low on autonomy. Allowing the walls to become gates, so that the children could continually adjust their environment, would push the play experience even further toward the infinite and the autonomous. It would change the definition of a maze--traditionally a finite path with a definite goal--but allow for the continual creation of new games. (I bet they'd run more and faster, too...everybody moans about childhood obesity without thinking about how boring we've made physical activity.)
How can playground installations change to move toward autonomy and infinity?
I'm thinking of how we (brothers, sisters, and an assortment of neighbors!) used to play on the backyard swingset. We'd adjust the chain length on the swings (high, low, asymmetric) and prop up the slide for different angles. We'd raise the slide up completely, and slide the picnic table under it, then add another slide off the picnic table for a two-stager. It didn't really work that well but the fun was that we made it ourselves.
I know that this is what adventure playgrounds are all about. But the fact is that great as adventure playgrounds are, I don't think they're ever going to be widely available. A more egalitarian solution is to find ways to move existing structures, already acceptable in the public mind, towards autonomy and infinity.
I remember as a kid this amazing hidden playground that was built entirely by volunteers out of scrap material on an empty piece of land adjacent to a public park. I'm sure it was incredibly dangerous by today's standards and is probably torn down by now, but I remember how awesome it was to tear around it like a maniac and figure out how all the home-built pieces were supposed to work.
ReplyDeleteYour blog was such an inspiration when the PTO asked us (my husband an I) on input for the playground remodel. Lack of funds prevented more amazing things from hapenning but we added pops of color and a baseball field! Thank you for all the inspiration!
ReplyDeleteOooooh, fascinating topic! This comes very close to what I do at work: laying out game levels. I could go on at length, but here are some tidbits:
ReplyDeleteIt takes more of a designer's time to make a play area that can be experienced in different ways. How often is the player expected to visit an area? If only once or twice, it makes sense to stick to a linear experience (like the hospital playground). If we expect or want them to return repeatedly, it makes sense to include multiple ways for a player to progress through the area.
We do have the option in game design of setting up areas that randomly regenerate in different configurations every time they are loaded. The down-side: every variant looks like every other. Boring! A bit like the cloth maze that is reconfigured by a maze-keeper, in fact. Although such a maze looks infinitely fun, the fun wears off after a few times through.
Putting a player in control of the environment has its uses: such as giving players control over opening and closing a door. But the more control you give them, the more they are able to disrupt both their enjoyment of the space, and the enjoyment of others. In a multi-player area, one poorly placed door under player control can allow a single person to ruin the play experience for numerous others.
Then there are "sandbox" type games that are entirely in the hands of players, essentially letting them build their own game level. These are notorious in multi-player settings, for the same reason an unguarded chalkboard in a high school is notorious: somebody will draw a penis on it. It's inevitable.
I don't think there is any one right approach to building a good playground any more than I think there is one right approach to building a good game level.
As usual, thanks for the awesome blog!
Thanks, La Tendedera! I rarely get feedback on how the blog has helped so I appreciate knowing you found it inspiration. And theklarichter, your scrap material place was an adventure playground...do you have any old photos or know the location?
ReplyDeleteMichelle, I KNEW you would have some good insight on this post; I even wondered what you might say as I was writing it! I wish more playground designers had experience in virtual games; I think it would make them more creative. I agree that autonomy still needs boundaries, and there should be lots of choices in a playscape so that kids can move on to something else. But this was a key quote for me: "It takes more of a designer's time to make a play area that can be experienced in different ways."
Often, the playground designer or installer or manufacturer or whoever just hasn't taken that extra time. It's 'easier' to pay a bunch of money and install a big preconceived platform and say 'we did it!'.
:) Arcady, you're making me want to switch careers to playground design!
ReplyDelete