> On the other hand, maybe those rough-and-tumble recreation areas of yesteryear served as an early life lesson that the world was a harsh and unforgiving place.
If that's the best argument in favor, I'll stick with the current playgrounds. Kids got seriously injured when I was growing up. One of them broke his leg. At least one broke an arm. Smaller injuries like getting scraped up and having bruises were very common. I don't think the cost-benefit analysis worked out in favor of dangerous playgrounds. Most of the arguments in favor apply equally well to having kids jump out of moving vehicles.
> Playgrounds for children are a relative new invention, especially for the unwashed masses. The notion that children require a dangerous feeling playground to become well rounded and mentally tough adults is silly.
Prior to playgrounds, children climbed trees and did all kinds of other edge-pushing play. Modern urban/suburban (and even in many cases rural) environments provide less opportunity for that.
> Giving kids the ability to assess risk accurately, and develop the skill to take that risk, is the important part.
Unless the playgrounds magically changed brain development so that kids got well-developed executive function much earlier than human children develop that under normal circumstances, there is no conceivable playground design that could do that.
And older playgrounds weren't, in any case, designed to do that, or with the risks built in intentionally for any particular purpose. They were built with less structured consideration of risk, which made the actual risks (and the obviousness of them, even to adults) essentially random.
> Another thing I noticed is that playgrounds are not "safe" - the kids can climb tall structures, play with animals, etc. Kids are expected to progressively develop the ability to independently take care of themselves
My sister talked to a playground designer in Germany once.
He explained that they deliberately make the toys slightly dangerous -- if you fell off a structure, you wouldn't need to go to hospital, but it would hurt enough to teach a lesson.
They explicitly want to school kids' sense of risk, and at the same time, self-reliance. And offer a sense of achievement if you dare and master, say, a "dangerous" climb.
" The entire class sprinted to the playground every recess period. There was a broken arm every 4-5 years, but I sure felt like it was worth the risk. And still do."
I'd be OK with it if a broken arm wasn't such a dire financial incident. I imagine it is very difficult to let kids do things like climbing trees, playing on monkey bars, or jumping on a trampoline if you are looking at a deductible that a fair chunk of your monthly income (if not all of it).
I'll also mention that in the 90's, the city I lived in was working on adding playgrounds to elementary schools because they didn't all have them. The existing playgrounds were put in by parents, which really meant that there weren't playgrounds in poor areas. They weren't building tic-tac-toe on the ground, either. They weren't necessarily metal, but still included slides and climbing and swings.
> To put it bluntly, the increased happiness of millions of children is worth a couple children's health, or even lives.
I don't think that's an accurate reframing. The opportunity cost isn't just happiness (by making playgrounds boring, presumably) but also safety, and therefore lives, in other areas. When you hit diminishing returns trying to make playgrounds 100% safe, spending the same resources on e.g. road design will save more lives.
I agree with the argument, but I'm skeptical of the claim that "injury rates from de-risked playgrounds are not materially lower". If these playgrounds are more expensive to build and deliver no benefit at all, surely they would have been abandoned long ago.
> Kids in an urban environment cannot really play football in the playground because [...]
I think the problem here is that bigger kids scare the target audience for a playground away. Unless you are thinking 3 year olds roaming a bit kicking a ball?
But I agree on your point. Safety is not a problem, really. Anything that can be climbed is plenty unsafe enough already. There is no need to add stones underneath also.
It probably comes down to parents not having time, or willing to take the time, to take their children to the playground. "Safetyism" is just a scapegoat.
Todays playgrounds are way cooler and funnier than those I had ...
> A majority of playgrounds are “post and deck” systems with standard swings, slides, and monkey bars in one piece of equipment."
This is not true where I currently live. It's a recently new suburban area (less than 15 years old) in an Australian city with a great number of parks scattered through it. Nearly every park has a playground and they are all different and all very high quality. Indeed, I'm quite amazed at how much money has been spent installing playgrounds. There is a great variety of what is on offer - some have latticed rope climbing nets, some have climbing walls, some have flying foxes, plus many other very imaginative features. They all have soft surfaces under them to cushion falls and most have a shade cloth over them. I am frankly envious of what is on offer to children these days - it is vastly superior and more exciting than what I had as a child.
Trees and other outdoor features still exist that are 'undesigned' and can provide significant risk and thrill to the more adventurous child who climbs up and on them. But I applaud the increased safety built into the modern playground. To me it appears to have spurred innovation and imaginative design, not hampered it.
> How many extra lives are lost to obesity because children never learn how fun it is to move outdoors? Everything is so safe an non-fun.
I've yet to find a kid that doesn't find a flat field of grass outdoors to be fun, so if there's a problem here, it's parents keeping kids indoors, not playground safety being too good.
> Opportunities to engage in outdoor free play—and risky play in particular—have declined significantly in recent years, in part because safety measures have sought to prevent all play-related injuries rather than focusing on serious and fatal injuries.
Of course. "injuries" don't matter, only serious and fatal ones do. A scratch is nothing and is healed in a couple of days. Even breaking a leg should not be considered serious. It's annoying, esp. for the parents, but it's in no way life-threatening.
Although I'm sure it has happened, it seems unlikely that any kind of play in a playground could result in serious injury or death. Let the kids play outside. And don't force them to put a coat in cold weather if they don't want to! Let them decide!
Perhaps I failed to emphasize, but the last bit was important to my point. Studies have shown motor skills are important for kids and can affect later academic performance, and good playgrounds help kids develop motor skills.
> Playgrounds for children are a relative new invention, especially for the unwashed masses.
Indeed... yet somehow you don't think they play any role in how kids develop now compared to before they became common?
> I debate that this is possible. You can minimize the dangers (like having no solid rock underneath, but sand), but with bad luck(and skill) even a small fall can break a neck.
When you are a child you need a LOT of bad luck to achieve that (in contrast to being an adult), if the playground is properly designed.
> it seems unlikely that any kind of play in a playground could result in serious injury or death.
I think more important than the setting is ensuring they know how to play safely. Third most common cause of death is accidental self inflicted injuries. A lot of those are falls.
> When they published their guidelines in 1993, they suggested most existing playground surfaces, which were usually asphalt, dirt, or grass, needed to be replaced with pits of wood or rubber mulch or sand, prompting many schools and parks to rip their old playgrounds out entirely.
Growing up and doing most of my playground playing in the early 90's on a playground almost identical to this wooden masterpiece [0], I feel like some of those older/dangerous playgrounds should've stayed.
Kids can still go iceskating, even though it causes lots of injuries and you have to sign a waiver [1], why not let kids play on the better/dangerous playgrounds after their parents sign a waiver?
Sure, some playgrounds may be mind-numbingly dull, but those are a well-intentioned response to older playgrounds that posed serious physical dangers. You can argue that getting a little bit scraped up once in a while isn't bad for children; it may teach them lessons about how to avoid such future mistakes - but plenty of children have sustained more serious injuries on playgrounds that allowed them to climb much higher than they could on, say, a tree in nature (speaking from my life experience). I think the article conflates the issue of modern over parenting with safer playground design - which if done right, can only be a good thing.
> I wish there were more free playgrounds that can also be used by adults, spread around like the ones for kids. I also like ropeways, climbing high, swings etc.
It's not a major investment on your part. Buy a few ropes, a swing and make your own in your garden or a nearby forest.
If you live in a location which prevents you from living a healthy life, perhaps you should think about moving.
> Ever seen children outside playing? It's anything but lame.
Where did children play before the invention of the lawn mower?
> Can city parks at least be "for humans"?
You mean, at least, besides the cities themselves, the parking lots, the industrial areas, the roads and highways, the suburbs. Yeah, at least. Poor humans. Give them at least the parks.
If that's the best argument in favor, I'll stick with the current playgrounds. Kids got seriously injured when I was growing up. One of them broke his leg. At least one broke an arm. Smaller injuries like getting scraped up and having bruises were very common. I don't think the cost-benefit analysis worked out in favor of dangerous playgrounds. Most of the arguments in favor apply equally well to having kids jump out of moving vehicles.
reply