Playscapes: Seeding place in space
A space to play, a place to be, the playground fosters an environment that is tremendously unique. It is such an environment that invites meaningful experiences, both ephemeral and endless: a child’s fun, an adult’s nostalgia. The space we call a playground is both dynamic and static, whilst for many, the place we call a playground feels playful and memorable. Such qualities can mediate the dichotomy between space and place, a connection that comes more implicitly and explicitly forbidden in the urban paradigm.
Energy: Kinetic and potential
Titling this essay, ‘Kinetic and Potential, Kinetic is Potential’, delineates a two-fold for the topic I am to explore. This discussion aims to unravel the public playground body in post-war Amsterdam, to explore its dual sense of the kinetic and potential: forms of energy within play and intangible elements of the architecture.
It is pertinent to confront this notion of energy, for which in the principle of physics it can be categorised into two main classes: kinetic energy and potential energy. Kinetic energy is a form of energy possessed by an object due to its motion. Potential energy is a stored form of energy due to the position of the object. The title that emphasises ‘Kinetic is Potential’ rather than ‘Kinetic and Potential’ follows the law of 1 conservation which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and transformed. Thus, the kinetic and potential stores are connected through and for quotidian objects in motion. Although traditional playgrounds often feature mobile equipment such as the seesaw and the swing, Aldo Van Eyck developed static forms in his playground designs. Nevertheless, his unmovable play apparatus literally and figuratively drove children to move and play. This poses the question towards the presence of kinetic and potential 2 forms in Van Eyck’s playgrounds and the connection they may have with each other, hence a conception of the ‘in-between’ that lies through his designs.
Postwar Netherlands was largely characterised by economised and rushed pre-war ideals towards the urban planning of the city of Amsterdam. Each design amongst Van Eyck’s 700 playgrounds, and beyond, vary in uniqueness as they were site-specific. Thoroughly filled with enigmatic forms of threshold, geometry and direction, Van Eyck’s playground designs demarcate the perception of the playscape for the user, at the scale of the child: a growing individual experiencing the early stages of space and place. Although Van Eyck was a member of Team 10, his perspective drove an approach recasting the modernist movement around CIAM that characterised functionality and euclidean
Through his notion of the ‘in-between’, Aldo Van Eyck demanded almost a disruption of distinct boundaries. In
1
*Space is physical space, location, physical geography. Place gives space a meaning, often a connection to a personal or cultural identity.
Kalsi, Aman, and Balani, Nikhail. “Simple Mechanics: Work, Energy and Power.” Chapter. In Physics for the Anaesthetic Viva, 9–10. Cambridge: Cambridge 1 University Press, 2016. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316181515.005.
Ligtelijn, Vincent. 2019. “Aldo Van Eyck and the Amsterdam Playgrounds”. Docomomo Journal, no. 61 (November):30-41. https://doi.org/ 2 10.52200/61.A.N2T5PK5P. , p. 38
Ibid, p .34 3
Fig. Transfers of kinetic and potential energy on Aldo Van Eyck’s climbing frame (Playground name, unknown) [left], Equations for Kinetic and Potential Energy [right]Play is Kinetic
During and prior to the 1940s, most playgrounds in Amsterdam were managed by playground associations where families had to pay to become members for their children to access these playgrounds. Children who did not have memberships for these playgrounds often played on the streets , traditionally forming woonerven (a living street). 4
Approaching the second half of the 20th century, marked a post-war period for Amsterdam. The city was characterised by empty lots that found themselves placed within interstitial spaces of housing developments and war-damaged historic sites. Such spaces that nurtured the 5 notion of the in-between, drove an opportunity for Van Eyck to put his insights into imagination and relativity that formed into practice and architecture and thus into space and place. Public playgrounds filled such interstitial spaces, which overall formed a net-like pattern through the city.
Within the center of Amsterdam, Dijkstraat, sits a playground designed by Van Eyck, where a house once stood prior to its demolition in the Second World War. Built in 1954, the playground measures approximately 10 x 25m and is bordered lengthways by the high walls of the adjacent four-story buildings. The low rear walls face opposite to the other end of the site that is completely open to the road, the street side of the playground. This locates the opening of the playground, situated between the indented alignment of frames. As this entrance is formed 6 between frames that are correspondingly transposed to one another, it forms a route that gradually weaves from the city into the playground and vice versa.
The main path that follows from the road entrance, then between the playground equipment, is articulated by the means of triangulated brick paving that is darker and clinker than the other paving stones. The dark areas do not constitute spaces for the playground’s apparatus as a consolidated entity, but simultaneously forms curvilinear trajectories for the user traversing between the playing equipment. As the serrated border between the darker and lighter coloured ground could be perceived as an extension of the paving, it highlights both the dichotomy and the connection between the two areas. Essentially, the continuation of the paving into the playground from the outside, the city, is not merely a straight path. The path weaves and turns, it forms a consequential tension against the lighter ground. This contributes to the overall rhythm of the playground. Its complexity drives the experiential qualities that are conceived by the turn of the triangle’s corner along with the diagonal shadows on the ground that stems from the left-sided building. Such movements penetrate the linearity of the delimited perimeter the playground sits within.
In essence, this forms spaces of in-between realms, however its boundaries are blurred. For the child, this slows down his/her journey that draws towards the playing equipment. It aligns Van Eyck’s adoption of Bergson’s theory of time in the 1960s, who conceives space as ‘durée’ (duration) in his concept of time. Van Eyck who sought to re-evaluate durée, ‘interiorizes’ time, by breaking it up and making it accessible, 7 hence the space of the path that connects and demarcates different stages of kinetic movement. Such emphasis in the shift from the perception of to experience in time, implies activity and interaction of the user, of which is play. This extends beyond physical space to the notion of activity- and identity-related place. Wherefore, the path is strongly rooted within the realm of the in-between and forms more ‘inbetweens’ via the turn of the corners and pauses within the straights. This reiterates Van Eyck’s perspective of experience-oriented space, that gains a sense of presence in the present for the user, seeding an identification for the child.
61 (November):30-41. https://doi.org/ 5 10.52200/61.A.N2T5PK5P.
Ibid, p. 37 6
Kollarova, Denisa and Van Lingen, Anna. 2015. “Seventeen Playgrounds (Aldo van Eyck)”. Expodium Utrecht. Youtube. 4 Ligtelijn, Vincent. 2019. “Aldo Van Eyck and the Amsterdam Playgrounds”. Docomomo Journal, no. , p. 33 Sack, Oliver. 2017. “‘Interiorized’ Space Aldo van Eyck’s experience-oriented approach to space”. Delft University of Technology, p. 4 7 Fig. 2 Aldo Van Eyck's Dijkstraat Playground in Amsterdam (Before & After)Lining away from the mesial plane of the playground locates the majority of play apparatus across various areas. Each is placed in correspondence to the diagonals of the flooring, with the exception of the tumbling bars positioned perpendicular and the bench sitting parallel to the high partitioning walls. By setting the play equipment towards the left and right sides of the playground longitudinally, it forms a distribution that constitutes multiple wholes within the playground, further accentuating the plethora of in-between spaces. Essentially, this expands the connection between the path and each individual piece of equipment, exceeding their own boundaries, whilst simultaneously drawing the sensation of play equipment closer to one another than their actual separating distance. Consequently, the space between these elements is as important as the elements themselves. The small voids created essentially form and frame opportunities for play in between playground equipment, large enough for children to also form their own games within.
Certainly, this sense of in-between tangible and intangible elements holds different capabilities. On the macroscale, it reiterates the vastly scattered derelict, war-damaged spaces found in between buildings of Amsterdam, that has subsequently transformed into Van Eyck’s playground works. This forms implications of Van Eyck’s approach to architectural design in general. The potentiality of his playscapes can act as an extension into the urban realm of the city that is Amsterdam. It is perhaps that this notion of the in-between within the in-between, particularly the ‘interior’ in-betweens that coincide with ‘exterior’ in-betweens, connote to the coinciding interrelationship between kinetic and potential forms, which affect and rely on the surrounding tangibility and intangibility within space and place.
This comes back to the notion of relativity, “the right size will blossom as soon as the gentle wheels of reciprocity start turning - in the climate of relativity, in the landscape of all twin phenomena”, as Van Eyck had written in 1962. In Dijkstraat and across many of Van Eyck’s 8 playgrounds, play equipment is not based on a principle of central ordination and thus not hierarchal, but a coherence between the equipment lies in their relation to one another.
Play has potential
The playground’s interplay between individual and categorized constituents extends beyond the main path within. Van Eyck placed a focal point in his compositions through the use of sandpits. In Dijkstraat, this dynamic notion is superposed by the triangular sandpit which 9 partially shifts across the bifold of the floor areas, radiating a field that spatially activates the area through its consequential tension, for what was once a demolished world war site, a thoroughly empty and mundane ground. The sandpit, composed of a triangular perimeter, consists of smaller triangular concrete jumping stones placed against a thinner wall inside. Wherefore, these smaller stones lend dimension to the sandpit, envisaging the space to feel larger in size. It allows the sandpit to be seen from a distance as merely one sandpit body. Yet, as one traverses toward the space, closing in on the sandpit, they notice the smaller triangles more clearly.
The sight of the sandpit delineates a series of spaces within a space. Accordingly, this fosters jumps within jumps and thus play within the play. Such recursive and overlapping forms of movements, particularly forms of potential energy (shifting vertical positions of the user), demonstrates a spatial opportunity toward the balance of the other lighter elements of playing equipment. This sense of dissolving, that arises from balance and the diverse experience of play within more of the smaller, singular spaces, as oppose to one’s predominant journey through the path, perpetuates the intrinsic characteristics of Van Eyck’s playground. For the child, it allows them to appreciate that space in a way that naturally associates a unique recognisation and identity to that point of play. A place is formed that blurs the boundaries with other playground apparatus.
Directly behind the sandpit, locates the round jumping stones of slightly varying heights. Each comprises a diameter of a single step, forging an epitome of transience and simplicity through the leaping movements of the user. Wherefore, the user’s contact times with the stone elements are short; for the child, he/she experiences a sense of ephemerality through rapid transitions of play. As one jumps from the stone, their potential is released; energy becomes kinetic in between points where the child’s feet has last touched. Energy returns to the potential form once the child reaches another point of grounding or jumping stones.
Strauven, Francis. 1998. “The Shape of Relativity” 8 Ligtelijn, Vincent. 2019. “Aldo Van Eyck and the Amsterdam Playgrounds”. Docomomo Journal, no. 61 (November):30-41. https://doi.org/
10.52200/61.A.N2T5PK5P. , p. 38
Co-existing realms of in-betweens within kinetic and potential stores can be conceived through the collective composition of the six jumping stones in Dijkstraat, grouped to shape an elliptical circle around one central stone of a large height. This encourages the child to perform inward jumps and outward leaps. Different heights of cylinder-shaped stones, as a result, allow staggered transitions of potential energy throughout the transition of jumping up or down stones. As this strongly relates to the Dutch children’s game of ‘Zaklopen’, otherwise known as sack jumping or bag walking, it demonstrates the extension of the intangible in-betweens: transfers between kinetic and potential forms into tangible elements of play. When jumping with jute or burlap bags during Zaklopen, there is an uncertainty of balance. This is due to the 10 tightening restrictions on the ankles at points when the feet makes contact with the ground, making it more susceptible to jump slightly toward an undesired direction and thus overall forming a route that is not merely linear. Likewise, the jumping stones invite the child to create rotational movements through their frame of reference that is the eccentricity of the outward jumping stones. This coincides with their rotational symmetry despite the stones that exist as the smallest elements of the playground. Accordingly, a journey is lead back from the jumping stones to the configuration of the bench, the sandpit, other elements and eventually the entrance. It is such a journey that is almost cyclical in spite of the playground’s delimited space that seeds itself within the houses as an interiorized environment. There is a sensation of spatiality that fosters a belonging for the child:
‘An aluminum elephant is not real, since an elephant is meant to move, and as an object in the street it is unnatural. A child can make anything out of a single form. If a play apparatus represents an animal from the start, the form dictates its construction so much that it puts an end to pure play.’11
Fundamentally, Van Eyck’s approach to forming a network of places, that is instantly recognisable for children, is reiterated. It smooths a social-spatial connection toward play designs that characterises a human-rootedness within the space. Moreover, it equates a place for the child, whether it would be new or familiar to them. The fact that each of these areas of land is unique and kept for kids to play is peripheral. In fact, each child makes these spaces their own by creating interrelationships with their own imaginations, another realm of the in-between that is intuitive. HopOnHopOffHolland.
Ultimately, children are able to identify "their" space in every playground thanks to this network of open spaces that gives them privacy to play and invent their own games, even if one shifts to another playground of Van Eyck’s designs in Amsterdam.
Meanwhile, the bar is the handshake of the playground. For the child, it can be perceived as a climbing or hanging frame. The child experiencing play elicits a subtle transference between kinetic and potential forms of energy through circumduction motions being enacted and the reciprocal reactions of swinging - similar to a pendulum in motion. Whilst this is visually evidenced in the photograph, which observes children performing casts and hanging on the aluminium bars by the entrance, it also manifests the conception of recursive ‘inbetweens’ and relativity. As demonstrated by Van Eyck’s recurring motif of ‘in-betweens’ and relativity within the Dijkstraat playground, this approach considers architecture as apropos of framing: ‘interiorizations’ of playspaces in unity with that of time.
Once where there was void is now a threshold. It is between the city and the playground, the playground and the child, the child and the place. Certainly, this varies in accordance to the distribution and size of the space(s) with the perspectival in-betweens of the child. Aldo Van Eyck’s placemaking traverses the boundaries of sensations of enclosure and openness. The uncertainty and ambiguity of kinetic and potential forms of energy owes to its existence as intangible architecture. Whilst energy forms of the kinetic and potential are neither threedimensional, neither tangible and nor precisely architecturally definable, regardless they are still artefacts of architecture. Artefacts are cultural and are formed by the human. Due to the static equipment, many of Van Eyck’s playgrounds relies on the user to a large extent. As 12 perceived on path in between Van Eyck’s play apparatus in Dijkstraat, the notion of kinetic and potential energy depends on motion. Yet, further ‘in-between’ realms still lay within and around the equipment, recursively and dynamically successively. It aligns a multilayered experience-oriented space, of which to various extents, kinetic forms and potential forms overlap. Spaces become interiorised within spaces and thus forming place(s): a child’s place, their playground.
Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/artefact 12
Accessed 20th March, 2023
Ligtelijn, Vincent. 2019. “Aldo Van Eyck and the Amsterdam Playgrounds”. Docomomo Journal, no. 61 (November):30-41. https://doi.org/ 13 10.52200/61.A.N2T5PK5P. , p. 39
Fig. 6 ’Playground equipment: drawing for the Department of Public Works, 1960’ 13Bibliography
Kalsi, Aman, and Balani, Nikhail. “Simple Mechanics: Work, Energy and Power.” Chapter. In Physics for the Anaesthetic Viva, 9–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. doi:10.1017/CBO9781316181515.005.
Lefaivre, Liane. 2002. “Aldo van Eyck : the playgrounds and the city”. Amsterdam : Stedelijk Museum ; Rotterdam : NAi Publishers, c.2002
Ligtelijn, Vincent. 2019. “Aldo Van Eyck and the Amsterdam Playgrounds”. Docomomo Journal, no. 61 (November):30-41. https://doi.org/ 10.52200/61.A.N2T5PK5P.
R, Withagen and SR, Caljouw. 2017. “Aldo van Eyck’s Playgrounds: Aesthetics, Affordances, and Creativity”. Front. Psychol. 8:1130. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01130
Kollarova, Denisa and Van Lingen, Anna. 2015. “Seventeen Playgrounds (Aldo van Eyck)”. Expodium Utrecht. Youtube.
Clarke, P. D. E. 1985. “The writings of Aldo van Eyck : a modernist sensibility introduced into architecture.” Student thesis: Doctoral Thesis › Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). The University of Bristol.
Sack, Oliver. 2017. “‘Interiorized’ Space Aldo van Eyck’s experience-oriented approach to space”. Delft University of Technology
Van Eyck, Aldo. 1962. “On the design of play equipment and the arrangement of playgrounds”. Vol. 2 Aldo van Eyck Writings
Strauven, Francis. 1998. “The Shape of Relativity”
HopOnHopOffHolland. 2020. “Old Dutch games” https://www.hoponhopoffholland.com/2020/05/15/old-dutch-games/. Accessed 19th March, 2023
Collins COBUILD Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/ english/artefact. Accessed 20th March, 2023
Image Index
(Front cover) Photograph by the author. 2019. “My brothers and I”. Cottenham Park
(Fig. 1) Left side - https://merijnoudenampsen.org/2013/03/27/aldo-van-eyck-and-the-city-as-playground/, hand written over the photograph by the author, showing the distribution of energy transfers and its optimum points.
Right side - Hand written by the author. 2023. Equations for Kinetic & Potential Energy
(Fig. 2) https://urbanresiliencebluespace.weebly.com/the-theory-of-affordances.html
(Fig. 3) https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2015/01/16/sneak-peek-aldo-van-eyck/
(Fig. 4) https://yalebooks.yale.edu/2015/01/16/sneak-peek-aldo-van-eyck/
(Fig. 5)
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Playground-at-Laurierstraat-Amsterdam-Aldo-van-Eyck-1965-Photo-by-Ed-Suister_fig4_333039805
(Fig. 6) https://www.uncubemagazine.com/blog/9318763
(Back cover) Hand drawing by the author. 2023. An atmospheric perspective
