by : Gentrit KRASNIQI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to start my acknowledgments by expressing my gratitude to my thesis advisor, Orsolya Bagdiné Fekete, to whom i am indebted for her work and advice on this thesis project. She consistently allowed this thesis project to be my own work and steered me in the right direction whenever she thought i needed it. I would like to thank the other teachers of Szent István University who advised me consistently and acknowledge their passionate participation and input. I would like to thank all of the good people that im proud to call friends of my MLA class, in particular, Soub, Gozde and Szuli, and my roommate, Anis, for their support and friendship during these two years of studies at Szent István University. Finally, i would like to thank my close family living in Kosovo and my sisters, Dafina Krasniqi Idrizaj and Deniza Krasniqi, for their continuous support and love, my best friend Taulant Metaj for his unparalleled friendship, and lastly, to my girlfriend, Hatixhe Sopjani, for her kind love and support.
SZENT ISTVÁN UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM, BUDAPEST MASTER OF ARTS IN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
REIMAGINING URBAN PLAYSCAPES GENTRIT KRASNIQI
ORSOLYA BAGDINÉ FEKETE
BUDAPEST, 2019
TABLE OF CONTENT
00
A
B
FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................................06
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................08
1 2 3 4 5
THE ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS ..............................................................................................................09 GOALS AND DIRECTION OF THE THESIS ..............................................................................................10 METHODOLOGY OF THE THESIS ..............................................................................................................11 RELEVANCE OF THE THESIS ...................................................................................................................12 SYNOPSIS AND OUTLINE OF THE THESIS ...........................................................................................13
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH ...........................................................................................................................14
1
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE IMPORTANCE OF PLAY ........................................................16
01 02 03 04
2
PSYCHOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF PLAY .........................................................................21 PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF PLAY .........................................................................23 TEACHINGS FROM THE PAST .................................................................................................26
CURRENT IMPACTFUL FACTORS ON THE SUBJECT OF PLAY .......................................................30
01
02
3
SOCIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF PLAY .............................................................................18
SOCIAL IMPACTFUL FACTORS ..............................................................................................32
001
THE EVER-CHANGING CHILDHOOD ....................................................................33
002
DECLINE OF PERSONAL FREEDOM AND THE CULTURE OF FEAR ..............34
003
THE INFLUENCE OF SCREENS ON THE HEALTH IN CHILDREN ...................36
004
PLAYFULNESS AND THE IMPACT OF PARENTS ...............................................38
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTFUL FACTORS ..........................................................................40
001
THE DUALITY OF MODERNIZED URBAN DOMAINS ..........................................41
002
THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN DOMAINS ON THE THEORY OF PLAY ..............42
003
THE PHENOMENA OF PLAY DEPRIVATION ........................................................43
WHY URBAN PLAY MATTERS? ...............................................................................................................44
01 02
IMPACT OF DESIGN TOWARD URBAN PLAY .......................................................................46 WHERE DO CHILDREN PLAY TODAY? ...................................................................................47
C
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION ..............................................................................................48
1
REDEFINING PLAYSCAPES ....................................................................................................................50
01 02
2
THE BENEFITS OF RISKY PLAY IN URBAN PLAYSCAPES VS. THE SAFETY TREND ..58 EVALUATING THE PHENOMENA OF EMBRACING RISK ..................................................59
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONTEXTUALIZATION ......................................................................64
01 02 03 04
D
REFORMULATING URBAN PLAYSCAPES ...........................................................................53
SOCIAL STRATEGIES OF EMBRACING RISKY PLAY ..........................................................................56
01 02
3
THE NOTION OF PLAYSCAPES ...............................................................................................52
DESIGN PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................66 LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS .........................................................................................................76 ASSESSING THE SENSORY SENSES IN CHILDREN .........................................................86 NEW URBAN STRATEGIES AS A MEANS OF DESIGN .......................................................90
CHAPTER FOUR : DESIGN PROPOSALS ...................................................................................................96
1
STREETSCAPE DESIGN PROPOSAL .....................................................................................................98
2 3
URBANSCAPE DESIGN PROPOSAL ....................................................................................................100 OPENSCAPE DESIGN PROPOSAL .......................................................................................................102
E
CHAPTER FIVE : CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................104
F
CHAPTER SIX : REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................106
1 2 3 4
LIST OF PICTURES ....................................................................................................................................107 LIST OF FIGURES.......................................................................................................................................108 BIBLIOGRAPHY...........................................................................................................................................110 LIST OF CITATIONS ....................................................................................................................................111
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
“Play is the highest expression of human development in childhood, for it alone is the free expression of what is in a child’s soul.” - Friedrich Froebel, one of the founding fathers of modern education
Picture 1. A child playing inside the Louvre museum. Paris, France. 2019. ©Gentrit Krasniqi 6
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION
FOREWORD
A 00 03 000 999
As a landscape architect, our working domain is gigantic and open and encompasses within itself almost everything that is observable. Whatever that we, landscape architects create, our holy scale is “the human”, as everything that we create has the human in the center, either be it to design a new bench that deals with the human as a single entity, or a whole park that concentrates on our internal requirements as a society. Everything that we bring to life revolves around our needs, feelings and our desires, and the way we deal with the outside world is an extension of ourselves. It is embedded in us to observe how people interact with the outside world and to find that connection between humans and the domain where we design. It is intriguing to notice a change in society and find the little connections of particular problems and the domains where these problems happen. And personally, there is nothing more interesting or challenging than trying to resolve these social issues through a design point-of-view. The medium of landscape architecture is always one to truly reflect the societal changes of the time, thus providing us with a true reflection of our current time. One thing that remains true is that as each new generation grows, the circumstantial surroundings change with them. Each generation gets shapes by the cultural norms of the time, regulated based on the societal norms that shape our societal environment, and this trend always follows the teachings of the older generations, which can be unimplementable to the new societal needs. As each new generation grows further into adulthood, the circumstantial surroundings change with them. While I remember vaguely my own first interactions with the outside world, memories that I remember fondly, studies show the new generations don’t get the same satisfaction that we got out of the outside world, the domain where the field of landscape architecture is responsible for. Ultimately, these changing times motivated me to see how these changes correlate with the way we currently design for our young generations. It comes down to us, the architects, urbanists, and designers of the future to design for the current times, with “the human” scale in mind. It is our duty to design honestly, always reevaluating the ideas of the past, assesing the present, and designing for the future. Like Tadao Ando, I believe that the way people live can be directed by good design. 7
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
A 1 03 000 999
CHAPTER ONE
Picture 2. Children In A Manchester Street Find Their Own Enjoyment With The Aid Of A Rope And A Lamp Post, 1946
8
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
A 1 03 000 999
Abstract of the thesis: The influence of urban public spaces toward a healthy cognitive development in children is undeniable, with the most of this influence being carried by playgrounds and the playscapes in the urban domains as the main elements. Considering the changes that the society has undergone the last decades, inarguably our urban domains have changed with the times, becoming more condensed and always on the growth. The physical changes that shape our outside world go hand-in-hand with a society that has another perspective and different points-of-view, and sometimes these changes aren’t as progressive as we tend to think, rather they cause regressive views. In an everchanging world where data is spread at the speed of a second, the human brain acts differently than the previous generations, and we see these consequences in our younger generations. More than ever, children are having difficulties focusing on schools, their attention is shortening drastically compared to previous generations, and most of their social interactions are done through screens, leaving aside and completely ignoring the importance of the outside world. The aim of this thesis is to analyze the role of the landscape design and urban planning toward making our recreational urban domains more enjoyable, encouraging and safe, in order to recreate the notion of “playscape” as playable spaces. This notion will be expanded in depth, and serve to describe the physical and phycological exploration of urban spaces, rather than just another playground. The strategy revolves around the examination of the biological built-in need of the children for play in contrast to the current time changes that these children go through, all to find answers on how do young children perceive space in today’s world. In the context of the final product of this thesis, the main purpose is to create and redefine the existing ideas about the impact of landscape planning and planning of urban domains in terms of the cognitive development in children, focusing on the betterment of playable recreational urban domains. Keywords: playscapes, play theory, correlation of environments and play, landscape principles for play, 9
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
A 2 03 000 999
GOALS AND DIRECTION OF THE THESIS
Direction of the thesis practical
theoretical
Scale of the thesis local
urban
regional
Location of the thesis Budapest district I
district XXIII
Figure 1. The direction of the thesis
Background analysis of pre-existing historical approaches regarding the importance of the environment and the correlation with the cognitive development in children. Detailed review of the existing literature, with special focus on the post-modernism approach to the treatment of our younger generations. In-depth research of “the need for play” in children of different ages, the measuring their cognitive development throughout time, and differentiation of the needs of children as their cognitive abilities develop. Correlation of this research with the landscape architecture field. Conceptualizing ideas about children’s development into theoretical strategies. Underlining the importance of the risk benefits versus the existing current trend of the application of ultra-safety in playscapes. Proposing new urban playspaces in the city of Budapest based on the theorized philosophy of what a playscape means.
10
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION
METHODOLOGY OF THE THESIS
A 3 03 000 999
As the thesis consists of the correlation between two different variables (cognitive development in children and landscape planning and design), it will go through different methods of analysis and research. The methods that are going to be used include the descriptive methods, the correlational methods, and the quasi-experimental methods.The descriptive method will seek to describe the current status of a variable or phenomenon, and after we collect the necessary data for the need of “playscapes�, this method will help to define it properly. The correlational method will explore the relationship between variables using the statistical analyses. This method will serve as mostly observational, and its role is to analyze the rapport between the psychological field of the thesis (the cognitive development in children) and the architecture field (landscape planning and design). The next and last research method, quasi-experimental method, will use this rapport and quantify it, thus creating the cause-
End of phase 3
Ph
as
e
3
effect bond that we need as a main critical thinking component of the thesis.
Ph
as
e
End of phase 2
2
Design
Figure 2. The methodology of the thesis
11
Design phase finishes
Design phase starts
time
Conceptualization finishes
Research finishes
Research starts
Research
Conceptualization starts
End of phase 1
Ph
as
e
1
Conceptualisation
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
A 4 03 000 999
RELEVANCE OF THE THESIS
The relevance of the thesis is spread onto three major fields: social relevance, academically theoretical relevance and academically practical relevance.The social relevance of this thesis is the substantial approach toward the betterment of the cognitive abilities in children. This can be achieved by incorporating the design aspect of the need for urban playscapes with social impact and the social awareness. This link between these elements help the thesis to serve as a guide of how the city should be designed in a progressive approach, rather than being stuck with regressive ideas that can possibly hold back the younger generations. This thesis has the possibility of being a good read for the parents itself, who are the main factor and the primer decider on their children’s ability to experience the outside world and integrate themselves in it through the process of play. The conceptualized ideas that will be the theoretical outcome will serve as helpful key points on what their child needs to get out of the outside environment, and the practical outcomes will be concrete solutions towards the process of helping kids get truly immersed in the outdoor environment. These outcomes will be of
ial relevanc soc e
high significance in academic fields as well, either be the theoretical occupations or in prac-
social philosophers
ing the thesis through different
urban designers
relevance urban thinkers
points of view, either be it from an
landscape architects
nce leva l re ca
social theorists
tice-based professions. By view-
demically-p r aca a ct i
oretical relev the an ce ly l a
society (parents)
urban designer standpoint, or a parent, this thesis will make sure to have a purposeful effect in all activities that deal with the urban domains and the needs of the society for new progressive approach in urban playscapes and the phenomena of play.
ac a d em ic Figure 3. The relevance of the thesis
12
CHAPTER ONE : INTRODUCTION
SYNOPSIS AND OUTLINE OF THE THESIS
A 5 03 000 999
The thesis consists of three main parts, each with its sub-divisions, starting with the research, then the conceptualization and the final part will consist of design proposals based on the conceptualized ideas that will be summarized in the second part. The first part of the thesis contains a summarization of different ideas and variable methods on the influence of play areas in the development of children from a historical standpoint, underlying the changes that the society has gone through the last decades. This part will also include statistics, case studies, and hypothesis from social and urban thinkers, all reviewed material that will help the case of improving cognitive abilities in children through play. The second part of the thesis will summarize these ideas in order to make a case for the progressive design approach toward the necessity of “play� in urban domains. The last part of the thesis contains the design proposals based on the hypothesized ideas, and the thesis is concluded with these proposals as the final outcome. Reseach literature in architecture standarts, urban design, sociology, psychology
case studies
theoretical
practical
Conceptualization summary of existing literature toward play theory, principles and ideas
the argument for new approach toward urban playscapes
theoretical
practical
Design proposals
new play strategies
design proposals in urban domains
theoretical
practical
Figure 4. The outline of the thesis
13
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 1 03 000 999
CHAPTER TWO
Picture 3. Children Drawing With Chalk, Manchester, 1966
14
RESEARCH
This chapter will include four separated parts, each one of them digging into the main historical ideas, while at the same time serving as the theoretical framework of the thesis. This framework will look at the phenomena of sociology, psychology, philosophy, and finally will end up with a sub-chapter that discusses the teachings of two prominent figures in the field of education. The concept of “play” is most often seen from the outside as “meaningless work”, and it is surrounded by connotations such as “childish”. In essence, it is viewed as trivial and without purpose. As such, it is seen as something that is done by children because they are immature, and one day they will grow out of it and grow up. For all the worth of the current research done on this topic, this view could not be more mistaken. Play it is not something mundane, without any set of values behind the curtain of childish moves, but rather it is something that expresses a rich set of merits as being one of the most sophisticated expressions of societal norms, and the concept of play should be put on the same pedestal alongside culture, language, and technological achievements. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that none of these societal achievements would be possible without play, risky play in particular.
15
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 1 03 000 999
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
As play represents a set of ideas and actions that are contained in all the elements of the culture, it is notoriously difficult to define, especially when we take into account the different approaches and expected results in all the different fields of study, with each and every one of them focusing on different interpretation of play either as an activity or theory. From a biological standpoint, which is a strongly-criticized theory, play it is defined via its function, as relaxation mechanism and activity to release the surplus energy (Giddens, 1964), or as a crucial tool for the transformation of children into adults (Gross, 1899). The arguments against these points of views mostly focus on the grounds that these theories start with the idea that play must have an ultimate biological purpose, and if they do not have a biological or psychological aim, then the whole theory of play can be disregarded. I would argue that play serves more as a tool through which children can develop in a healthy way, and not as a biological process that must follow a set of rules in order to be defined as an element of healthy development, and that the captured lived experience of play consists of ephemeral elements to it, rather than just physical ones. Play cannot be defined as just the sum of all physical activities with its morphological entropy, but rather the totality of the child’s imagination, desires, needs and will to move in space, jump, crawl, and climb. One of these theories includes the theory of Huizinga, who defines as: “We might call it a free activity standing quite consciously outside the “ordinary” life as being “not serious”, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner. It promotes the formation of social groupings which tend to surround themselves with secrecy and to stress their difference from the common world by disguise or other means.” While the theory of Huizinga does a great service by explaining play as something voluntary that proceeds with its own rules and that exists outside of “ordinary reality”, and simultaneously promoting grouping, leading to a temporal-spatial experience, it does not leave much space for play as a concept to be explained as an attitude or a
16
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
disposition (Russell & Lester, 2010). At the same time, Huizinga’s theories regarding play fail to capture the “back and forth” movement that happens when children play. The theory of play expands further with Roger Caillois, an intellectual whose idiosyncratic work brought together literary criticism, sociology, and philosophy by focusing on diverse subjects such as games, play as well as the sacred, who criticized the work of Huizinga as being somewhat without material interests, thus putting play as something like a game of change, rather than a theory that when thought out and laid out properly can create material values. Caillois went further and developed typology of play that can be observed in children, with the first one being play that involves competition of skills, the second one including games of chance, the third one reflecting the mimicry or the role-playing with sociodramatic scenarios, and the last one including all forms of play that can create altered perceptions. From Caillois’s differentiation of forms of play found in children, there has been an expansion of subcategories of play. Play as a theory has an ambivalent connotation to it, and as such, it is interesting to go further into the meaning of the wordplay as well. In his book “Species of Spaces”, which was published in 1974, Georges Perec did an experiment in a playful manner to exhaust the word “play”, and even though what emerges is far from a clear definition of play, is an interesting result that reveals important instances and aspects of play that provide a better understanding of what play is about. PLAY ful role PLAY PLAY ing PLAY er fore PLAY game PLAY
re PLAY dis PLAY down PLAY mis PLAY PLAY able PLAY acting
re PLAY thing PLAY station dis PLAY back PLAY off down PLAY boy screen PLAY mis PLAY date PLAY in PLAY ground PLAY list PLAY time PLAY at
Figure 5. George Perec’s experimentation of the word play
Various theories of play have been discussed throughout history, and most of these theories are organized into sociological, psychological and philosophical accounts. Each of these branches with different background with play as the central study conceptualizes play in different ways, with different insights to be gained.
17
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 1 01 000 999
SOCIOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF PLAY
The culture behind the phenomena of play is a prevalent one with sociological connotations behind it, already documented in the 18th century by Friedrich Schiller, a German poet and sociologist, who wrote in his book “Aesthetic Education of Man”, a man plays only when he is in the full sense of the word man, and he is only wholly man when he plays, thus becoming the first notable writer in the Western culture to try to redefine play as not just an extension of the human being, but to see it a crucial part of the very an Huizing oh
a
J
essence of the being itself (Lefaivre, 2007).
“Culture arises and unfolds in and as play... culture itself bears the character of play.”
In the sociological sense of the word play, it was the work of the Dutch historian, Johan Huizinga and his exceptional work in “Homo Ludens: A study of Play Element in Culture” that the study of play became a systematic field of research with play as the centerpiece. As previously mentioned, Huizinga brought forward the concept of homo ludens (man the player), contrasting it with homo sapiens (man the knower) and homo faber (man the maker), and this perception of a different kind of man was supposed to be a revolt against the idea of the rational man that persisted throughout history since the Nieuwenh t n
s uy
Const a
Enlightenment period.
“… in a society of total automation, the need to work will be replaced by the creative nomad soul…”
From an urbanistic point of view, this concept of man the play has been a very influential challenge to the perception of the orderly commercialized, parade-based nature of the 20th century in the urban realm. Debord and Nieuwenhuys, famous Situationists, tried to use this theory as a means of reclaiming the right to move in the city
18
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
through counter-cultural means, thus trying to make the city as a mode of experimental behavior, in the spirit of adventure and discovery (Debord, 2000). The need for this type of wandering in the city in the form of play creates the feeling of unity. y Debord Gu “In societies where modern conditions of production prevail, all of life presents itself as an immense accumulation of spectacles.”
Play is not only one of the many phenomena that rises above as a product of the social and cultural life, but rather than a combination of cultures that different cultures come from, starting with the lucid elements (Rodriguez, 2006) I would argue that the sociological aspect of play in Huizinga’s work, even though it is outstanding and it drove the dialogue regarding the play as a sociological issue, it puts the notion of play in a RUL ES
ES
wide scope rather than try to define it in a more complex manner. One could make the argument that it is possible to criticize RULE S
THE PLAY
R ES UL
RULES
the work of Huizinga as being too broad in terms of lack of definition of play, and we
LES RU
can find problems with his inclusion of
RU L
competition, exhibition, improvisation, and theatricality as means of play, his THE PERCEPTIVE WORLD
work of ludic disposition of man in the central development of urban culture cannot be ignored, and should be used as
THE REAL WORLD
an example of strategy when we design.
Figure 6. Social Framework Abstraction
19
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 1 02 000 999
PSYCHOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF PLAY
The phenomenon of play has been studied in depth through the filter of psychology and its multiple branches, starting with the biological potential to play that is found in children with the methodology mostly being the act of observing children while they play. The first theories of play consisted on the assumed fact that children are the young of the adults, and by comparing the way children play with how the young of other species play, all on the basis of the biological similarity. The development of these theories brought out new ideas that regard play as a critical importance in the social, emotional and cognitive development of children, thus focusing more on the beneficial side of play and the impact of play in children, and less on the dispute between psychologists who und Freu igm
d
S
see play as a means to an end and sociologists who see play as an act that just occurs.
“The creative writer does the same as the child at play; he creates a world of fantasy which he takes very seriously.”
For instance, Sigmund Freud, the famous Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, considered childhood play to be of utmost importance for the development of creativity, and he would go on to claim that a creative writer that takes his fictional world seriously, in essence, is continuing, or in some cases substituting, his childhood play. As he wrote in his essay “Creative Writing and Daydreaming”, “Might we not say that every child at play behaves like a creative writer, in that he creates a world of his own, or, rather, rearranges the things of his world in a new way which pleases him? It would be wrong to think he does not take that world seriously; on the contrary, he takes his play very seriously and he expends large amounts of emotion on it. The opposite of play is not what is serious but what is real” (Freud,1908). Other theories include the work of Jean Piaget, arguably the most well-known developmental psychologist on the topic of children’s play. Piaget, in essence, was interested in the process by which children get knowledge, and his observations included how children will first interact with objects as means of play, and the very acts of play
20
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
of play go on to build up under the goal of mastering something by repeating it, and continuing with pretend-play as they grow up, where the rules do not exist and the construction of the scenes of play are entirely in the hands of children. (Piaget, 1952).
an Piaget Je “When you teach a child something you take away forever his chance of discovering it for himself.”
The main alternative to this idea was given by the Russian psychologist, Lev Vygotsky, who criticized the work of Piaget on the grounds that it ignores the social circumstances of the child and focuses only on the assumption that a child can build constructively his own world through his play activity. According to Vygotsky, the child will appropriate the resources of the existing world, tools that are transmitted to them by their parents and peers, and reinforced by the institutions such as schools and family, and the collective ideas of the society as a whole (Nicolopoulou, 1993). v Vygotsky Le “The true direction of the development of thinking is not from the individual to the social, but from the social to the individual.”
Despite their differences, both Piaget and Vygotsky agree on the primal role of play in the social and cognitive development of the child. For both of them, symbolic play in children is the crucial tool that children use to achieve the ability to reformulate the outside world, which leads to the development of language. Today it is widely accepted that language and the ability for self-knowledge and self-regulation are interlaced (Vallaton & Ayoub. 2011), and the symbiosis of the two results in new theories. In the subcategory of education in developmental psychology, there is a growing body of research into “learning by playing”, a field that focuses how play influences children in detail, a topic that is heavily inspired by the ideas of both Piaget and Vygotsky.
21
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
Evolutionary psychology gives an insight on how play evolved as the human species progressed, which the primal types of play focused more on the “rough and tumble� psychical play, and as humans started using carved tools, so did the children while playing. Today, the result of our evolution can be seen in play too, with symbolic play serving as a form of verbal and artistic expression, pretense and role play. (Whitebread, 2012). In my opinion, we need a healthy, deeply-researched combination of sorts for the type of play that we create for our children, and none of these forms of play should be ignored, as all of them have something to offer to the child. Through rough-and-tumble, which some parents and educators see it as too primitive. children will learn to control anger and develop strong social relationships. Through object-play, seen by some as the only form of play, children learn concentration and reasoning skills. Through pretense-play, children learn to cope with emotional stressing situations by imagining how they would act in certain situations. If we choose to ignore any of these ideas, we will not create strong, articulate children that are capable to try to explore the world on their own, but rather children who are too scared, too selfish and without courage.
freedom
Play typology
creativity
rough-and-tumble
object-play
curiosity possibility
malleability
pretense-play
Figure 7. Psychological Framework Abstraction
22
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
PHILOSOPHICAL BACKGROUND OF PLAY
B 1 03 000 999
The way people have viewed play throughout history is important in order to be able to understand the evolution of these views, and how this evolution of views has affected the current perception of play. Play as a theoretical idea and physical activity has been examined and analyzed aloud by several philosophers, starting from ancient times till now, but rarely has been the central piece of any important theory, with most of the time being viewed as a product of the ontology of childhood. In philosophical lens, there are multiple possible axioms that different philosophers have dwelled in, all
mas Hobbe o h
s
T
important in their way of critically thinking about the subject, the child itself.
“Curiosity is the lust of the mind.”
The first one starts with the presupposition that children can be evil when left to their own devices, with the first documentation of the concept of an evil child being in the doctrine of Adamic sin (Alison, 1998). This theory is manifested in the work of Hobbs, who claims that the life of a child who grows up to be a man, without the society, is “solitary, nasty, brutish and short”, and the need to play in children represents anarchic
ues Rouss cq
u ea
Jean-J a
tendencies, and as such, must be curbed.
“The only moral lesson which is suited for a child-the most important lesson for every time of life-is this: Never hurt anybody.”
The second theory, supported by Rousseau, focuses on the idea that children are not yet rational, and as such, they should become sufficiently rational and reasonable members of society. Play in this context is viewed as a way to cultivate the child’s ability to reason, and when put in an urban context, this view gives the adult decision-maker the power to determine how, when and where the children should play.
23
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
The last theory views children as rational beings, with John Locke being one of the main pillars of this theory. According to him, the child could easily be compared to blank slates, and if guided in the right direction by an adult, than this child will be able to expand its knowledge through experience, and that the child should not be viewed as a creature without rational skills, but rather that the adults should conduct these rational skills in such a way that can be grasped and understood. hn Locke Jo “Curiosity in children ... is but an appetite after knowledge and therefore ought to be encouraged in them...�
John Dewey, another supporter of this theory, not only agrees that children are capable of reason, but that children can be viewed as a model, and that the play that is found in children is far from being trivial and meaningless, but rather should be viewed
irrational
as a prototype for the ideal tool for living with others in an adult society (Bynum, 2015)
evil
rational
good
Figure 8. Philosophical Framework Abstraction
24
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
The different philosophical views that have persisted throughout time should not be ignored under the pretense that they are outdated, but rather new philosophical views should emerge forth, and only by redefining these ideas we can address the current problems of today’s world. We should reject the connotation whether the child is evil or good, rational or not, and treat play as a device that will help the soon-to-be members of the society by including them in the decision making process, listening carefully to their needs and instilling the values and ideas that we as a society embrace, all resulting in the act of creating risk-taking adventurous playing scapes.
25
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 1 04 000 999
TEACHINGS FROM THE PAST
The need for outdoor urban play is a feature of transitional development in early childhood, and this in-between process has precedents that span over the past centuries. If the goal is to understand the present urban-related contextual problems about the state of play, we should look in the past. Yet, most often than not, the past is seen as a series of unfortunate failing theories that have brought out closer to certain solutions, and the idea of the presence of the past is ignored. The past shouldn’t be reduced as just the background in which we search for inspiration and validation, but should be treated as an inseparable part of the present. The ideas of the present are not invented by the current parenting generation and it should be treated as such, because ideas evolve throughout history, losing some reevaluated values here, gaining some new contextual meaning there, always transition and being rediscovered. The past is a toolkit of combined tools that are used to reinterpret the cultural and social norms that constantly change in a dynamic manner, all with the goal to shape a better future, and just looking to case studies of how different influential thinkers approached the meaning of play from a design point of view isn’t enough, but rather the ideas behind certain proposed solutions should be viewed through the lens of contemporary filter in a critical manner. Whenever the need for play in children for healthy cognitive development, one cannot discuss it without mentioning the importance of the ideas of Friedrich Froebel, a German educationalist, widely known and the father of modern education, and originator of the kindergarten system. Froebel saw education as a tool whose purpose is to encourage and guide all humans as self-conscious and thoughtful beings that can reach a higher level of unity with divine inner laws through personal choices (Friedrich Froeb-
drich Fröb rie
el
F
el 1826 Die Nenschenerziehung, pp. 2).
“Play is the highest expression of human development in childhood for it alone is the free expression of what is in a child's soul.”
26
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
This formulation is reflected in his pursuit to encourage the creation of educational environments that include practical movement and approaches, and the direct raw use of materials that children play with. As he put it, understanding comes to life when we engage with the world, and according to him, play is one of the best examples, as it serves both as a creative activity, and children become aware of their place in the world. The materialization of his ideas is apparent of his development of special materials (shaped wooden bricks and balls) which were the physical manifestation of his concept of “gifts”, and a detailed list of recommended activities and movements, or as he chose to define it, the “occupations” through which children are taking part in a simulation of the real world. I would argue that Froebel’s vision on how children incorporate play in their lives is as clear as can be, with his ideas still holding ground and being as relevant as ever. It cannot be argued on the importance of the early years of the development of children, and as such Froebel’s methodology to provide the best environment and all the necessary resources to facilitate learning was undeniably brilliant. All children will grow up to be functioning members of the society, and they need to be able to deal with the challenges that go with the adult life, and stimulating them in an early age through play, thus making learning enjoyable, is one of the most pertinent methods that we can use. Another respected influential thinker on the subject of the importance of play for healthy development in children is Maria Montessori, an Italian education who is well-known for the Montessori teaching method, based around the idea that children learn best when the environment supports their natural desires to acquire skills and knowledge. This method stresses in great lengths the impact of a child’s own initiative and natural abilities through practical play in the development of health in children, and what this method strives and successes in the ability in children to develop in their own pace without outside pressure, through exploration and communication.
27
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
One of the most important outcomes of the Montessori method if the Montessori theory, which is, in essence, an approach to learning. This theory is a detailed overview of conceptual and fundamental principles that apply for children of all ages, and it is
ont ia M ess r a
i or
M
these principles that make the Montessori so applicable, even today.
“We discovered that education is not something which the teacher does, but that it is a natural process which develops spontaneously in the human being.”
1
The first principle is independence. This principle holds a special place in the theory as a whole since it was a goal of Maria Montessori to make the child independent and able to do things for himself, by giving the child opportunities. These opportunities include movement, opportunity to dress on their own, to choose what they want to do and help adults with tasks. When the child can perform tasks on his own, there is a reality-based increase in self-esteem and self-confidence.
2
The second principle is the observation or watching the child. A parent can spend countless hours just watching the child and observing how they are enjoying themselves, by exploring their environment. This principle also helps by revealing the needs of the child are. For example, is a child is banging into an object, it means he has a need for motor activity, and instead of stopping the child from banging into an object, we should give him a drum, thus fulfilling the child’s needs.
3
The third principle is following the child. Maria Montessori wrote: “Follow the child, they will show you what they need to do, what they need to develop in themselves and what area they need to be challenged in. The aim of the children who persevere in their work with an object is certainly not to “learn”; they are drawn to it by the needs of their inner life, which must be recognized and developed by its means.” This means that the parent should follow the child in what the child wants to do, and remove himself as the center point of the act of the play, thus eliminating the risk of turning the play into an adult-centered activity.
28
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
4
The fourth principle is correcting the child. Children make mistakes. They will break stuff, spill water and drop food. If a child does a mistake, it is redundant to try and correct him, and even though we might think that this will be helpful in the long run, it is not. For example, if a child spills water, it is a better approach to ask the child to find a solution for the mistake that they made, which in this case is to take a piece of cloth and wipe the water. Rather than correcting the child and possibly making him inferior to future mistakes, we should give the child the opportunity to correct his own mistake by letting the child do valid work.
5
The fifth principle is the prepared environment. As Maria Montessori herself put it: “The teacher’s first duty is to watch over the environment, and this takes precedence over all the rest. Its influence is indirect, but unless it is well done there will be no effective and permanent results of any kind, physical, intellectual or spiritual.” This philosophy can be noticed in the say the environment is set, where the spaces are child-sized with activities that strive for success and allow movement and choice. The parents or caretakers are responsible to set up an environment where children can play in any shape or form that they please, This dualistic relationship between the development of the child and the environment is co-dependent and deeply intertwined, so when we construct the urban spaces for the children, we shouldn’t treat it as a luxury item of putting elements that embrace children and their play, but rather a necessity.
6
The sixth principle is the absorbent mind, which she conceptualized it after observing how children learn the language without anyone teaching them. Children do not need to have lessons in order to learn, and if the environment is set up in a good, nice and positive manner, this will create an incentive for the child to want to learn, and the child intuitively will absorb from the environment by simply experiencing it. These principles may seem simplistic, but the theory that they comprise when
they are combined is a great tool that can and should be used when we try to conceptualize a problem and try to design the solution.
29
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 2 03 000 999
CURRENT IMPACTFUL FACTORS ON THE SUBJECT OF PLAY
Picture 4. Kids playing in "La Casbah". Algiers, Algeria. 2019. ©Gentrit Krasniqi 30
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
When the subject of play is up for discussion, there should always be the need to differentiate the factors and circumstances that help in the definition of the current problem. For many of the questions that arise, the solution can be traced back to the distinction of the cause and its effects. For the purpose of the thesis, the factors have been divided into two categories, the first one dealing with the social factors and the second one detailing the environmental factors, within each of them there is deeper analysis at particular sub-topics that affect the play. The first sub-chapter will expand on the social factors that impact the theory of play as a whole, focusing on some of the most pertinent factors that have affected the society on terms of dealing with children and their needs. These factors include the analysis of the current state of childhood and how different is it from the childhood of previous generations, the declining state of the personal freedom in children and the culture of fear in the caretakers, the influence of screens on the physical and mental health of the children, and how a new generation of parents is handling all these social changes, all at once. In this chapter, the goal is to try and separate the factors from one another, in order to have a better idea about the current state of each of them, rather than try to analyze them as a composite and miss specific important details. The second chapter dwells on the significance of environments as they serve as the physical ground for play, with special focus on the urban environments. This chapter focuses on two different parts, to try to analyze the current state of the modernized urban spaces and dual nature of them, continuing with the expansion on why play is an inseparable part of these domains and it should be treated as such by incorporation by default into these spaces. Understanding the circumstances and how each and every one of these factors impact the theory of play as a whole is a crucial step that must be developed in depth when we think about the design perspective, and I would argue that any type of design that does not fulfill these steps from the start is set up for failure, and it will fail on its quest to offer a real meaningful approach of conceptualization and planning strategy.
31
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 2 013 000 999
SOCIAL IMPACTFUL FACTORS
Picture 5. Kids Play In The Street, New York, 1900s
32
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
THE EVER-CHANGING CHILDHOOD
B 2 01 000 001
Let's go back to when we were children. Let’s think about our own childhood play. What did we do? How did we play? If you are older than 25 years old, you have probably heard the phrase “You are allowed to go out and play with your friends after dinner, but be home when the street lights come on” by your parents. You would go out with your friends, run around in playgrounds playing in mud and breathe dusty air, or casually exploring the nearby woods. Today’s children don’t get to experience this, and their childhood is very different. In the past century, a major shift has emerged in our society, affecting the play behavior of children of all ages (Louv, 2005). Children no longer explore the world around them, with many limited ranges. The exposure of a typical child to nature has decreased dramatically, both in the amount of time and the size and scale of these outdoor spaces that are available to them (Spencer & Woolley, 1998). This lack of exposure is addressed to the accessibility to screens and the children’s dependence on them, and the adopted culture of urbanization and automobile culture (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). Some children are allowed to only play at certain times, usually when the parents see it fit for themselves to look over their children while they pay. Other children experience spacious limitations, where they can play in the yard but they are not allowed to wander further than their driveway or the hallways in their apartments building, helping to create a culture of fear where everything foreign is scary. Today children don’t go outside as we used to, roaming in gardens, streets, alleys, fields and in orchards. They don’t find secret paths in the forests and empty waste grounds, where some interactive spontaneous play can happen. In childhood, one is more open to sensory impressions than ever again in one’s life. Smells, sensations of hearing, softness, weight and beauty and so much more, form the basis of all of life’s later sensations (Eva Insulander, 2010). The scope of the accessibility to the opportunity to experience this rich, sensory, and adventurous play is getting more and more limited for many children growing up today. Is it time to get kids outside once again.
33
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 2 01 000 002
DECLINE OF PERSONAL FREEDOM AND THE CULTURE OF FEAR
Both children who live in rural and urban regions are less free to play outside in today’s world. A research that was conducted has shown that the children’s independent mobility, basically the area in which children are allowed to roam freely, has dropped drastically, and it has shrunk to a ninth of what it was in the 1970s (Hillman, 1990). If we take a random child of approximately ten years of age, that child will have a much smaller and more defined area in which they can play freely than a ten-year-old child had it half a century ago. The same play has not only been reduced in size, but it is also almost exclusively monitored by an adult, most likely the parent or the caretaker, and will be free of all danger and risk, thus making it dull, uninteresting and unappealing. The adoption of automobile culture has turned streets into unsafe environments for as places for play, and while these urban domains had importance through broadening the space experience of a child, today these same domains don’t allow children to be a part of their community and get connected with their everyday surroundings. The urbanization of public places where kids used to roam around, covering themselves in mud and playing till the sun sets low on the horizon, is on the rise, and the decline to these outdoor spaces has created a new social attitude toward the way kids should interact with the world around them. This culture of labeling everything safe, when we really mean fear, produces a climate of distrust and removes any type of meaningful conversation about the importance of taking risks. When we make children view the outside world through a lens of unhealthy skepticism, we rob them from their ability to view the world as a giant playground.This culture of fear that exists today creates paranoid parents that aren’t able to properly assess their approach to parenting, but rather make them get judged by the others for what may be just a different way of allowing your child to experience the world.The studies show that a very low number of parents would let their children play outside unsupervised, but they would rather monitor and regulate the play of their children, and the number of parents that would be judged for their parenting choices would be high. These studies also show that children themselves put the fear of getting abducted and murder at the top of their concerns when it comes to playing outside. (Lindon, 1999 & Gill, 2006).
34
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
These studies are the best teller of this fear culture. At the same time, children have never been safe, with the incidents of child abduction being extremely rare and on the decline in the last five decades. At the same time, this irrational fear of danger and risk has heavily affected the children’s freedom to play and has placed children at higher risk from accident or abuse within their houses. The children today also face major societal shifts, with the over-organized childhood being a main key point. Children today are accepted at school at a younger age than before, and the growth of the nurseries, child care centers, and after-school programs have helped the accelerated increased institutionalization of the children’s life. The free play today is almost fictional, with every activity being organized, under close adult supervision, following blindly the centralized curriculum that directs the approach of the particular school or nursery. The leisure time of children has been cut down and redirected into different activities, such as attendance in sports teams, science clubs, and art activities, and it seems that these activities and interests are chosen for the children, rather than leave the children to initiate their own form of expression. This phenomenon is best described by Jenkinson in his concept of “wrapped around play”, which is play shaped and directed by adults rather than children, with the children being the attendee of his own play, rather than be the originator of the free play (Jenkinson, 2001). This phenomenon is also known as “controlled play”, as Polakow so eloquently put it, the over-managed play curtailed by cautious adults who are sure that they are the rightful shareholders (Polakow, 1992). It has been more than four decades since the Robin Moore, an English architect with an affinity to combine environmental design, child development, and play spaces all into one, provided his classic study of three contrasting urban neighborhoods in England through detailed documentation of children’s spaces and places to play. It is worth analyzing and reviewing it for the reflection value that it produces, to see in such a short space of time, favorite places such as streets, pathways, footpaths, fences, open spaces, parks and waste grounds have been denigrated to the point of non-existence as playable spaces.
35
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 2 01 000 003
THE INFLUENCE OF SCREENS ON THE HEALTH IN CHILDREN
In today’s world, children have to opportunity to explore and navigate through an almost infinite “virtual spaces”, all accessible at the tips of their fingers. Television, screen-based electronic games, and all the social media applications have given children the opportunity to ignore the experience of the real world for a side alternative. Rather than being outside, children can enter into a dynamic and exciting fantasy world without having to move from their chairs. Real-world meaningful experiences are substituted for their technologic counterparts. Even though these two worlds seem to be a substitution for one another, there are real differences in the two, with the electronic world being too limited and only offering a two-dimensional experience without any of the benefits of the physical movement. At the same time, this electronic world is highly addictive, and it provides a false of solitude in children in a time where is it crucial for them to have meaningful social experiences. The electronic world is a world that children are becoming more and more a part of. Studies show that engaging in various forms of social media is a routine for children, and this engagement helps children by enhancing communication, social connections and is a good method for children to find what they are into, thus helping them discover themselves (MacArthur, 2008). Social media platforms offer children a place to stay connected with other people with shared interests, and the usage of these sites has increased dramatically due to the fact of the affordability and convenience of having a smartphone, with the parents taking some of the blame. Children and adolescents especially are at risk as they navigate and try to cope with this virtual world more than teenagers and adults, mainly due to their limited capacity for self-regulation and their susceptibility to peer pressure, mainly caused by other children in their schools and social environment. Recent research has shown that there are a lot of frequent online expressions of what is called “offline behavior”, which is how this generation uses the anonymity of being behind a screen. These “offline behavior” include activities such as bullying, clique-forming, sexual experimentation without prior education, which create problems such as cyberbullying, privacy issues and “sexting” (Lenhart, 2010).
36
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
The effects of the accessibility to screen in children is not only a social one, rather it is a physical one as well, with the obesity being one of the best-documented outcomes of screen media exposure. Observational research has shown the interlink between screen media exposure and increased risks of obesity, by random controlled experiments of reducing the screen time on community settings, and with the outcome being the reduction of weight gain in children, thus proving this correlation through a cause and effect relationship. Current evidence suggests that screen media exposure leads to obesity in children and adolescents through increased eating while passively being a part of this virtual world, especially when we think about the exposure of children to high-calorie, low-nutrients fast food chains and soda beverage marketing techniques. This chain of events also shows sleep deprivation in children, the main necessity for a child whose social behavior is still not fully formed. While the causes of obesity and as a result, sleep deprivation, are complex, there is little doubt that the carefully planned environments that in a sense ignore the opportunity for spontaneous outdoor play is a significant factor that contributes. This fact is best enforced through the Report by the International Obesity Task Force (IOTF), a task force that urged the governments to move away from was is considered ineffective education toward health, and instead to redirect the attention toward current “toxic environments” including lack of planned spaces for impromptu play. This report clearly states that “children deserve to be given back the freedom to play and exercise in safety, freedom that has been enjoyed by previous generations (IOTF, 2012). We need to focus on creating spaces that children will want to move, that will truly enjoy them in a natural way, rather than try to keep children fit. To summarize, for all its benefits, the main negative aspect of the accessibility to screens is that the time that children spend texting with their friends, watching videos and playing video games is too important at this particular moment in the child’s life, and this excessive consumption of entertainment and possible learning takes away the possibility to try new, risk-taking and diverse range of experiences through play, instead of virtual repetitive activities.
37
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 2 000 01 004
PLAYFULNESS AND THE IMPACT OF PARENTS
One thing that stands out clearly throughout the researched literature is that the current moral values and the overall mindset of the society do not impact children in a direct manner, rather these values are transmitted to them through social interactions they experience in their school, nurseries and their homes. No matter the place you were born, and with that the societal mindset of the environment where you live, there are practices that transcend the cultural norms of the place in terms of the behavior of the parents toward their children. Practices such as reading to children, taking them into libraries and museums, playing engaging interactive games are found in most of the civilized world, regardless of the social spectrum (Sylva et al, 2004). The relationship between the child and the parent is of crucial importance for healthy development, and the establishment of this relationship has been widely demonstrated in the research that has linked the social and emotional development in children through the parental care and the playfulness with which the same child tries to engage in play (Panksepp, 2001). This means that parents should be aware of their role in their child’s development, and this effect can be seen in many places, where community play environments exists, environments that are richer in a qualitative aspect, and more “natural” than the current plastic playgrounds with the pre-packaged safety surfaces (Bartlett, 2002). All of this can be seen as general knowledge, but then again, the current trends of concepts such as “hovering-parents” and “bulldozer-parents”, give a different insight to these approaches. Parents are responsible for providing their child the essential tools for them to evolve on their own, form meaningful social interactions with other children and discover the world through exploration, but much of current articles for new parents revolve around titles such as “Are you doing too much for your child?”, and “How to stop doing everything for your child?”. There seems to be a generation of parents who are doing a lot of damage to their child under the excuse of meaning to “protect” the child from any type of short-term harm, making their children psychologically fragile, fearful and avoidant of failure, with non-existing coping mechanisms and poor resilience (Sharman, 2014)
38
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
Leaving aside the importance of the role of planning and thoughtful design, the parents and the caretakers of the children are the main pillars of strength and support in this endeavor to provide children with the chance to play freely in the outside world. Without the will of the parents to educate their children in a manner that will make them an independent polite member of the society, starting with the means to play outside with other children in a respectful manner that will make other children play with your child, children will continue to play inside, in closed environments, with helicopter-parents always being there, hovering, for everything that their child asks for.
39
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 2 023000 999
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTFUL FACTORS
Picture 6. Children Running in The Street, 1950s
40
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
THE DUALITY OF MODERNIZED URBAN DOMAINS
B 2 023000 001
The nature of modern urban domains has evolved deeply and has gained a duality of the essence of its content, with the increase of the population being one of the main driving factors. The cities of today have a complex nature to it, as cities continue to grow more and more, I would argue that the commercial value of the physical space will continue to increase, and the needs of wandering adults and their playful children will be secondary, and with many problems being apparent as we try to find the solution for a healthy living in a city, As argued by Bill Randolph, how we plan for the use of higher density by families will critically determine how well the future high-density city performs in terms of its social sustainability and livability for the whole community. With more and more families choosing to live in compact urban settings, the questions that arise are “Can a compact city be child-friendly?”, “Is play diametrically opposite with the idea of commercially utilizing every inch of urban space?” and “Is the play activity on a crisis?”. I would argue that the city belongs to everyone, not just the people who can afford the rent in the high-rise downtown, inhabitants who can buy the land in the spacious parts of the city, and drivers who choose to pay for the parking. The city should reflect the needs of every inhabitant, starting with the children. Today, I would argue for the worst, children are not a part of urban public life, and it seems that their needs are shelved by the decision makers, as they don’t offer much when we talk about resources, at least in the short-term, Like Jane Jacobs said, cities have the capability to provide something for everybody, only because and only when they are created by everybody. Children should be reflected in our urban environments and not neglected as an unimportant part of the community, and the previous generations spare urban spaces turned into playgrounds cannot be the substitution. As the brilliant Danish architect, Jan Gehl put it: “First life, then spaces, then buildings- the other way around never works.”
41
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 2 023000 002
THE INFLUENCE OF URBAN DOMAINS ON THE THEORY OF PLAY
The physical environment influences everybody’s behavior (Proshansky, 1976; Day and Midbjer, 2007), and the public space domain is one of the supporting pillars of the foundation of self-identity during childhood years. Children learn how to obtain information about the space around them through play, and all the primal social interactions in children can be traced back to their exposure to play. In order to learn about the space around them, children actively use and explore the environment in their own manner. They create certain scenarios on how these spaces can be experienced, almost all done through the activity of play. The motivation, attitude and psychological traits are affected in the individual characteristics from the environment and the characteristics of the environment (Özdemir and Yılmaz, 2008). When we look of this theory in terms of applicability in children, if a particular environment meets the psychological needs for the child, it provides satisfaction, and if it doesn’t meet this criterion, it provides dissatisfaction. Furthermore, the connotation of motion is primal necessary criteria in order for the child to be able to get to know the place and explore it. Studies show that children, with infants, in particular, are interested in many things that fall within their reach before they can even move from place to place, either be it through crawling, walking or running (Bell, 2008). Out public spaces should reflect these studies by taking them into consideration when we try to map out the city in terms of the satisfaction in its inhabitants, leaving gaps in the city for diversified movement with opportunities to explore. In a high-rise living environment, where most urban domains exclude children, the influence of the impact of urban domains on the concept of play cannot be denied, yet is still neglected. Somehow we continue to design our cities with the transportation networks, living costs and commercially profitable spaces in mind, and we expect everything to be in harmony and everyone’s needs are met. When we design for cars and traffic, we get cars and traffic. When we design for people and places, we get people and places. It is as simple as it sounds.
42
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
THE PHENOMENA OF PLAY DEPRIVATION
B 2 023000 003
In the modern world, the connotation of life is a bit distorted, and the relationship between work and play has grown further and further apart, forgetting the primal need to combine these activities, needs to be embedded in humans since the time when we were human-gatherers, when the task of finding food had social elements of sharing and joyfulness. Currently, this dysfunctional relationship between work and play has turned for the worst, with cases of children not doing any of them, thus bringing the problem of sleep deprivation to the surface. This problem is prevalent and it does not seem to be going away, and it is causing real harm in children, with some of the long term impacts of play deprivation repressing the child while the child is still developing, including isolation, depression, reduced self-control and poor resilience (Smith, 2014), There are extreme case studies where severe play-deprivation exists in children, who find themselves unable to play, with the cause being caught up in wars, severe poverty of the living in an abusive household. When these children do not play in normal settings, they find it difficult to be a part of society. This is because learning how to belong to your own social group is a complex experience, and it’s a process that is catalyzed by play. Children who are severely play-deprives tend to engage in repetitive static and automatic activities, thus fail to engage socially, with the result being that as the child grows older, they will not experience a sense of belonging, but rather they will experience explosive reactions to the circumstances. Children need to be more resilient, more socially aware of the differences between children, developing tolerance and empathy, and learning that inclusion and exclusion is a part of humans getting along. The social and emotional learning is vital for the child, and as it may seem trivial in some cultures, we should understand that play exists because it helps us adapt to one another as a basic aspect of human socialization, allowing the individual to create a cooperative ethic through memorable playful learning experiences.
43
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 3 03 000 999
WHY URBAN PLAY MATTERS?
Picture 7. Children Find a Green Island to Play In. Pristina, Kosovo. 2019. ©Gentrit Krasniqi 44
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
With the current state of play being in disarray, as mentioned before, being limited to certain relegated spaces that do not offer the much needed satisfaction and fulfillment of the psychological and physiological needs of the children, the main factor that should be redefined is the physical environment where the urban play should occur, in a fluid and spontaneous manner, and not be planned around the space. The branches of the physical environment today have a wide range of spread, starting with the car-oriented urban planning, with it reduces the ability to walk around the city, thus the “wandering” having the opportunity to happen, and due to distance and always-increasing traffic dangers the urban play isn’t considered as important. As the same time, the inadequate pedestrian infrastructure does not have the proper urban values to be able to support the urban play, and since the need of the city for over-development requires a proper infrastructure with it, we also can notice the lack of spaces where the urban play should occur naturally. The main problems with the urban spaces today when it comes how space itself is treated, we find that the previously “leftover spaces” that were used by children before now have been taken over by car parking. The urbanization has reduced the “wild” natural space, and for the places that are left over, the quality has been on the downgrade ever since. From the social context, these problems are accompanied by constantly-declining lack of passive surveillance in neighborhoods. These problems of the psychical environment are shaped by certain policies that form the basis of how the city functions and is designed. The policies include a lack of planning for the child-friendly design, a higher rate of insurance cost resulting in a non-desire for adventurous urban play spaces, with social elements of “risk anxiety”, a prohibition of unsupervised play, and overall reduced play time. Urban play is one of the most important key points for a healthy development on the children, and the urban domains carry most of the weight as strategic key points for future design strategy.
45
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
B 3 013 000 999
IMPACT OF DESIGN TOWARD URBAN PLAY
The everyday life of a child today is limited to three environmental zones; the home where the social circle consists of their caretakers and siblings, the school where the social circle includes other children and teachers, and the playground where the social circle is other children of their community. Even though these spaces are designed and intended for children, they are heavily regulated by adults and does not allow for children to be able to take ownership of these spaces and adapt them according to their needs. Furthermore, these spaces do not serve as a network where play is in full fluidity and happens spontaneously, but they have turned into “destinations” where children have a timetable at which time the play should occur, and parents serving the role of a supervisor during the time when the playing happens, and chauffeur to go to the playing ground from home or school and to come back. As it is described in the book “Children and their Urban Environment: Changing Worlds”, children have become increasingly relegated to ‘child spaces’ in the city (playgrounds, skate parks, school grounds) and seen as increasingly unwelcome in parts of the city. Their presence on the street, in public spaces, and in natural spaces has become a source of disquiet; indeed, children’s visibility in many urban areas is conspicuous by its absence.” (Freeman and Tranter, 2011). This is very different from how children would play in previous generations, where play was happening in the driveways, streets and in every pocket spare space of the city. As the city continues to diversify and densify, children’s needs should be embedded in it. Through innovative design and forward-thinking planning, the city itself with its many urban nodes can and should provide opportunities that address clearly the growing concerns about children and their physical and mental health. A compact city includes children as one of the most important and pertinent part of its inhabitants, and doesn’t reduce their needs to relegated rubberized “child spaces” that don’t do much in terms of network play, thus taking the physical manifestation of play and slicing it into parts that are put on the city scarcely.
46
CHAPTER TWO : RESEARCH
WHERE DO CHILDREN PLAY TODAY?
B 3 02 000
In the capitalist and technologically-connected world that we live in, the decline of the number of public spaces for children to play in has created alternative options for children to be able to play. These spaces consist of private and marketable playing areas, localized inside shopping malls, gardens of coffee shops and restaurants, leisure centers and a huge variety of theme parks. The areas that today children usually play in our indoor environments with the marketing point behind almost being that it is “safe”, and the carefully planned interior of these spaces are “soft” and “danger free zones”. The same type of approach can be seen in the playgrounds that are designed, with a lack of usage of natural materials that are viewed as dangerous, and an overuse of rubber materials with the focus goal in mind that a child should not have the slightest chance of playing with something that is deemed to be too risky. All these environments offer spaces with a focus on the commercial side, overuse of standards, but what tends to be forgotten is that these spaces reflect an adult-centered view of the play, and ignore the child perspective. I would strongly disagree with this approach. Play is a fluid process of learning through movement, where children interact with the world with genuine curiosity and wonder, and simply just isolating children in inside spaces with a tablet, electronically entertained and trying to keep them fit with plastic furniture, never experiencing any trouble or real challenge, while at the same time pretending that there is nothing wrong won’t help at all. The way we raise our children is one the best barometers of the morality on society, and if we truly care about this problem, going forth the need for outside play will be prioritized in urban contexts. The landscapes we create are powerful testament to how we as a culture treat the natural world. If we asphalt the entire play yard, surround it with chain link fence and fill it with plastic toys and organized sports, what does that tell children? - Susan Herrington
47
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
C 03 000 999
CHAPTER THREE
Picture 8. Children Playing, New York, 1940s
48
CONCEPTUALIZATION
The chapter of conceptualization is divided into three main parts. The first part includes the ideology behind the much-needed redefinition toward playscapes and does into details with case studies to prove the chase about how we can reformulate playscapes to adjust the scope of how we perceive these spaces. The second part argues for the involvement of risky play as the narrative-driven factor for the newly reimagined playscapes and proposes a typology of risky plays that can be included to ensure proper stimulation on the child. After this carefully analysis of what can be a playscape, and how the ideology of risky play is the applicable ideology that should be embraced, the third part being about landscape conceptualization and how the previous analysis part can be applied in terms of comparison to design principles and landscape element, and how we can achieve sensory stimulation in the child. This third and final part of the chapter of conceptualization finishes with a new urban strategy as the main tool for further design. This chapter strives to serve a bridge between different elements that interact with each other often when it comes to how the play and the playground should be manifested in urban design and to draw a straight line from the problem to the solution.
49
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
C 1 03 000 999
REDEFINING PLAYSCAPES
Picture 9. Melbourne Hula Hooping Abstraction
50
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
Today, the definition of playscapes varies by the nature of the user and often is the understanding that goes with it in the form of interpretation, rather than a proper sharp explanation of what playscapes really are. Most of the population puts the notion of what a playscape is in the same basket, together with all playing elements, while others mistakenly put them in the same category with the concept of the playground. Others see them as high-end design playing spaces, something that you would see in a fancy magazine, located in the backyard of a deluxe elegant kindergarten, and some consider playground as pure natural spaces where the intent is to be closer to nature. What many fail to realize is that due to the lack of proper terminology, this notion of playgrounds is thrown around casually, thus losing the value that is should have. This lack of proper definition helps the molding of different categories of playscapes all into one, and the whole idea of characterizing different typologies of playscapes, and making a distinction of natural and urban playscapes, where the natural playscape is seen as a space with as few man-made components as possible, while the urban playscapes meaning the spaces that are not defined by boundaries, but through shaping of the landscape for the sole purpose of encouraging interactive play. I would argue that in order to not move farther into the safety-at-all-cost and always-avert-risk mentality, we need to think about redefining the way we perceive the concept of what is playscape, and what criteria we need to apply to it in order for particular spaces to qualify as playscapes. If the space enjoyable? Is the occurrence of play a healthy indicator of the sensory senses in children? Is the space providing meaningful progress in terms of cognitive development? Does it challenge a child to try new things? Is it boring? If yes, why is it boring? If no, why is it interesting? These questions can be answered by including children into the analysis and design process in order to design ergonomic, risk-taking playscapes in urban domains, and shy away from the current trend to design adult-centered spaces with big plastic toys that try to qualify as playscape interactive elements.
51
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
C 1 01 000 999
THE NOTION OF PLAYSCAPES
Today, the term “playground” and the term “playscape” are confused, and as such, often they are used to mean the same thing, casually being thrown around without any proper connotation to it. There should be a much-needed separation between the two, where we should acknowledge playgrounds as physical spaces with a set of equipment’s whose sole purpose is to provide spaces for children to play, whereas playscape should be used to mean urban or natural space that uses different elements for the sole purpose should be the narrative-driving position in order to facilitate the possibility of play happening. Instead of trying to put any type of designed and integrated sets of tools or equipment under the umbrella of the definition of playscapes, thus creating a definition solely based on the physical parts of the theory of play, we should follow and redefine this notion of playscapes by following in the footsteps of famous educators, such as Joe Frost, otherwise known as the contemporary father of play advocacy. According to Frost, the notion of playscape can be defined as a landscape that affords children the ability to play. Playscape does not exclusively mean a swing, or climbing rocks that reject the philosophy of safety-at-all-cost. Playscape means playful landscape where the presence of joyfulness and enjoyment is expressed by children and adults, and this manifestation of emotional feelings is facilitated by the domain where these feelings occur. Playscape means rejecting central play with monkey bars, swings that are over-regulated and structures that lack the sensory awakening in children. Instead, playscape means embracing climbing stairs, rolling hills, outside games, challenging mazes, and more than anything else, the freedom to play freely, based on the needs of children and the spontaneity of play. Playscapes should be defined as domains where play happens without prior planning, where the child’s senses come to life and his curiosity lights up, and it manifested in physical movement. These domains can be anywhere, anytime, and the only criterion that any particular space needs to meet in order to be qualified as a playscape is for play to happen randomly. The extent to which we design is the only limit to the scale of successfulness in terms of playspaces.
52
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
REFORMULATING URBAN PLAYSCAPES
C 1 02 000
Urban playscapes are spaces that provide the physical surfaces where play occurs randomly, initiated by the sensory stimulus in children through their need to play. Urban playscapes don’t define themselves by putting boundaries, but rather the functional scheme starts to fade away from one function to the other, with the purpose of the narrative to be driven by children. They have no central point, no prescribed area of play, and are defined as open-ended spaces that give the freedom back to the child to use the imagination and creativity in any way they see fit. Urban playscapes tend to move away from the need for specific play equipment, thus breaking away from the culture of fear and over-regulated safety, and the only scenario that is foreseen is that the child will be enticed to use the landscape in any way he sees fit, thus letting the sensory senses and his internal needs to be the director of the narrative. From a design point of view, urban playscapes can be defined as spaces that are comprised of three main points: subject (the child), object (whatever spatial element that makes the child interact with it), and environment (the urban domain where this interaction takes place). playscape
= object
+ subject
+ environment
playscape
object
subject
Figure 9. Playscape Formulation
53
environment
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
It is also interesting to dwell further into what happens when we analyze the sum of these elements when they are paired with another element, which gives us an idea of what are we going to miss when we don’t take into consideration any particular element. Each element has its own importance and can be considered a part of the whole, and it should be treated in this dual manner. When we pair together object and the subject, the element of the environment is lacking, thus we are left with a design where the play “ground” itself is not present. When we analyze the symbiosis of the object and the environment, the ground where the play happens exists, but there is “nothing” to play with. In the last scenario, when we consider the effects of the co-existence of subject and environment, both the physical “ground” where play can happen and the element with which to play are present, but we miss the main key-point of the design, thus we end up with a design that lacks the human scale, the child itself.
object nothing to play with subject
lack of play ground loss of human scale
environment
CT
OB JE
E BJ
CT
SU
PLAYSCAPES
ENVIRONMENT
Figure 10. Playscape Conceptualization
54
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
When we put these ideas to the test in the collective outside world where multiple acts of spontaneous play happen simultaneously, we notice that these playing spaces fit this criterion of hierarchy in tandem, where these three levels, the object, the subject,
environment
subject
object
impromptu playscape
and the environment interact seamlessly.
Figure 11. Playscape Sub-Elements
55
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
C 2 03 000 999
SOCIAL STRATEGIES OF EMBRACING RISKY PLAY
Picture 10. Risky Play Abstraction
56
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
So, the question remains, is it a good idea to let children regulate their own play in a playscape? Are they going to be safe, and what is the chance that they are going to get hurt? That really depends on the definition of the notion “safe”. Let’s suppose that a child is playing on a playscape, play that is happening solely based on his imagination. Will there be a chance he will think that he is really an astronaut and try to jump? Maybe. But what is the opposite? Telling him how he should swing for 15 minutes and then play in the sandpit for 5 more minutes and make him understand that he is not allowed to climb on any of the trees nearby, ignoring the fact that in his imagination the tree was an alien ship? This doesn’t seem to work either, and even though in theory it tries to define itself through good intentions, it does more harm than it is perceived. What many parents fail to understand that embracing risk does not mean in any way putting the child in front of harm’s way, something that would be manifested in the physical form of high swings and steep slides whose intention is to scare away the children. Embracing risk means being alongside your child and playing by his rules, not hover above him while explaining the rules of the game, nor removing every obstacle that may present itself while the child is playing. So, it is completely safe? No, but the child-directed play in a playscape is far safer than the adult-centered play in any playscape or playground, as studies show (Fissel, D., Pattison, G. & Howard, 2005). Playscapes have a fraction of the number of child injuries compared to the standard playgrounds who are filled with play structures. According to the same study, the most frequent injury to children is the fracture of the upper limb resulting from falls from climbing equipment, with the second most common cause of injury being falls from slides, with the playscapes being at the bottom of this list. We should reject the social ideology of nesting the child to the point of making them unable to do the smallest tasks on their own, and let them learn on their own way, and applying this to the process of play seems to be one of the best working methodologies. It comes up to us, the society as a whole to let the child be the director of the narrative of the play.
57
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
C 2 01 000 999
THE BENEFITS OF RISKY PLAY IN URBAN PLAYSCAPES
Like Tim Gill wrote in his book “No Fear- Growing up in a risk-averse society”, we should recognize the benefits that a certain degree of risk presents itself when children are playing. Encountering risk at play is not something to be avoided, and I would argue that this is the root of the problem, and to borrow a phrase from the well-known social psychologist Jonathan Heidt, it’s a bad idea with good intentions that sets up the child up for failure. Children should be taught how their actions have consequences, and to take away the freedom for them to be able to decide whether or not they can or should run fast or jump high is not the best approach on how to raise a healthy independent child. Children have an appetite for risk-taking, something that has been proven from the physiological evolutionary point of view and through careful social studies, and if we do not provide spaces for these children to take risks in steps, sooner or later they are going to expose themselves to greater risk. This is proven to be true just by looking at the commercial-booming business of these “extreme sports” facilities and the publicly funded skate parks, where children yearn for some type of change to be challenged. Active outdoor play is not risk-free, and it shouldn’t be. There is some risk involved, but the risk is highly outweighed by the health and development benefits, Risky play offers long term benefits, with the most important being, it shapes the character of the child. Children are highly-motivated, emotional-driven beings that love to play in risky ways, but at the same time, they are very good at knowing their own capacities, something that is observable when a child on its own avoids risks that he is not really to take. The belief that the parent or the caretaker of the child knows better than the child couldn’t be further from the truth. Children know far better than their parents what they are ready for. A child will take a risk when he is ready, and he will constantly try new things that awaken the motoric senses inside him or her, but if the responsible adult for that child pushes him or her to take risks that they aren’t ready to take on, the result in most cases will be trauma, not thrill.
58
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
EVALUATING THE PHENOMENA OF EMBRACING RISK
C 2 02 000
When it comes to the type of risky play that can beneficial to the child, we should follow the approach of Ellen Sandseter, a professor at Queen Maud University in Trondheim, Norway who describes six categories of risks that seem to attract children universally everywhere in their play. • The first one is great heights. Children want to climb trees and other structures that offer a height from the ground, from where they gain a birds-eye view of the world and feel the thrilling feeling of “I did it”. • The second one is high speeds. Children like to swing on wines, ropes, and swings; slide on sleds when it is snowing, skate or slides in playscapes. They like to ride bikes and skateboards, devices that are fast enough to produce the thrill of almost but not quite losing control. • The third one is dangerous tools. Children like to play with bows and arrows, sharp objects and other tools known to be potentially dangerous. There is great satisfaction of being trusted to handle these tools with the thrill that they are dangerous, and by slowly teaching
the
child
how
to
approach these tools gives them
heights
a sense of confidence. Children like to play around fire and expe-
risky elements
rience the warmness of it, and in bodies of water where they get to
rough and tumble play
experience the wetness and coldness of it, elements that present some danger, but other-
exploring alone
wise is they are not exposed to it, they will fear them and will try to ignore these elements for as long
speed
as they can, without being able to light the fire when they go camp.
Figure 12. The typologies of risky play
59
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
• The fourth one is the rough and tumble. Children like to chase one another and fight playfully, and they typically prefer being in the most vulnerable position, for example, the one being chased, the position that involves the most risk, and most importantly, the most skill to overcome.
HIGH HEIGHTS
01 RISKY TOOLS
03
Chopping vegetables for dinner, hammering nails and using sharp scissors. Playing near the ocean, on the top of a mountain, near a campfire, or on the farm near the horses. Games like climbing trees, climbing on top of tables, or anything else where the risk is that the child falls and gets hurt.
02
HIGH SPEED
Running really fast like the wind, riding downhill on a bike. The risks here would be falling or hitting something.
Figure 13. Five Types of Risky Play
60
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
•
The fifth and final one is getting lost or disappearing. Children like to play hide and
seek and experience the thrill of temporary, scary separation from their companions because they can discover new unknown territories.
ROUGH & TUMBLE
04
05
Wrestling, sword fighting, rough tickle fights. Creating bonding social experiences.
GETTING LOST
Hide and seek, hiding under climbers, and going off into the bushes on a hike.
61
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
The most common mistake for parents to make is the assumption that any type of physical play is bad for their children, especially when it comes to unsupervised play where children can get physical, particularly in rough-and-tumble play. During rough-and-tumble play, some children may experience anger, as one child may hurt another while they are playing. This is not the end of the story though. That same child through this type of play will have to acknowledge that if he wants to play if his internal needs tell him to continue the fun, he will have to overcome that anger. If the child lashes out, then the play is over. Through this type of play, the young children learn to control their fear and anger without lashing out, and they learn how to control the negative emotions inside, while at the same time forming meaningful social bonds with others. I would argue that embracing risky play in a necessary step that needs to be taken, and it’s a crucial step in the design phase, thus taking into consideration physical needs of children such as risky play. Studies have shown that embracing risky play contributes to the emotion-regulation theory of play (LaFreniere, P. 2011). When risky play happens, the children learn to behave adaptively when they experience fear, a feeling that for children is closer to thrill than fright. Through challenging play where the risk is present, children learn to manage their fears, overcome it and not only fulfill their physiological and emotional needs but continue to grow as an individual. This risky play will help children develop both mentally and physically, nurture their creativity, learn about their own capabilities, help them develop balance and condition, reduce obesity, increase academic performance, develop their own self-esteem, let them be independent, and most importantly, let them have fun. If we prevent children from their own, thrilling, self-chosen play, based on our own axioms and core beliefs that the child should be coddled and safe at all times, and their activites should be restricted, believing that this is a dangerous idea when the studies show otherwise, we will make them grow up dull, without the possibility for them to overcome their circumstantial situation, scared to try and doomed to fail at whatever challenge they face in their adult life.
62
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
HIGH HEIGHTS climbing jumping from surfaces balancing on high objects hanging/swinging HIGH SPEEDS swinging at high speed sliding and sledging at high speed running at high speed skating and cycling DANGEROUS ELEMENTS cliffts deep or icy water fire pits sharp or edgy tools ROUGH-AND-TUMBLE wrestling chasing fencing with sticks play fighting GETTING LOST exploring alone finding unknown spots playing in unknown places hide-and-seek Figure 14. Movement through Risky Play
63
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
C 3 03 000 999 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE CONCEPTUALIZATION
Picture 11. Movement Abstraction
64
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
When the topic of the state of playscapes comes up for debate, it is our duty as landscape architects, the default shapers of our environments to see the structural formation of the city not from a regressive point of view where only the participants who have capital have a say in the manner on which the design Is conceptualized, but one where the needs of each individual groups are addressed. In order to design proper spaces where we can facilitate play in a natural manner and materialize environments with long-lasting influences on children, I would argue that we need to specify the importance of each part of the design phase, starting with the proper definition of the design principles that can relate to children, and how they affect the play in children. The design principles that should be used in playscapes, or any type of landscape design for that matter, include but are not limited to: form, color, space, texture, scale, dominance and emphasis, balance, and unity, Each and every one of these design principles should have a proper connotation to it based on research on children and their feelings toward a certain principle, and the results should affect the design as a whole. We should also take into consideration how children feel toward landscape elements including bluescape, greenscape, hardscape, and softscape surfaces and topography, in order to strive for a design that will resonate with its users. Both design principles and landscape elements should be correlated with the senses of the children, thus being able to foresee the impact that the design will have in children, Finally, we need to treat playscapes as one part of something whole, and we need to define design strategies and approaches that will help toward the betterment of playscapes. As it is mentioned beforehand, it falls to us as landscape architects to lobby for better playing spaces, and by redefining the usage of design principles and landscape elements in these spaces, while simultaneously correlating them to the sensory senses in children, we can start the design phase of playscapes knowing the needs and desires of our client, in this case, children. After all, if we don’t focus our attentive design skills on the betterment of human growth, why bother to design at all?
65
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
C 3 01 000 999
EVALUATING DESIGN PRINCIPLES
Picture 12. Design Principles Abstraction
66
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
When it comes to the theoretical approach of design for a wide field such as playscapes, the design principles that are applicable in that particular case should be studied in depth, and most importantly, differentiated. In order for an approach of design to have a lasting impact, there must be a categorization of the principles that one feels they should apply. In this chapter, these design principles consist of of eight elements. These elements include space, scale and proportion, shape and form, color, texture, dominance and emphasis, balance, and the last one being unity. As the design approach is highly subjective, consisting on the preference of the designer itself and the societal mindset, this chapter does to great lengths to distinguish different approaches on the same principle, rather than criticize a certain approach, thus focusing on the variety of design principles and bringing meaning to the design.
67
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
SPACE
Space, or otherwise known as depth, is the eponymous property of our three-dimensional world and it represents the area that shape or form occupies, within, above or below an object or objects. The most common categorization of spaces that is present within the realm of playscapes belongs to the open space domain, and our design should reflect this, while simultaneously recognizing and embracing the functional need for enclosed spaces. The space around playscape should be used as a negative background, with particular elements serving as the main focal point, or space itself can serve as the playscape, where the irregular topography or the straight-line lawn-like landscape can both fulfill this role. The need for enclosed spaces can be reflected on the design as a part of the environment that leaves out open views, and offers the child within a bordered space where the child can feel a sense of security and calmness, or in terms of natural corridors that lead the child to move from one open space to the other, with both of these scenarios offering the child the possibility of hide-and-seek play.
open space
transition
closed space
Figure 14. Space as Playscape Design Principle
68
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
SCALE AND PROPORTION
Children, just like adults, judge the scale of something according to their body size and thus recognize the outside elements as miniature, life-sized, oversized or enormous, and the designer tries to emphasize the importance of one object or offer a new perspective based on the size of their design. The scale of the design itself is a crucial criterion that must be achieved through careful planning. In order to ensure a sensory consistency in our design, the size and the proportion of the elements within the playscape have to be consistent with the child’s mental preferences and the physical needs. In the context of playscapes like with any other play equipment, the proportion of the singular elements within the designed playscape have to be compliant with one another, and each singular element has to be properly sized to fit within the child’s physical requirements.
Figure 15. Scale as Playscape Design Principle
69
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
SHAPE
Children gravitate toward the exploration of different shapes that they can notice in their environments, and one of the metric standards of measuring the cognitive development in children is their ability to differentiate between different shapes. Shape, as an enclosed two-dimensional area defined by the outside border, can create different feelings in children, with the angular shapes creating a feeling of rules, sharpness, and constriction, while the organic shapes can sometimes create an overwhelming feeling in children, and the preference is somewhere in between, with angular shapes without
symbiosis
organic
angular
the edges, laid out in a natural flow with the topography and the terrain of the site.
Figure 16. Shape as Playscape Design Principle
70
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
COLOR
Color is an important factor in the children’s preference for a playable element in the playscape, with most colors being of personal preference, but there is an overall sense of attractiveness toward a certain color palette. In the past, is used to be considered as common knowledge that children can only perceive main colors, thus colors such as bright red, blue and green were used in all spaces. Today, we have better knowledge in the field, and we can differentiate the effects of different colors in children, starting with the use of red as the most dominant color which can be used as an eyecatcher, but when the value and saturation are high, it offers overstimulation. Blue enhances creativity and makes playscapes into relaxing environments, but when used too much it creates a feeling of sadness. Yellow is happiness and sunshine, while the green offers relaxation and a sense of symbiosis with the environment. Pink color is a calming color, while the purple color is considered to be an attention-grabber, and finally, the orange serving as a performance enhancer. I would argue that this principle should be treated as the most important design principle for design, as for the user of the playscape, the color remains the highest stimuli for the senses in the child. We should not shy away from colors, but each color that we decide to work with, we should create a mood stabilizing environment with less-satu-
h
v
ts
s
ea
att
ha
the
e
rel
e alu
rati atu on
onmen vir
ity
pe
gs
cal
ue
er bb
tion gra en
rmance rfo
enhance
r
ng colo mi
y tones rth
d feelin an
vis d in ibil
ation an ax
vitiy an ati
alm en dc
olor tc
ines an pp
unshin ds
in dom an
cre
rated muted colors.
r
Figure 17. Color as Playscape Design Principle
71
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
TEXTURE
Children are known for wanting to touch everything. They love to explore with their sense of touch, and they learn through their hands. In every corner of open urban spaces that children play in, you can see children reaching out to feel the grass, running their hands along wooden banisters. During the design, one should consider the enjoyment of challenges in children, challenges that draw their attention to textures that help them refine their sense of touch. Children through play, learn how to differentiate between textures, and learns that the slide is slippery, therefore the fun there is to experience the thrill of sliding fast and that the sand is grainy and the fun there is to run your fingers through it and watch it slip through your fingers. The texture is a crucial design principle for landscapers, and whether or not a child can immerse into his own world while playing, it comes down to our application of texture in our design.
slippery
grainy
fuzzy
rough
smooth
bumpy
Figure 18. Texture as Playscape Design Principle
72
squishy
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
BALANCE
Children are attracted to elements that stand out, especially from the visual point of view. When we think about the physical manifestation of playscapes, we can either create a cohesive playground where the child can play with all the elements that are designed in a unified hierarchy, or we can create playscapes where an element is emphasized by creating dominance, and through this dominance, this particular element will attract the child to join play around it. Dominance can be separated into three levels, the first being the dominant element, the second one the sub-dominant and the third one being the subordinate. Dominance can be created by using any other design principle in a singular element, either be it enlarged scale, powerful color or unique texture. Both approaches are applicable, and both serve the purpose of facilitating play in a natural manner where the instinct of the child is the narrator of the play, but when we create a playscape that has dominance on it, we have to treat the other
subject
object
environment
design strategy
interaction
materials
elements around it in a harmonious and balanced manner.
size
color
density
value
DESIGN
Figure 19. Balance as Playscape Design Principle
73
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
DOMINANCE AND EMPHASIS
Children are thought to be chaotic, sometimes irrational human beings, but they will appreciate the balance on their everyday life, something that is shown on the way they draw their own experiences with the outside environment. In the same manner, by the way, that they use the playscape itself, if there is no balance, they will not gravitate toward it, but will rather ignore and the other side of the playscape will experience an overflow of children. Our approach to design, no matter how creative or visual aesthetics, it will fail on its goal to facilitate play as a whole without proper balance. Size, color, density, and value are some of the parametric tools that help create balance in the design itself. If the playscape doesn’t have certain respect toward balance, the play itself will move further from the natural nature of it.
integration
color
size
emphasysis
highlight
focal point
Figure 20. Dominance as Playscape Design Principle
74
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
UNITY
One of the most important design principles that are applicable to the design of playscapes if the concept of unity. In order for a playscape to possess the necessary flow of the movement that children make, all elements of design should work together and each element supports the other, while at the same time each element maintains its own personality. The structure of the playscape as a whole comes together through this design principle, and each element is a part of the message that is transmitted. The principle of unity can be divided into two categories: visual unity and conceptual unity, where the user either focuses on the final product as a visual unified piece or when the user becomes aware of the designed piece as a whole through the transmitted meaning. Since the playscapes are meant to facilitate play for children, we should be aware of the importance of visual unity, with the conceptual unity being of secondary importance.
harmony
proximity
similarity
emphasysis
continuation
rhythm
Figure 21. Unity as Playscape Design Principle
75
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
C 3 02 000 999
LANDSCAPE ELEMENTS
Picture 13. Landscape Element Abstraction
76
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
Playscapes should serve as the facilitators of play, and whether risky play should be included as part of the design or not, the materialization of these playscapes should include an assortment of materials from different categories, trying to bring solutions to multiple questions in terms of children’s needs and desires, and these landscape elements should serve as a collection guide, starting with the greenscape materials, bluescape materials, hardscape materials, softscape materials, and finishing with the topography as the last landscape element. In this chapter, we will see which materials can be used to improve the sensory satisfaction of children and their needs, and how each of these landscape elements can be used by proposing a variety of solutions and alternatives to the current trend of rubberized flat areas.
77
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
GREENSCAPE
Children love the texture of touching the dirt, doing meaningful tasks such as planting seeds, especially when it is wrapped around in the form of play. Children have a certain connection with the outside world, and they can differentiate between inanimate objects like swings and slides,and animate living beings such as plants. What children want and love most is fun plants which can hold their interest, and can capture the attention of a child through sensory elements by bringing attention to the most import-
sis 'Morn inen ing s s L u h
Mis ca nt
us nnu a us
ht' ig
Hel ian th
ant characteristics of certain plants.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4 7
5 8
ina ant z by
Cor ylu s
Stac hy s
8
6
4
1
7
6
5
'Contorta ana ' l l e v a
1
2
2
3
3
4 8
7
6
4
5 8
Figure 22. Greenscape Conceptualization
78
7
6
5
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
When we think about the plantation and the correlation between children and plants, we should acknowledge the fact about how children perceive plants, and reflect on the applicability of plants as living interactive plants, not just decorative elements. We need to apply plants that offer visual stimulation like sunflowers with their colors, with unique texture in terms of touching stimulations, that create an aromatic environment and can also be edible. Plants can also serve as movement and time stimuli
ifolia gust n a la
Ulm us p
Lav an du
through wind and seasonal change while serving as spatial barriers and as play props
1
ila um
1
2
2
3
3
4 8
7
6
4
5 8
Ilex aq ui
m liu fo
1 2 3 4 8
7
6
5
7
6
5
1
COLORS as visual stimuli
2
TOUCHING plants with unique texture
3
SMELL in forms of aromatic plants
4
EDIBLE as taste stimuli
5
SPACE CREATION as fence or barrier
6
PLAY ELEMENTS as planting props
7
WIND as movement stimuli
8
SEASONAL CHANGE as time stimuli
79
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
BLUESCAPE
Water is one the landscape elements that can tell a powerful story of its place in a landscape, as the water becomes more valuable, so does its story and meaning, thus representing itself as one the most dynamic landscape elements. The element of water, due to its dual nature and heavily used as a man-made structure while still maintaining the natural aspect of itself, can be used to invoke diverse feelings, such as serenity, wealth, reflection and fun. Water and its nature represent a universally appealing play material with endless applicability options. The accessibility to water is one the most important differentiation that should be done in terms of landscape planning, with the first category being the scenario where the child can touch the water and smell it as the water element is designed as accessible, and the second category is the scenario where the child cannot physically interact with the water, but at the same is will be visually pleasing and offer auditory perception where the design remains as non-accessible. While both options remain open to the applicability, relying on the child’s need for curiosity, the approach to accessible water design should be encouraged more than the non-accessible with the safety concerns in mind.
Figure 23. Bluescape Conceptualization
80
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
Water play helps the child develop motor skills such as hand-eye coordination, allows children to explore a substance and make discoveries about it, thus enhancing the problem-solving skills in the child, creates a desire for patterns in language developing where the child wants to know what is a drizzle and what is drain, while at the same time, teaching children about the fundamentals of science.
81
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
HARDSCAPE SURFACE
The subchapter of hardscape is meant to give an alternative to the surfaces that are applicable today through the mass consumption, and it has turned into a prefabricated part of the whole design, lacking the sensory stimulation on the child itself. We need our urban playscapes to be designed around spontaneity and the idea that the children should get to experience the tactile part of the design, and the materials that we use are crucial in this phase. We should be as sustainable as possible, using materials such as high-density polyethylene, a high functioning recycled plastic, concrete that is reinforced by fiberglass, galvanized steel for the structure and the feeling of metal, plastic lumber and recycled timber, and wove fabric that is steel reinforced, all being a materialization of the child’s need to play.
High-density polyethylene (HDPE)
Glass Fiber Reinforced Concrete (GFRC)
Galvanized Steel
Recycled Plastic Lumber
Recycled Timber
Steel-Reinforced Woven Fabric
Figure 24. Hardscape Conceptualization
82
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
SOFTSCAPE SURFACE
I would argue that the current trend of rubberizing the whole surface is going in a regressive direction, and to it removes the stimulation from the child itself and doesn't let the child get familiar with natural landscape elements, and as a result, not letting the children experience the real world. As an alternative to this idea, we should continue to use natural softscape surfaces, embracing the loose softscape surfaces as the symbio-
Sand
Bare e ar t
l
Mulch
Pea gr av e
es
Figure 25. Softscape Conceptualization
83
PIP
Artific ial t
f ur
ignore UNITARY SOFTSCAPE SURFACE
h
Rubbe rt il
embrace LOOSE SOFTSCAPE SURFACE
s as
EWF
use NATURAL SOFSCAPE SURFACE
Natur al gr
sis between artificial and risky play, and ignore the usage of unitary softscape surfaces.
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
TOPOGRAPHY
Topography
as
the
third dimension of the surface can change the whole feeling of a place, and there should be a deeper exploration of this element, and the effect that can be achieved from its application. Through proper analysis of the topography and proper categorization of this element based on the spectrum hole-or-hill, we can learn to utilize the different properties that this landscape element possesses.
1m
1m
A tendency to prefer environments with unobstructed views (prospects) and areas of escape and concealment (retreat). from “Universal Principles of Design� W. Lidwell
~50m
1m
~5m
1m
Figure 26. Topography Conceptualization
84
~3m
~2m
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
Topography should be used seamlessly as part of the design whenever this opportunity presents itself, and rather than create flat surfaces, we should include slopes, hills or holes in the terrain, thus creating dramatic possible scenarios that make the child interact with the place, facilitate risky play through the terrain that can result in challenging movement, bringing meaning to the playscape itself.
85
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
C 3 03 000 999
ASSESSING THE SENSORY SENSES IN CHILDREN
Picture 14. Senses || Perception Abstraction
86
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
The outside environment shapes the cognitive development in a child based on the experiences that they have, which includes the activity of using the five senses, which are hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch. In this part of the thesis, there will be a summarization of the correlation of senses and how they act when compared to the materials that are used in the playscape, and how each sense reacts to use of design principles. It is of crucial importance to draw attention to what makes a child want to play, why do they like to touch a certain material and is there a pattern of movement as a reaction to a certain use type of a design principle. Sensory integration manifests itself as a step forward when it comes to cognitive development in children, and it should be a part of playscape design proposals.
87
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
When we put to the test the senses of children, we notice that the visual and touching sensation are the most commonly used by children, and this should serve as an important narrative-driven step for the design phase, while at the same time trying to get results at to which sense corresponds to a specific material. The correlation between senses and landscape elements is of significant value, but we should know how to stimulate the other senses too, and this step should serve as a provider for the design principles that can be applicable to a certain use of a certain landscape element in order to provide the stimulation of a certain sense, thus making playscapes complete.
Figure 27. Senses and Materialization Conceptualization
88
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
Figure 28. Senses and Design Principles Conceptualization
89
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
C 3 04 000 999
NEW URBAN STRATEGIES AS MEANS OF DESIGN
Picture 15. Urban Strategy Abstraction
90
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
Professor Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum said that we are living in increasingly urban world, with more children growing up in cities than ever before. It is therefore imperative that we design and build cities that meet the needs of children: seeking their input during the design process, providing them with access to play and education, and facilitating their social and cultural interactions. I would strongly agree with the professor, and i would add that in the urbanized world where the play enviroments are ever-declining, embracing risky play, using sensory integration, using the proposed materialization and design principles an an urban strategy whenever we think about play, all these steps will manifest in play experiences that follow the child’s narrative through urban playscapes.
91
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
Figure 29. Urban Playscapes Strategy
LET NATURE TAKE ITS COURSE Embracing risky play as a method of letting the children play freely, and integrating multiple typologies of risky play as a healthy way of growing up
MORE NATURAL, LESS MAN-MADE Sorting the use of landscape elements into categories with the intention of serving as a guide toward the future design proposals in the playscape field
DONT IMITATE, REFLECT Proposing new correlation between the senses and the design of playscapes, with the intention of maximum optimization of sensory satisfaction
92
1
2
3
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
4
5
SUBSTANCE, NOT APPEARANCE Creating an illustrative guide toward the applicability of design principles in the field of playscape design
ENCOURAGE CHILD NARRATIVE, NOT ADULT-CENTERED PLAY Providing concrete proof about the current state of the phenomena of play, and the involvement of other societal and environmental factors
ORGANIZED SPORTS
PLAYGROUND
HOME
SCHOOL
EXPERIENCE, NOT STATIC POINT
6
Striving to promote the idea of playscapes existing everywhere, rather than serving as left-aside, rubberizes spaces where play must happen PLAY
AY
PLAY
PL
AY
AY PL
SCHOOL
AY
Y PLA
P L AY
P LA
93
PL
PLAY
Y
PL
Y PLA
PL A
AY PL
PL
PL A
PLAY
P L AY
PLAY
AY
PLA
HOME
AY PL
PLAY
PLAY
PLAY
AY PL
Y
PL
Y
AY
PLAY
Y
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
After the mentioned urban principles that can be applied in the future when it comes to playscape design, we should draw a concrete plan about the conceptualization of how design proposals should be developed, how risky play as the play ideology, materials, design principles and senses can be used with the social and design strategies, and why it is important to think in the scale of playscapes going forward. PLAYSCAPE HIERARCHY
RISKY PLAY
2C 1A 2D
STRATEGY
MATERIALS
1B 3A
SENSES
1C 3B
DESIGN PRINCIPLES
1D
DESIGN PROPOSAL
SOCIAL STRATEGY
3C 2A 3D
DESIGN STRATEGY
2B
STREETSCAPE PLAYSCAPE
URBANSCAPE PLAYSCAPE
Figure 30. Step-By-Step Strategy for Urban Playscapes
94
OPENSCAPE PLAYSCAPE
CHAPTER THREE : CONCEPTUALIZATION
With the right tools in place to form a social design strategy toward the future, it is important to distinguish between typologies of playscape, and how this categorization can better the whole design phase, in a rational and mature way to make sure that the
STREETSCAPE
design of playscapes is rooted on meaning, not just surface.
URBANSCAPE
01
OPENSCAPE
02
03
A
JUNCTION INTER-PLAY
B
FLEXIBLE FURNITURE PLAY
A
PLAYSCAPE FOR ALL AGES
B
URBAN WATERSCAPE
A
PLAY ON THE HILLSCAPE
B
TREEHOUSE PLAYSCAPE
Integrating play into the transitional zones of functions such as street crossing parts, street to transport or metro stations.
Exploring the duality of the street furniture both on the aesthetical role and on their function to merge seamlessly with urban play.
Designing playscapes for different ages where the child can challenge himself based on their perception of age.
Bringing the water element to the playscape in both still form where observing is stimulated or moving form where touching is stimulated.
Making the topography the main element of the playscape and allowing the unobstructed views and the retreat spots to be the main component.
Highlighting the valley of the park by creating a main element with wood, a flat treehouse that offers risky games and unsupervised safe running.
Figure 31. New Playscapes Categorization
95
C
OBJECT-ORIENTED PLAY
D
WALLSCAPE PLAYSCAPE
C
JUNKSCAPE PLAY
D
ROOF-PLAY GARDENS
C
CITYPARK PLAYSCAPES
D
ROUGH-AND-TUMBLE PLAY
Establishing the concept of play toward playable objects that can facilitate risky play in small environments.
Incorporating the flat surface of the space walls with the ground, where the play happens in different surface planes.
Creating playscapes with creative use of otherwise spent materials where the functions of old element have new purposes.
Bringing the playscapes to the highest levels of buildings, as a form of protest toward urbanization and giving back the empty spaces to the children.
Designing plant with the intention of shifting the attention from plants as visual components toward plants as playful components.
Creating playscapes that easily facilitate play fighting and evoke emotions of encouragement and challenge in children.
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
D 03 000 999
CHAPTER FOUR
Picture 16. Paul Remos, A Circus Strongman, Hoists His Son Up In The Air Using Only His Right Arm To Feed A Giraffe At The London Zoo, 1950s
96
DESIGN PROPOSALS
The chapter of the design proposals gives three proposals, each from one of the categories that are in the scale hierarchy, starting from streetscape, then urbanspace, with the last proposal being from the openscape category. All three playscapes tackle an important urban node that can be used as a solution-provider to the contextualized problem of over-regulation of play in today’s world. The first playscape is located on one of the metro entrances in the Móricz Zsigmond körtér, and in this playscape, the child will find a colorful environment that makes the child’s curiosity come outside in the urban realm itself. The second playscape is located nearby the same square, but rather than focusing on the street level, this playscape tries to defy the notion of urban rooftops as non-suitable environments for play to happen, and by constructing the rooftop playscape with hedged mazes and community garden, we create a sense of democracy toward the child as one of the important urban stakeholders. The third design proposal gives an alternative to the playgrounds located in parks as minor side elements of the whole design, and rather tries to bring the playscape upfront, where the child is the one who directs the whole play.
97
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
INTEGRATING PLAYSCAPES INTO URBAN STOPING NODES
SCALE
SPACE
The playscape that is integrated on one of the access points to the metro station on the Móricz Zsigmond körtér represents itself as a simplified unity of elements that work both on the miniature and oversize scale, resulting on a unique take on the urban play, where play happens through a spontaneous narrative.
miniature
FORM
COLOR
transition
muted
TEXTURE
BALANCE
symbiosis
DOMINANCE
size Figure 32. Streetscape Playscape Design Proposal 98
density UNITY
tactile
rhythm
CHAPTER FOUR : DESIGN PROPOSALS
The playscape itself contains a representation of the hearing stimuli in form of sculptures that integrate sound into the play, ropes to swing by with soft surface under it, and interactive arches that serve as a connection to the visual stimulation in children and create a possibility for multiple play scenarios to happen.
99
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
RETHINKING ROOFTOPS AS URBAN GREEN PLAYSCAPES
SCALE
SPACE
The symbiosis between play space facilitations with the site being a rooftop represents a unique opportunity to create spaces for children as a form of protest against commercial-based urbanization where the needs of the children are ignored, thus democratizing and transforming the idea of what a rooftop can be.
medium
FORM
COLOR
open space
combined value
TEXTURE
BALANCE
symbiosis
DOMINANCE
color Figure 33. Urbanscape Playscape Design Proposal 100
value UNITY
tactile
similarity
CHAPTER FOUR : DESIGN PROPOSALS
The amalgamation of playscapes in rooftops offers an opportunities for new design approaches, which in this playscape is treated with maze-like games with hedges and sunflowers, multiple play spaces with typology of topographies, and mobilizing spaces for community gardens.
101
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
UNIFICATION OF PLAYSCAPES AND URBAN GREEN SPACES
SCALE
SPACE
Open green spaces offer the opportunity to design in open air space, and this liberty toward design should be treated naturally in a minimalistic manner, letting space itself serve as the driver of the narrative, where the materialization of the playscape integrates calm feelings, sensory stimulations, and risky play.
oversize
FORM
COLOR
closed space
desaturated BALANCE
TEXTURE
symbiosis
focal point Figure 34. Openscape Playscape Design Proposal 102
size UNITY
DOMINANCE
tactile
continuation
CHAPTER FOUR : DESIGN PROPOSALS
This particular minimalistic woody playscape offers interesting open access points while toying around with the transitional sense of the space, creating introspective spaces inside with the greenery outside as an eyecatcher, while encouraging climbing, crawling and swinging inside and outside of the physical space.
103
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
E 03 000 999
CHAPTER FIVE
Picture 17. Children Hanging on a Metal Pipe, Paris, 1960s
104
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, social factors such as the changing nature of childhood today, the decline of the personal freedom of the child surrounded by the culture of fear, influenced by the increase of screen-time in children and a generation of parents that treats their children as fragile beings that need to be coddled all the time give a good description of the social state of play today in our society. This statement becomes even stronger when we consider the duality of urban domains today that continuously promotes a culture of children as non-primary urban entities without any commercial value, and puts the phenomena of play in the risk of existence itself, making it redundant and isolated, thus causing a deprivation from play itself. This radical shift in the society and the correlation of nature and nurture in children calls for new perceptive approaches in design itself and represents a new way forward, starting with the redefinition of playscapes itself, thus bringing this problem on the urban realm, while at the same time, religiously embracing risky play as the natural play approach, leaving aside the current trendy ideology that children must be coddled all the time, safe and in constant comfort, always in compatibility with the design principles, landscape materialization and sensory stimulation.
105
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
F 03 000 999
CHAPTER SIX : REFERENCES
Picture 18. Children Playing with Marbles, New York, 1930s
106
LIST OF PICTURES
F 1 03 000 999
Picture 1. A child playing inside the Louvre museum. Paris, France. 2019. ©Gentrit Krasniqi ................................6 Picture 2. Children In A Manchester Street Find Their Own Enjoyment. 1946 ..............................................................8 Picture 3. Children Drawing With Chalk, Manchester, 1966 ………………..............................................................................14 Picture 4. Kids playing in "La Casbah". Algiers, Algeria. 2019. ©Gentrit Krasniqi ....................................................30 Picture 5. Kids Play In The Street, New York, 1900s ...........................................................................................................32 Picture 6. Children Running in The Street, 1950s ...............................................................................................................40 Picture 7. Children Find a Green Island to Play In. Pristina, Kosovo. 2019. ©Gentrit Krasniqi ...............................44 Picture 8. Children Playing, New York, 1940s .....................................................................................................................48 Picture 9. Melbourne Hula Hooping Abstraction ...............................................................................................................50 Picture 10. Risky Play Abstraction .........................................................................................................................................56 Picture 11. Movement Abstraction ..........................................................................................................................................66 Picture 12. Design Principles Abstraction ...........................................................................................................................68 Picture 13. Landscape Element Abstraction .......................................................................................................................76 Picture 14. Senses || Perception Abstraction .....................................................................................................................86 Picture 15. Urban Strategy Abstraction ................................................................................................................................90 Picture 16. Play At The London Zoo, 1950s ............................................................................................................................96 Picture 17. Children Hanging on a Metal Pipe, Paris, 1960s ............................................................................................104 Picture 18. Children Playing with Marbles, New York, 1930s .........................................................................................106
107
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
F 2 03 000 999
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The Direction of the Thesis ................................................................................................................10 Figure 2. The Methodology of the Thesis .........................................................................................................11 Figure 3. The Relevance of the Thesis ............................................................................................................12 Figure 4. The Outline of the Thesis ...................................................................................................................13 Figure 5. George Perec’s experimentation of the word play ....................................................................17 Figure 6. Social Framework Abstraction ......................................................................................................19 Figure 7. Psychological Framework Abstraction .......................................................................................22 Figure 8. Philosophical Framework Abstraction .......................................................................................24 Figure 9. Playscape Formulation ....................................................................................................................53 Figure 10. Playscape Conceptualization .......................................................................................................54 Figure 11. Playscape Sub-Elements ...............................................................................................................55 Figure 12. The Typologies of Risky Play ..........................................................................................................59 Figure 13. Five Types of Risky Play ..................................................................................................................60 Figure 14. Movement through Risky Play ......................................................................................................63 Figure 14. Space as Playscape Design Principle ........................................................................................68 Figure 15. Scale as Playscape Design Principle ..........................................................................................69 Figure 16. Shape as Playscape Design Principle ........................................................................................70 Figure 17. Color as Playscape Design Principle ...........................................................................................71 Figure 18. Texture as Playscape Design Principle ......................................................................................72 Figure 19. Balance as Playscape Design Principle .....................................................................................73 Figure 20. Dominance as Playscape Design Principle ..............................................................................74 Figure 21. Unity as Playscape Design Principle ...........................................................................................75 Figure 22. Greenscape Conceptualization ...................................................................................................78 Figure 23. Bluescape Conceptualization ......................................................................................................80 Figure 24. Hardscape Conceptualization .....................................................................................................82 Figure 25. Softscape Conceptualization .......................................................................................................83 Figure 26. Topography Conceptualization ....................................................................................................84 Figure 27. Senses and Materialization Conceptualization ......................................................................88 Figure 28. Senses and Design Principles Conceptualization .................................................................89 108
CHAPTER SIX : REFERENCES
Figure 29. Urban Playscapes Strategy ..........................................................................................................93 Figure 30. Step-By-Step Strategy for Urban Playscapes ........................................................................94 Figure 31. New Playscapes Categorization ..................................................................................................95 Figure 32. Streetscape Playscape Design Proposal .................................................................................98 Figure 33. Urbanscape Playscape Design Proposal ................................................................................100 Figure 34. Openscape Playscape Design Proposal ..................................................................................102
109
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
F 3 03 000 999
1.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Froebel, F. (1902) Education by Development. New York, United States of America: D.
Appleton and Company. 2.
Davies, S. (2019) The Montessori Toddler: A Parent's Guide to Raising a Curious and
Responsible Human Being. New York, United States of America: Workman Publishing Company. 4.
Campbell, H. (2013) Landscape and Child Development. Toronto, Canada:
Evergreen Publication. 5.
Bjorklund, D. (2018) Children s Thinking: Cognitive Development and Individual
Differences. California, United States of America: Sage Publications. 6.
Peterson, J. (2018) 12 Rules for Life : An Antidote to Chaos. Toronto, Canada: Random
House Canada. 7.
Haidt, J & Lukianoff, G (2019) The Coddling of the American Mind (How Good Intentions and
Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure). New York, United States of America. Penguin Press. 8.
Gill, T. (2007) No Fear Growing up in a risk averse society. London, Great Britain: Calouste
Gulbenkian Foundation. 9.
Tovey, H (2007) Playing Outdoors Spaces and Places, Risk and Challenge. New York,
United States of America: McGraw-Hill House Publications. 10.
Hörschelmann, K & van Blerk, L. (Year Published) Children, Youth and the City. New York,
United States of America: Routledge publications. 11.
Tai, K. (2006) Designing Outdoor Environments for Children. New York, United States of
America: McGraw-Hill House Publications. 12.
Dudek, M. (2005) Children’s Spaces. Burlington, United States of America: Architectural
Press - An imprint of Elsevier. 13.
Scott, S. (2010) Architecture for Children. Camberwell, Australia: Australian Council for
Educational Research Ltd. 14.
van den Brink, A. (2017) Landscape Architecture: Methods and Methodology. New York,
United States of America: Routledge publications. 15.
Lefaivre, L & Hall, G. (2007) Ground-up City: Play as a Design Tool. Rotterdam,
Netherlands: 010 publications.
110
CHAPTER SIX : REFERENCES
LIST OF CITATIONS •
F 4 03 000 999
Giddens, A. (1964) Notes on the Concepts of Play and Leisure. URL:https://onlineli-
brary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1964.tb01247.x •
Louv, R., 2008. Last child in the woods: Saving our children from nature-deficit disorder,
Algonquin Books, USA. •
Fjørtoft, Ingunn. (2004). ‘Landscape as Playscape: The Effects of Natural Environments on
Children’s Play and Motor Development.’ in Children, Youth and Environments Vol. 14, No.2: 21-44. •
Whitebread, D; Basilio M; Kuvalja, M; Verma M. (2012). ‘The Importance of Play’, University
of Cambridge. •
Piaget, J., Inhelder, B., 1971. The child’s conception of space, Langdon, 4th Edition, Compton
Printing Ltd., London. •
Moore, R. C., 1991. Streets as playgrounds, (in: Public Streets for Public Use, Edited by Anne
Vernez Moudan with a foreword by Donald Appleyard,) Columbia University Press, New York, 45-62. •
Karsten, L; Van Vliet, W. (2006). ‘Children in the City: Reclaiming the street’, Children, Youth
and Environments. •
P Gray. (2011). ‘The Decline of Play and the Rise of Psychopathology in Children and Ado-
lescents’, American Journal of Play, V3. •
Bell, S., 2008. Scale in children’s experience with the environment, (in: Children and Their
Environments, Edited by Christopher Spencer and Mark Blades), Cambridge University Press, New York, 13-25. •
Kellert, S., R., 2002. Experiencing nature: Affective, cognitive, and evaluative development
in children, (in: Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, Edited by Peter H. Kahn, Jr. and Stephen R. Kellert), The MIT Press, London, 117-151 •
Anchor, Robert. (1978) ‘History and Play: Johan Huizinga and His Critics’ in History and
Theory, Vol 17, No 1: 63-93 •
Bartlett, S. (2002). ‘Urban children and the physical environment’ in Children and the City
Conference, Amman, Jordan: Arab Urban Development Institute. •
Buttimer, Anne. (1980) Home, Reach and Sense of Place, St Martin’s Press, New York
•
Bynum, Gregory. (2015) Conceptions of Childhood in the Educational Philosophies of John
Locke and John Dewey. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1091514.pdf 111
REIMAGINING PLAYSCAPES || Gentrit KRASNIQI
•
Callois, Roger. (2001) Man, Play, and Games. University of Illinois Press, Urbana and
Chicago. •
Debord, Guy. (1994) Society of the Spectacle. trans. by Donald Nicholson -Smith. Zone
Books. •
Carver, A; Veitch, J; Salmon, J; Hume, C; Timperio, A; Crawford, D. ‘Children’s independent
mobility - is it influenced by parents’ perceptions of safety?’, Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Deakin University. •
Malone, K; Rudner, J. (2015). ‘Child-Friendly and Sustainable Cities: Exploring Global
Studies on Children’s Freedom, Ability and Risk’ •
Stratton, G; Mullan, E. (2005). ‘The effect of multicolor playground markings on children’s
physical activity level during recess’, Research Institute for Sports and Exercise Sciences, Liverpool John Moores University. •
Bixler, R. D., Floyd, M. F., Hammitt, W. E., 2002. Environmental socialization: Quantitative
tests of the childhood play hypothesis, Environment and Behavior, 34, 6, 795-818. •
Clark, C., Uzzell D.L., 2008. The socio-environmental affordances of adolescent’s environ-
ments, (in: Children and Their Environments, Edited by Christopher Spencer and Mark Blades), Cambridge University Press, New York, 176-195. •
Day, C., Midbjer, A., 2007. Environment and children: Passive lessons from the everyday
environment, Architectural Press, Oxford. •
Drıskell, D., 2002. Creating better cities with children and youth: A manual for participa-
tion, UNESCO and Earthscan Publications Ltd., UK. •
Francis, C., 1998. Child care outdoor spaces, (in: People Places: Design Guidelines for
Urban Open Space, Second Edition, Edited by Clare Cooper Marcus and Carolyn Francis) John Wiley&Sons, New York, 259-310 •
Heerwagen, J., H., Orians, G., H., 2002. The ecological world of children, (in: Children and
Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, Edited by Peter H. Kahn, Jr. and Stephen R. Kellert), The MIT Press, London, 29-63. •
Pyle, R. M., 2002. Eden in a vacant lot: Special places, species, and kids in the neighbor-
hood of life, (in: Children and Nature: Psychological, Sociocultural, and Evolutionary Investigations, Edited by Peter H. Kahn, Jr. and Stephen R. Kellert) The MIT Press, London, 305-327. 112
CHAPTER SIX : REFERENCES
•
Shell, E. R., 2001. “Kids don’t need equipments, they need opportunities”, Lifestyle Infor-
mation Network, September/October, 34-35. •
Moore, Robin C. Plants for Play: A Plant Selection Guide for Children's Outdoor Environ-
ments. Berkeley, CA: MIG Communications, 1993. Print. •
Kaplan, Rachel, and Stephen Kaplan. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspec-
tive. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. •
Czalczynska-Podolska, Magdalena. "The Impact of Playground Spatial Features on Chil-
dren's Play and Activity Forms: An Evaluation of Contemporary Playgrounds' Play and Social Value." Journal of Environmental Psychology 38 (2014): 132-42. Print. •
Gibson, James J. "The Theory of Affordances." The Ecological Approach to Visual Percep-
tion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1979. •
Spencer, C., Woolley, H., 2000. Children and the city: a summary of recent environmental
psychology research, Child: Care, Health and Development, 26, 3, 181-197. •
Taylor, A. F., Kuo, F.E., Is contact with nature for healthy child development? State of
evidence, (in: Children and Their Environments, Edited by Christopher Spencer and Mark Blades), Cambridge University Press, New York, 124-140. •
Tai, L., Haque, M.T., McLellan, G.K., Knight, E.J., 2006. Designing outdoor environments for
children: Landscaping, schoolyards, gardens, and playgrounds, McGraww-Hill, Companies, USA.
113