Dissertation on Adventure Playgrounds by Lily Davies

ADVENTURE PLAYGROUNDS Lilian Davies

Across the world, in already overcrowded cities, adventure playgrounds are under threat. This essay considers the importance of adventure playgrounds in cities, and in particular London and the factors that are essential for their survival.

A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the Degree of BA Architecture 2018

1. PREAMBLE 1 2. INTRODUCTION 3 3. 3. 1 3.2

CHAPTER ONE â&#x20AC;&#x201C; THE IMPORTANCE OF PLAY

CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND PLAY

HISTORY OF ADVENTURE PLAYGROUNDS

3.3 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADVENTURE PLAYGROUNDS IN BRITAIN 11 3.4 PLAY IN CITIES 15 3.5 PLAY TODAY IN LONDON 17

4. CHAPTER TWO â&#x20AC;&#x201C; THE FACTORS AFFECTING PLAY GROUNDS 21 4.1 FINANCE 23 o o

Government Funding Financial problems effecting management

4.2 DESIGN 33 o Ownership o Design Process o Spatial Layout

4.3 COMMUNITY 50 o o

Parent Engagement Other methods of engagement in the Shadwell Community Project

4.4 21st CENTURY SOCIETY 55 o Crime o Technology o Health and Safety

5. CONCLUSION 61 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY 65 7. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 70

1. PREAMBLE ‘Most people who care about child development know nothing about design, and most people who know design know nothing about child development’ (Hart cited in Shell, 1994).

I began my research in Bangkok, where I set out to explore the positive impact of a project, the Community Lantern. The Community Lantern is a playground in the Klong Toey area in Bangkok, a heavily deprived area with poor living conditions and a considerable drug problem. It was designed by ‘Norwegian architects Yashar Hanstad and Andreas Gjertsen of TYIN tegnestu Architects’ (May, 2014) in 2012.

On my arrival, I discovered the poor state of the playground which is in desperate need of repair. I spoke with local children’s charities and schools in the area about the playground, some of whom did not even know about it or gave me a less enthusiastic response than I had expected. The reality was that the impact of the project had not been as successful as my preliminary research had perhaps indicated. This led me to question just how the playground had come to this and why?

Playgrounds in and around cities struggle enormously to survive long-term. Their life span is under constant threat and often not considered to be a pressing issue despite clear research evidence indicating the importance of play in child development.

After my time in Bangkok, I took my research closer to home, and started to focus on adventure playgrounds in London.

Adventure playgrounds numbers are dropping rapidly around London. Local councils have revealed that there are ‘at least 51 closures planned for 2018' (Adams, 2017). There are many reasons including the ‘price of land, escalating building costs and poorly sited centres on non-standard sites has meant that outdoor play space is too often treated as a poor after thought’ (Walsh, 2016, p.4).

I observed, mapped diagrams, and spoke to play worker professionals at three different playgrounds, all of which are in deprived areas of London, (Weavers Adventure Playground, Roman Road Adventure Playground and Glamis Adventure Playground) to help me gain a better understanding of them.

The result of this neglect towards children’s play space is that already socially deprived children are being held back in terms of play and development opportunities. This leaves children of an urban upbringing, who most need space and support, being further disadvantaged.

2. INTRODUCTION As a result of the experience I had in Bangkok, I have used this essay to consider adventure playgrounds and what factors impact their survival in 21st century cities.

I have considered what purpose adventure playgrounds perform and how and to what degree are they important to a childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s development. I have further studied the factors which are critical for an adventure playground to survive.

In the first section of this essay, I discuss how adventure playgrounds have been brought to Britain and look at playgrounds on a wider scale. How playgrounds are or should be, influencing design throughout cities. As children are the future, it is important we aid their development and escalate their position in large scale planning and government policy.

My research has indicated that the most important factors heavily affecting adventure playgrounds are, the finance, the design, the community involvement and the external pressures from society. In the second section of this essay, I explore these themes practically through the different adventure playgrounds I visited. I use this experience to determine how they have been each affected by the factors identified and to what magnitude they have done so.

By looking back at the history and present day adventure playgrounds, I set out to explore what the future holds for them in our ever-growing society.

Figure 1: Mayne. 1957. Adventure Playground, London

3. CHAPTER ONE THE IMPORTANCE OF PLAY

Figure 2: Graham. 1996. City Playground.

3.1

CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND PLAY

The importance of ‘play’ for children in their development is a valued part of growing up. As a result, ‘play’ has ‘fascinated educators, child psychologists, and scientists for centuries’ (Tomlin,2007). There are many theories of the influence of ‘play’ on child development, ‘Plato and Aristotle believed it essential to the development of healthy children’ (Heseline and Holborn, 2018, p.16). Two of the main theorists, Jean Piaget a Swiss psychologist (1896-1980) (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2017) and Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist (1896-1934) (David, 2014) both agreed in the importance of play but had opposing theories on how it impacts child development.

Piaget was the ‘first psychologist to make a systematic study of cognitive development’ (McLeod,2015), meaning the ‘the construction of thought processes…from childhood through adolescence to adulthood’ (Children’s Health, 2005). His theory is based upon the idea that ‘the learning of language, requires appropriate environmental stimuli and experiences’ (Burgemeester, 2014). Piaget believed that play helps a child go through stages of cognitive development, as it is a method of engagement between a child and their environment (Heseline and Holborn, 2018). The time and ‘age a child moves between stages is dependent upon getting the appropriate stimuli and environment at the right time’ (Burgemeester, ///2014). Despite some later criticisms due to further research, Piaget has become extremely prominent throughout education and in the development of teaching, as his stages for cognitive development can be used as guidelines for play.

Figure 3: Davies. 2018. Young girl pushing a wheelbarrow.

Vygotsky’s theories, despite being written around a similar time, focus much more on the ‘social interaction in the development of cognition’ (McLeod, 2014) and how this plays a fundamental role. Vygotsky (1978) states: ‘Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level’ (cited in Instructional Design, 2011). Furthermore, he believed that ‘the potential for cognitive development depends upon the “zone of proximal development” (ZPD): a level of development attained when children engage in social behavior’ (Instructional Design, 2011), and not from as Piaget states environmental stimuli. ZPD is ‘the difference between what a learner can do without help and what he or she can do with help’ (Innovative Learning 2008). Hence, ‘full development of ZPD depends on full social interaction’ (Instructional Design, 2011).

Among many, the main differences between these two theorists are social factors, language and the role of adults in the development of cognition. Piaget places much more weight on social factors while Vygotsky, believes cognitive development grows from children’s individual independence. Piaget also sees peers as a vital part of cognitive development, however Vygotsky places the importance on adults. In addition, Vygotsky believes, ‘thought and language are initially separate systems from the beginning of life, merging at around three years of age, producing verbal thought (inner speech)’ (McLeod, 2014) whilst on the other hand Piaget believes that language depends on thought for its development (i.e. thought comes before language)’ (McLeod, 2014).

Despite their differences, they both value that ‘play fulfils more important aspects of a child’s development’ (Bell, 1997, p. 85) than just being a recreational activity. For play to occur in cities, it is vital to enable space for it. This space can be created through playgrounds. Therefore, it is important for playgrounds exist, to prevent essential formative elements of childhood being lost.

Figure 4: Lovelace. 1966. An Adventure playground in 1966.

3.2

HISTORY OF ADVENTURE PLAGROUNDS

The origin of the adventure playground dates back to World War Two in 1943, when the ‘first planned, adventure playground was started in Emdrup outside Copenhagen’ (Bengtsson, 1972, p.15). Emdrup is on the Danish border, and in 1943 the area was under Nazi control but local resistance was growing. In order to provide a place where their children’s play would not ‘be mistaken for acts of sabotage by soldiers’ (Ulen, 2016). The playground was ‘initiated by the Workers’ Co-operative Housing Association and landscape architect Carl Theodor Sørensen’ (Bengtsson, 1972,p.15). The driving force behind the playground was John Bertelsen, its first play leader, who wrote a diary in which he said, ‘adventure playgrounds are no pancea or patent solution to the town child’s need of outdoor space for play, but it has been proved that the formula of the adventure playground affords conditions for play which the town child cannot find in any other way’ (cited in Bengtsson, 1972, p. 23). Bertelsen strong beliefs of leaving the children to their own devices, ensured that it was the children’s playground and led to its real success. A ‘children’s play is not what the adults see, but what the child himself experiences’ (Bertelsen cited in Bengtsson, 1972, p.21). Although for the playground, ‘times were difficult during its first years of existence, with an extreme shortage of all kinds of material, waste included’ (Bengtsson, 1972, p.15), the playground’s success grew enormously and marks the beginning of an era. It was also here where the name ‘“skrammologi” or “junkology” for what is now known as adventure play’ (Dighton, 2010a) was born.

3.3

THE DEVELOPMENT OF ADVENTURE PLAY GROUNDS IN BRITIAN

Lady Allen of Hurtwood, ‘an advocate for children’s rights and welfare throughout her lifetime, was principally responsible for introducing the concept of adventure playgrounds’ (Play and Playground Encyclopedia, 2011) to Britain. In 1946, after the war, Lady Allen visited Emdrup, and was so amazed by the Danish experiment she wrote an article on the playground which later appeared in the Picture Post (a national photojournalistic magazine) (Bengtsson, 1972). The article had a phenomenal impact in Britain. ‘This was at a time when, as a result of war bombing, so many British towns had been converted into something not very different from a child’s concept of a true adventure land, so abundant were these bombsites with exciting junk and building material’ (Bengtsson, 1972, p.25). Lady Allen saw a great opportunity for these sites in turning them into safe places for children to play. The reaction of the article led to Lady Allen opening ‘the first ‘junk playground’’ (London Play, 2014a) in Camberwell. The ‘experimental junk playground ran for three years between 1948 and 1951’ (Dighton, 2010b). Soon after many more adventure playgrounds began to spring up across London and further the spread of adventure playgrounds across Britain and worldwide. The Nottinghill adventure playground opened in late 1950s. The playground grew into something much more than just a playground but appealed to the whole community, ‘it was an evening club for old people and young people’ (London Play, 2012). It helped enhance relationships between parents and children through playgroup sessions. It also extended further than the boundaries of the playground and organized trips to provide a real escape for children through ‘weekend camp-outs in the country’ (London Play, 2012). The playground was so successful it saw visits from ‘regulars daily for years’ (London Play, 2012) and eventually it ‘outgrew its original site and the Council provided a larger one’ (Walker, 2014) nearby. The community’s drive behind the adventure playground meant it could really thrive as a valued and important communal space. 11

Figure 5: Bengtsson. 1969. Construction. Figure 6: Brian. 1955. Bombsite Playground. Figure 7: Grant. 1965. St Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Wood Adventure Playground Figure 8: Modern Records Centre. 1959. Nottinghill Adventure Playground

8 12

Figure 9: Brammer. n.d. Adventure in the city.

Following the development of the adventure playgrounds across London, the London Playground Association (LAPA) was set up in 1962. It was designed ‘to advance understanding of educational, social and welfare values of adventure playgrounds’ (Bengtsson, 1972, p.44). The LAPA required two members from each playground in London which were run by a voluntary organization (Bengtsson, 1972). The organisation gave out information on the requirements and guidelines needed to form and run an adventure playground. This included how to run the playground during open hours, how to help keep the playground supplied with materials and how to keep track of basic records as well as security, fencing and gating.

These early examples of adventure playgrounds in Britain show how these playgrounds have acted as ‘compensatory spaces, filling what adults recognise as the most pressing needs of children e.g. space, stimulation, opportunities for risk, or building skills’ (Rorabaugh, 2017). By creating these spaces, the playground has brought the community together and strengthened the focus on supplying for children’s needs in an urban community.

3.4

PLAY IN CITIES

Making ‘play’ accessible outside of a learning environment is often difficult especially in cities. Dense urban areas often lack space for children to run around in a safe environment. This problem can be tackled by recognising the importance of designing playgrounds and in a broader context child- friendly cities. ‘Around the world and across the UK there are many great examples of these ideas being put into practice and delivering what they promised. Vauban in Freiburg, Germany is regarded as one of the most child-friendly places in the world. It is safe, pedestrian-friendly streets, multifunctional green space, and eco-principles all add up to an award-winning healthy place that works for everyone’ (Williams, 2017).

Living in a city, whilst growing up, often can impact a child negatively due to lack of opportunity for free reign and heavily influence their experience and view of play. ‘Children living in small rural communities referred to specific experiences they had in that environment and to people living there, while children in urban settings referred to the surrounding environment in abstract terms’ (Bishop and Corkery, 2017, p.37). Cities are a good place to live; they flourish with art, culture and can foster a dynamic way of life. However most of these opportunities are for adults and are to the exclusion of the children, especially those from a deprived upbringing. For example, many of these opportunities are at a cost.

Unicef the ‘world's leading organisation working for children in danger’ (Unicef, 2005) stresses the importance of keeping children safe in cities. In 1966, it launched, ‘Child Friendly Cities’ (CFC), ‘to act on the resolution passed during the second UN Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II). The Conference declared that the well-being of children is the ultimate indicator of a healthy habitat, a democratic society and good governance’ (Child Friendly Cities, 2009). The CFC ‘aims to guide cities and other systems of local governance in the inclusion of children’s rights as a key component of their goals, policies, programmes and structures’ (Child Friendly Cities, 2009). 15

Many landscape architects today are trying to address the issue of ‘how and why we should be designing child-friendly cities’ (Bolt,2017). Sam Williams a landscape architect at Arup in London, an ‘independent firm of designers, planners, engineers, consultants and technical specialists, working across every aspect of today's built environment’ (Arup, 2017). He is leading research into challenges we face in creating child friendly cities. ‘Like children, cities are always changing. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for their problems, and they both need understanding, compassion, and people who care about them’ (Williams, 2017). Adventure playgrounds give children somewhere they can change and shape much like the city around them. This is supported by Linda Corkery, a landscape architect and an associate professor of the Built environment at UNSW (University of New South Wales, Sydney), who considers the notion that by not designing for children, is also not designing for the future. She questions whether a city ‘can consider itself sustainable if it does not include children’s participation in planning and design’ (Bishop and Corkery, 2017, p.9). Children should be put at the forefront of planning, by making spaces for them rather than being an afterthought.

Despite undoubted progress, there remains much to be done, even conceptually; it is still a challenge especially given that there is no cohesive understanding of the purpose of play, and its position in government agendas is lost within large scale issues. Along with increasing house prices and growing demand for land, provision for play is often sidelined.

Future progress must lie with promoting ‘play’ in cities. To allow ‘play’ in cities and push towards child friendly cities, it is vital that adventure playgrounds still exist.

Figure 10: Davies. 2018. Young boy gardening.

3.4

PLAY TODAY IN LONDON

Today in London, ‘London Play’ is the main organization focusing on ‘play’ across the city. There are also individual play organisations in each London borough alongside many charities with similar goals, for example, ‘Play Association’ in Tower Hamlets. ‘London Play’, aim is to ‘strive for London’s children to have the best free play opportunities, near to where they live’ (London Play, 2014b). They not only create and build play spaces themselves but ‘support other local organisations, groups or individuals to do the same’ (London Play, 2013). Across the city, in ‘12 of London boroughs where the demand for support is greatest’ (London Play, 2016), they are working with residents in convincing local councils to encourage ‘play’ on their neighbourhood streets. By creating an enjoyable, safer environment close to home and free of charge would benefit adults and children whilst bringing the community together in the process. The initiative received ‘£350K from the Big Lottery’s Reaching Communities programme’ (London Play, 2016) which was used to help target some of the least affluent areas in London. The lottery donation also meant the charity has a special fund for street activities and events within London’s neighbourhoods. London Play’s street Advocacy workers were able to help local residents ‘support, guidance and training needed to enable them to become play street advocates in their own communities’ (London Play, 2016). Together with the programme, ‘a new Play Street of the Year award has been launched alongside the annual London Adventure Play Awards’ (London Play, 2016) to help encourage all neighbourhoods to get involved. The work of ‘London Play’ and other organisations is ongoing despite the many difficulties and setbacks they face within the city. Whilst there are some schemes that are making progress, many schemes and associated playgrounds are still struggling to have a big enough impact on communities.

Figure 11: Davies. 2018. Walala x Play installation.

Figure 12: Davies. 2018. Tate Modern swings.

Using play as a method of interaction can be seen through multiple disciplines all over the city. Many expressive art forms now incorporate ‘play’ or investigate ‘play’ to help them engage with the public. The artist Camille Walala recently displayed an experimental installation ‘WALALA X PLAY’ at Now Galley in London. The installation explored ‘bold colours, patterns and reflective surface’ (NOW Gallery, 2017) all attributes that enhance a child experience of play. The installation was designed to be a journey through an ‘immersive maze’ (NOW Gallery, 2017) which requires ‘individuals to become more aware of their bodies, engage their minds and give themselves over to PLAY’ (NOW Gallery, 2017).

Similarly, at the Tate Modern in London, Danish artists SUPERFLEX, who are ‘best known for their playfully subversive installations and films’ (Tate, 2017) have been commissioned for an installation in the Turbine hall. ‘An orange line of swings weaves through the Turbine Hall. It then crosses the gallery and emerges in the landscape to the south of the building’ (Tate, 2017). Essentially turning the Tate into a giant playground. By designing all the swings for three people, it encourages people to interact and play together. By ‘swinging as three, our collective energy resists gravity and challenges the laws of nature’ (Tate,2017) far better than swinging as one. The swings have been installed outside the building in ‘hope that the concept will go viral and three-person swings will be used in the wider world ( Tate, 2017).

Both these art works stimulate the positive experiences people have with playing. By celebrating and involving all ages of the community it helps bring people together. The good publicity from these events and interest generated in questioning traditional playground equipment, will hopefully promote more play in versatile ways throughout London. As the future of play in London cannot be contained within a gallery but achieved by innovative playgrounds spread across the city.

CHAPTER TWO FACTORS AFFECTING PLAYGROUNDS

Figure 13: Graham. 1996. Children hidden in the city.

4.1 FINANCE o

Government Funding

One of most significant reasons affecting playgrounds can be directly linked to restricted government funding. ‘Hundreds of children’s playgrounds have been closed or are being closed by cost-cutting local authorities across England, with councils blaming “unprecedented budget constraints” for the decision to get rid of parks and sports facilities. A series of freedom of information requests to local authorities found that 112 playgrounds were closed in the 2014-15 financial year, and a further 102 in 2015-16. Councils also revealed that they had 80 more closures in 2016-17, followed by plans for 103 in the current budget period’ (Adams, 2017).

Government policy regarding children’s play areas has seen a severe decline after the 2010 UK election when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats came to power. Prior to this, Gordon Brown was making a strong effort to put children’s play into the forefront of reform. The Labour party put in place more funding, and a new policy for the increase in the provision of children playgrounds and community schemes. The ‘Children’s Plan’ of December 2007, was an ambitious ten-year strategy to make England the best place in the world to grow up. The government fully embraced the principle that there is a societal responsibility to enable children to enjoy their childhoods as well being prepared for adult life. It was given funding of ‘£235m in play areas, adventure playgrounds and playworkers – within the context of a national play strategy that will attempt to coordinate planning, traffic, housing, health and children’s services around the common aim of giving children more freedom to use these spaces – will not on its own transform the environments where children live and play. But because it is a strategic program, designed to inform future policy, it should create the opportunity for that fuller evidence base‘ (Lester and Russell, 2008, p.5).

Since the programme began and subsequent governments have brought the programme to a standstill, with heavy cuts made in the sector making its progress has now been reversed. While children’s ‘play’ ‘is an established human right, recognised under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) of 1989’ (Lester and Russell, 2008, p.5), ‘its place in national policy is subsumed within wider policies with no statutory duty attached’ (Lester and Russell, 2008, p.16). Individual playgrounds have visibly reduced across London. ‘Youth in London are ‘without power’ and appear indifferent to party politics, they cut themselves off from formal system of representation’ (Blundell Jones, Petrescu and Till, 2005, p.253), therefore when cuts are made, children as non-vote holders are first in line to suffer.

It is evident there is a clear relationship between the decline in government funding for children’s play space and the increasing closures of adventure playgrounds across London. In order to reduce this threat and adventure playgrounds to be valued with long term existence, change and reform must occur in national policy attitude towards these spaces.

Figure 14: Davies. 2018. Young boy painting wooden fence.

Financial problems effecting management

Weavers Adventure Playground is an existing playground unfortunately suffering due to an extreme lack of funding. The playground is situated in Bethnal Green which is in the borough of Tower Hamlets. Bethnal Green is a dense urban area in the east end of London with a considerable level of deprivation. Weavers is an ‘official independent charity’ (Weavers, 2012) and the play space was opened in 1974. Alex, the lead play worker, at Weavers has seen the growing neglect given to playground from the central and local government; as I arrived he stated, I “was two years too late” (September 9, 2017) to see the playground facilitate properly. The impact this has had on the playground is massive. The funding cuts from the central government have meant that, the playground only receives funding from the local council. They receive a mere £8,000 a year which does not stretch very far when factoring in the costs of running the club house, repairs and new equipment for the children. All the staff at Weavers are volunteers, and exhibit huge personal commitment to keeping the playground alive. They hire out the football pitch to local teams every evening and now have started renting the site out for cooperate team building days too. Children now must also pay a small fee of 50p for members and £1.50 for non-members during holidays, which inevitably acts as a disincentive and barrier to entry for some (A William, personal communication, September 9, 2017).

Figure 15: Davies. 2017. Equipment at Weavers. Figure 16: Davies. 2017. Rubbish on site. Figure 17: Davies. 2017. Weavers Adventure Playground.

17 26

Despite this, there are many successful adventure playgrounds all over London which still thrive today, with regular and new visitors daily due to the support of private funding. Glamis Adventure Playground part of the Shadwell Community Project is one of these. The playground is in Shadwell, an area which has ‘always been one of deep deprivation’ (Wilson, 2011). The site of the playground was a derelict hospital and was taken over in the late 1960s by members of the community. It was one of the ‘first adventure playground in the sixties’ (Play England, 2008) in London and gained official playground status in the mid 1970s. It unfortunately closed in the ‘1990s for 6 years due to lack of funding’ (Play England, 2008) but reopened due to popular demand in the early 2000s.It is now ‘registered as a charity and a not-for-profit limited company’ (Shadwell Community Project, 2016a). Since, it has also received ‘London Play’s Adventure Playground of the Year Award 2007’ (Play England, 2008) and has continued to grow in success.

In comparison to ‘Weavers Adventure Playground’, it is under far less threat from financial issues. While the playground still only receives the £8,000 a year from the local council, luckily the playground can survive due to its lottery funding, which they received for their ‘Children’s Café’. Mark, the lead play worker at Glamis explained to me how this was vital in insuring its survival; “we are always on the hunt and trying to get more funding” (September 12, 2017). Without this the playground would not have been able to sustain its success. They are hoping to receive further funding from ‘Cycling Grants London’. Cycling Grants London if funded by Transport for London, they ‘offer grants of up to £10,000 over 3 years to projects that encourage London’s diverse communities to cycle more often and more safely’ (Cycling Grants, 2015). The playground also receives small additional funding occasionally from Children in Need, Tower Hill trust and East End Community foundation (M Halden, personal communication, September 12, 2017).

Figure 18: Davies. 2017. Glamis Adventure Playground. Figure 19: Davies. 2017. Campire, Glamis.

Another playground in London which has ensured its survival through external funding is the ‘Roman Road Adventure Playground’, is which can also be found in a disadvantaged area in Tower Hamlets. Fortunately, the adventure playground is funded privately by the Circle Housing Estate. The funding has given the site built indoor and outdoor facilities and the playground is full of equipment ideal for a wide range of activities. John, one of the play workers, had pointedly moved from Weavers to Roman Road due to the benefits of a constant financial support for the playground. “The staff here can focus more on the kids as they don’t have to worry about funding or the management side of things, all gets taken care of by Circle Housing Estate” (J Allan, personal communication, September 19, 2017). Moreover, an effect of lack of funding, can be seen through poor maintenance of the playgrounds. Weavers used to be full of equipment, vibrant and an exciting play space, but today it is quite the opposite. The regular steel frame structured playground in ‘Weavers fields’ the adjacent public park seems more appealing and is in better condition. Weavers suffered a significant decline in popularity after the large wooden structure, that is so often common in adventure playgrounds, had to be taken down. After several years of neglect, the wood had started to rot and eventually was no longer safe for the children to use. This was extremely sad as the wooden structure was built by the children in the playground, many of whom have been visiting for years. Other equipment such as the zip wire also had to be taken down due to poor maintenance as it was no longer meeting health and safety regulations. Despite this, the playground still sees 15 to 20 children per night including during the winter months (A William, personal communication, September 9, 2017). 29

Figure 20: Davies. 2017. Roman Road Adventure Playground.

Conversely at Roman Road, since â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Circle Housingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; own the site, the housing associate is responsible for dealing with any problems regarding maintenance. While initially, this would perhaps seem that it would cause a problem and tension between the staff and owners, in fact in this case it has benefitted the playground as the two issues remain separate.

At Glamis, although there is no external support system, the running of the playground is still far better. The playground has two full time staff members one part time and seven to eight seasonal staff. All staff are paid, supported by some of the lottery funding. In addition, there is also a series of committees to help keep the playground running. There is a management committee that deals with maintenance and repairs of the playground and a local committee with residents and parents that meets regularly to deals with greater issues and improvements regarding the playground. There is a childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s committee but its meetings are inevitably quite irregular (M Halden, personal communication, September 12, 2017).

Through better management and secure financial support systems, both Glamis and Roman Road have been able to uphold and care for the playgrounds far better than at Weavers. These examples demonstrate how a varying financial support system can dynamically change the running and condition of the playground. For adventure playgrounds to survive without private financial backingw in the future, greater support must come from the government.

Figure 21: Weavers Adventure Playground. n.d. What Weavers looked like originally. Figure 22: Davies. 2017. Weavers without the wooden structure.

4.3 DESIGN o Ownership The reasons behind low levels of maintenance can occur from a variety of different reasons. In Thailand, the ‘Community Lantern’ has been neglected due to what appears to be a lack of ownership.

The Community Lantern, was built primarily as a football court with a wooden structure built along one side which is meant to be used for seating and climbing up. The simple structure and ‘durability enables the local inhabitants to make adaptations that fit with their changing needs without endangering the projects structural strength or the general usability of the playground’ (TYIN Architects, 2011). The playground is located on the outskirts of the area on a very tight site of ‘12m x 1,2m’ (TYIN Architects, 2011) between temporary housing sheltered structures meaning the activities available on the site are limiting. Alongside its main function of being a playground, the design intention was that ‘the project will work as a tool for the community to tackle some of the social issues in the area’ (TYIN Architects, 2011).

Figure 23: Davies. 2017. Zip wire.

Despite the good objectives of the project, after visiting the ‘Community Lantern’ it was clear it was not an ongoing success. The playground was left in a very poor condition. The wooden structure was filled with rubbish, the basketball ripped and hanging of a rusty steel frame, giving the playground the appearance of a junk yard rather than a piece of well-designed and engineered architecture. The contrast between what was written about the project online and the reality was stark. Although in the run up to the project it was said there was ‘workshops, interviews and group discussions with community leaders’ (May, 2014), it does not seem as if this belonged to the community. Mandy who acted as my guide around the area, was a member of staff from the Mercy Center, the area’s largest ‘shelter for street kids’ (Williams, 2008) with an ‘orphanage, a hospice, a home for mothers and children with HIV/AIDS (Williams, 2008). Mandy grew up in area and knew the playground, she said that although in bad condition “many children still play here but no one has time to look after it, it is not theirs” (July 5, 2017).

EXPECTATION

REALITY

Figure 24: (right) TYIN Architects. 2012. When the Community Lantern was first built. Figure 25: (left) Davies. 2017. The Community Lantern now.

Figure 26: Davies. 2017. Klong Toey.

It appears the playground does not belong to the community, and even though they did use it, they have not taken real ownership of it. Without anyone being assigned to clean it or maintain it, it has been left to slowly deteriorate. In an environment like Khlong Toey, people are very independent and it appears they have not taken pride in the playground. This could have been as the playground was not created or designed by the community themselves. It would be highly unlikely and difficult for someone who lived locally to simply just take on the role of maintaining it without payment or benefits to them. Living conditions are hard and “people need to work to feed their children” (M Ahuja, personal communication, July 5, 2017). ‘Creating a sense of ‘ownership’ of public and community space is a pre-condition and community space is a pre-condition of successful use, care and maintenance. The key stake-holders in a secure public realm are the public themselves, including children and young people, and their involvement at all levels is essential’ (Worpole cited in Blundell Jones, Petrescu and Till, 2005, p.251). While TYIN architects have made steps towards creating a space for the community, it did not do so with the community well enough, and its longevity had not been considered. This is evident by the state of despair it is in, only five years on. For playgrounds to survive long term in inner city communities all over the world, it can be extremely difficult without ownership being asserted over them. Without this, the space has no sense of it belonging to the area or community and is left to fade into the background.

Figure 27: (left) TYIN Architects. 2012. Figure 28: Davies. 2017. Junk Yard.

Design process

The role of the designer and who was the designer is, is an important influential factor that has impacted the communities’ attitude towards the space. Designing for communities from an external perspective can be extremely difficult and often unsuccessful as seen, due to not fully understanding actual needs and requirements. Whilst Weavers Adventure Playground relies on its community for its existence, the Community Lantern was given to the community without fulfilling its needs. Despite this both their futures lay at risk.

This is not to say however, that the issue lies within the designer not being local to the area as ‘the key is to get the process of design right’ (Wates and Knevitt, 2013, p. 18). Gian Carlo de Carlo an influential ‘(1919-2005) Italian architect’ (Spatial Agency, 2010), had a strong interest in the design process and the notion of participation in architecture. De Carlo stated, ‘by identifying with the users’ needs does not mean planning ‘for’ them, but planning ‘with’ them’ (cited in Blundell Jones, Petrescu and Till, 2005, p.15). This idea is relevant for adventure playgrounds, as it is a space for the public and particularly children. Therefore, their participation is extremely important in creating a space they can engage with. For participation to be successful and the space to attend to the users’ needs, ‘optimum solutions will only emerge from a creative dialogue between all sections of the community affected and those with expertise’ (Wates and Knevitt, 2013, p. 118). When this does not occur, and people have not ‘participated in their planning they are unable to appropriate them and therefore have no reason to defend them’ (De Carlo cited in Blundell Jones, Petrescu and Till, 2005, p.16) as seen in the Community Lantern project.

Doina Petrescu, an architect and who pioneered ‘participation in architecture and urbanism’ (University of Sheffield, 2008) agrees with De Carlo in that ’energy generated through people acting on their own environment should lead to a network of support’ (cited in Blundell Jones, Petrescu and Till, 2005, p.53). In adventure playgrounds it is key, ‘children and young people should be part of the planning and monitoring process’ (Bishop and Corkery, 2017, p.21) along with the adults in the community.

This is true for the Glamis Adventure Playground, where it has been mostly designed and run by children; “we like to leave them to it” (M Halden, personal communication, September 12, 2017). This relaxed attitude by the staff allows the children to feel free and enjoy themselves. Although the initial structure and large framework was put in by an external source, the playground is continually changing and growing because of the children’s requests. This is an example of the idea that through design action and participatory architecture there is no defined boundary between design and use and sustainability is achieved in the design process rather than that of the space or object (Blundell Jones, Petrescu and Till, 2005). Opposing the traditional method of authoritarian architecture where a final solution is set out at the beginning of the project.

Figure 29: Davies. 2017. Childrens Cafe.

Figure 30: (top) Davies. 2017. Cafe Figure 31: Davies. 2017. Port hole windows.

In Glamis, the children’s influence on the site has extended further than just the playground. The ‘children’s café’ which received the lottery funding was also designed by regular users of the playground. Giving children the responsibility in taking part of the design was crucial, in giving it such a welcoming response. Initially an architect tried to design the café but the children wanted a more fun design. The outcome of this was that the café has a strong nautical theme and distinguished style of a boat. With port hole, shaped windows and a large timber circular door gives the building character and really has a strong sense of what the children wanted. In contrary to the Community Lantern, the children’s café is an example of how people can get involved and participate more within the space.

A play space, ideally would be designed alongside and have high levels of children involvement, as the closer a designer has to a child’s voice the better. London is full of ‘traditional playgrounds’, almost a default set of apparatus that only allows for a false perception of what children play is. Adventure playgrounds can tailor to individual child needs far better, and therefore their place in struggling inner city societies is needed. 44

Figure 32: Davies. 2017. Roman Road Plan.

Spatial Layout

Inefficient design of the playground can also lead to it being badly received and treated. Previously, ‘playgrounds were seen to be a utility; a matter of functional equipment, not an issue of spatial design or architecture’ (Hendricks, 2011, p.16) but for a playground to be successful children to engage with it through different materials, textures and colours. A good playground should allow children to express themselves in a manner of different ways.

Mildred Parton an American sociologist (1902-1970) (Johnson, 2017) ‘developed a system for classifying participation in play’ (Tomlin, 2007). Mildred’s six different types of play are still widely recognized and used today. The six types consist of unoccupied, onlooker, solitary, parallel, associate and cooperative play, all of which are a different type of child’s behaviour.

The layout of Roman Road, Weavers and Glamis are similar in the respect they have a designated area with soft play equipment or sand pit for young children, all other ages have an integrated play space as are encouraged to mix. They all also have indoor facilities in case of bad weather and a space to run more arts and crafts focused activities. Glamis and Roman road were far more aesthetically appealing than Weavers. They were well decorated with colourful signs and look as if they were a different world compared to the grey city around them. Figure 33: Davies. 2017. Sandcastle.

On the contrary, the Community Lantern has had less success with its design. Responses to the space reveal that people would prefer ‘if the structure was torn down and the football pitch made wider’ (Waller, 2015, p.253). As the space is limited and activities on the side do not offer much, ‘teenage boys and younger children predominately use it for playing football’ (Waller, 2015, p.253). Consequently, the wooden structure only reduces the area for playing. The frame is too close to the football area for people to want to sit and relax and is also not big enough for any other activities to take place in it. This clash of activity means that it limits the use of the space and lacks interest from a wide age range of children. The playground is between very narrow paths and you are only able to see into one side, therefore faces issues of the space being misused by teenagers.

In Khlong Toey, there was another playground nearby, but this space was only for football. It was much bigger and in much better condition. “Most children come here it is much nicer and they can kick the ball around easier” (M Ahuja, personal communication, July 5, 2017). The playground was also far easier to access and locked during the day to encourage use only in the evening, and it was owned by the local council. While some spatial layouts can actively encourage social interaction, and allow for different types of play, alternative layouts can hinder the playgrounds use. Ultimately having freedom within the space like seen in the adventure playgrounds in London has allowed children to be independent and designers of their own activities. The space gives children freedom which they don’t get living in a city.

35 Figure 34: The other playground in Klong Toey. Figure 35: Davies. 2017. Pathway by Community Lantern. Figure 36: Davies. 2017. Signs at Glamis.

Figure 37: Davies. 2017. Weavers Adventure Playground Plan.

4.3 COMMUNITY o

Parent Engagement

While including the surrounding community in the design process is vital to the playgrounds success, their inclusion in the playground day to day is essential too.

Weavers, Roman Road and Glamis all have designed sheltered spaces with seating for adults to observe their children play. Through the spatial layout of Weavers, Roman Road and Glamis, parents are welcomed into the space. Alex who works at Weavers has seen 4th generation children coming here. Because of surrounding urban area, “Parents don’t let their children go very far away” (A William, personal communication, September 9, 2017), so having a local supervised playground is extremely important to the community, as otherwise the children would not have anywhere else to go. Along with this, through the management of the Glamis, the local committee has allowed a relationship to build up with the community which was not seen in the ‘Community Lantern’. “There are hardly any problems with residents, occasionally noise levels but they are resolved very quickly” (M Halden, personal communication, September 12, 2017). While some nearby neighbours have sometimes been frustrated with the noise of the playground, Mark expressed the view that “if the children aren’t making noise there then they will somewhere on the streets anyway!” (September 12, 2017).

It is important that the playground builds relationships with parents and adults, as without the support of all forms of society the playground wouldn’t be able to survive long term.

Other methods of engagement in the Shadwell Community Project

It is evident that one of the main reasons for the Glamis adventure playground’s success is through its outreach and accessibility to the community. The Shadwell Community project is far more than just a playground. Whilst the playground remains the focal point of the project, there are a range of activities. Its activities range from theatre, cycling, gardening as well as its involvement in youth work. The playground has huge popularity and sees around 40-60 visitors a day but can go up to 100 at the weekends. It targets the neighbouring community with 80-90% local and regular visitors coming to the playground. Its popularity is mostly known due to word of mouth but also increased by the playgrounds reviews in Time Out and other London guides. The playground is well used by the children who go to the school opposite. It is an asset to the community, large green spaces or areas designated to children’s play being rare and hard to come by in central London (M Halden, personal communication, September 12, 2017).

The Shadwell project responds to the culturally diverse community in Shadwell. The playground offers a girl only day on Mondays including all female staff, giving ‘local teenage girls, a time when they can have the run of the project’s buildings and outdoor play areas, facilities and activities: without boys’ (Shadwell Community Project, 2016b). Many conservative families discourage them from socialising with boys, so this allows time for them to come as if not they may not be able to use the playground at all. The project sensitively deals with issues in the community through schemes and activities like this.

Figure 38: Davies. 2017. Health Eating.

The children’s café operates alongside the ‘12 allotments’ (Shadwell Community Project, 2016c) on site which the children and adults of the local area tend to. Many people living in such an urban area do not have a garden or access to one, so the allotments give people a great opportunity to get involved with gardening. The project is open to the whole community, extending to a wider and not just children. ‘The produce is used in the children’s cafe and when they cook over an open fire out-of-doors’ (Shadwell Community Project, 2016c). The children often take part in cooking activities and lessons as well to help promote healthy eating. Through this they design menus for the café, helping them learn new skills and get involved in activities they would not have been able to do otherwise. The café also has a great outside covered area which is suitable place for adults to sit and watch their children play.

Figure 39: Davies. 2017. Shadwell Community Project Plan.

Another aspect of the project, is the bike initiative which happens on site. Many local children in the area are from low income families or due to conservative families are not fortunate enough to own their bike if being able to access one at all. The programme enables children to ‘construct, mend and safely ride bikes’ (Shadwell Community Project, 2016). The benefits range from ‘better health: higher self-esteem, new skills and know-how, more confidence and fun’ (Shadwell Community Project, 2016d).

There are also activities that allow children to express themselves through different mediums. There is an artist and a music coordinator as part of the staff who are involved in different projects surrounding the playground. The project most recently put on a performance of a Shakespeare play ‘Pericles’ with the help of the Cornucopia Theatre company. The cast is formed of 12 performers all local users of the playground and 5/6 members of staff. The outdoor area of the café provides a great performance space where people can watch and enjoy the show too. This is the fifth year running the project and is hugely popular it also helps bring in donations to support the community project. Through the community outreach of the adventure playground, it has turned itself into a community project. This has not only meant it now offers a dynamic range of activities that are not always available in inner city London but helped strengthened the playgrounds long term survival.

Figure 40: Davies. 2017. Cycling.

4.4 21st CENTURY SOCIETY o Crime ‘Children in modern western cities are not so free- they are restricted by traffic and fear of violence’ (Hendricks, 2011, p.3). In Tower Hamlets, this is very much the case. There are high crimes rates, and the playground plays an important role in helping children stay safe and not get involved in crime or antisocial behaviour at a young age. Alex (September 9, 2017) expressed concerns that outside the playground young teenagers were seeking “fun in other places”¬ through recreational drug use and petty crime such a vandalism. In an attempt to tackle this issue, Weavers ran a scheme with a local artist whereby they created their own graffiti wall inside the playground. Through doing new and exciting activities “the playground is always changing” (A William, personal communication, September 9, 2017) and keeping the children interested. The playground provides a supervised environment for children to play which especially important for parents who must work in the evenings but need child supervision and are unable to afford this.

In urban areas, where the playground has been shut or there isn’t one at all ‘young people are left to their own devices to claim urban public spaces for their needs, and their unsanctioned, unauthorised use of these areas is often questioned, contested or banned’ (Bishop and Corkery, 2017, p.65). In a society where there is a ‘deep and growing level of resentment against young people’ (Blundell Jones, Petrescu and Till, 2005, p.248). This is then seen as an action of rebellion and fault of young people, but the route of the problem can lie within poor city planning and truly show how high the demand for a child friendly city is.

Figure 41: (top) Davies. 2017. Exterior Artwork. Figure 42: Davies. 2017. Indoors at Weavers.

o Technology Another impacting factor, which has caused less children to play outside is advancing technology. Over the last 10 years the growth in technological equipment is staggering, the range in portal devices and gaming software is ever expanding. This has had a huge effect, ‘children now rely on technology for the majority of their play, grossly limiting challenges to their creativity and imaginations, as well as limiting necessary challenges to their bodies to achieve optimal sensory and motor development’ (Rowan, 2017). Fewer and fewer children play outside daily due to ‘endless arrays of movies and music online also offers free or inexpensive entertainment options that in turn mean that these youths may not elect to enter public realm for these activities’ (Bishop and Corkery, 2017, p. 68). Competing with a virtual world is an extremely big challenge for adventure playgrounds as not only does it keep children entertained for long periods of time but discourages children to leave their homes to socialise with their friends as this can all be done ‘virtually’.

Figure 43: Davies. 2017. Donated boat at Glamis Adventure Playground.

Figure 44: Bengtsson. 2012. Freedom.

Health and Safety

Combating this issue, obviously cannot be done by getting rid of technology but rather through making playing outside appeal through factors such as thrill and, yes, danger. However, due to financial cuts and health and safety regulations this is proving more difficult than ever. The difference in health and safety regulations now compared to for instance regulations when the generation prior were growing up is vast. Dr. Tom Jambor a Professor of Early Childhood Development and researcher into children's outdoor play design does not deny the necessity of high standards in regard to health and safety in order keep children safe but recognises ‘in the process, we have factored out the play value, especially with regard to challenge needs’ (cited in Walsh, 2016, p.3). Through these stricter regulations, often the excitement and risk which children so dare, desire has been lost and many would say that today childrens need for outdoor recreational facilities has been ‘safeguarded’ (lost) by regulations (Bishop and Corkery, 2017).

Today, so much children ‘safeguarding’ goes on, that it is often now frowned upon to let children participate in any activities where risk is involved. But surely, minor injuries and accidents form part of child development? Studies show ‘peak period of injuries occur with newly mobile toddlers who have just mastered their upright position’ (Wates and Knevitt, 2013, p.2). Through play, this learning process can occur. Adventure playgrounds are designed to enable children to enter an environment that challenges them, whilst being a relatively safe and supervised place. Ordinary basic playgrounds, located mostly in open parks with green space, do not fulfill children’s development in the same stimulating ways as adventure playgrounds and are a place governed for a stereotypical type of recreational activity.

5. CONCLUSION This research set out to discover why adventure playgrounds are important and how their existence in our 21st society is being effected. Information on the history, current state, physical nature, design, and use of the playgrounds was collected and analysed. Through this I examined adventure playgrounds and the current issues they face.

Based on these findings, it seems that adventure playgroundâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s long term survival relies, unsurprisingly perhaps, significantly on the degree of financial support they enjoy (as more often, do not enjoy!). In the current climate, it is not enough to just have local government funding alone and until government policy changes, the continual existence of adventure playgrounds across the cities are under threat.

It is clear that, for the future of community cohesion, childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s happiness and by means of participatory architecture is a key component. The level of the communitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; involvement in the adventure playgrounds alters the level the communities engage and care for them. When children themselves are given responsibility to help shape their play space, it makes noticeable difference to how much it is used and enjoyed by them.

The design process in which these playgrounds are created is unquestionably important. The design must create opportunities for children be adapted to their needs. Adventure playgrounds provide escapism, foster decision making through risk tasking and give character building opportunities, otherwise absent for inner city dwelling children.

Figure 45: Davies. 2017. Runaway children.

Figure 46: Davies. 2017. Another world.

5. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books

Bell, S. (1997). Design for outdoor recreation. 1st ed. London: Spon Press. Bengtsson, A. (1972). Adventure playgrounds. 1st ed. London: Crosby, Lockwood and Son Limited. Bishop, K. and Corkery, L. (2017). Designing cities with children and young people. 1st ed. Oxford: Routledge. Blundell Jones, P., Petrescu, D. and Till, J. (2005). Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Oxford: Spon Press. Hendricks, B. (2011). Designing for Play (Design and the Built Environment). 1st ed. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Group. Heseline, P. and Holborn, J. (2018). Playgrounds: The planning design and construction of play environment. 1st ed. 1987: The Mitchell Publishing Company Limited. Potter, D. (1997). Risk and safety in play. 1st ed. London: E & FN Spon. Walsh, P. (2016). Early Childhood Playgrounds: Planning an outside learning environment. 1st ed. Oxford: Rutledge. Wagner, F. and Caves, R. (2012). Community livability. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge. Wates, N. and Knevitt, C. (2013). Community architecture. 1st ed. Oxford: Routledge. Sanoff, H. (1982). Planning Outdoor Play. 1st ed. United States of America: Humanics Limited. Sneddon, J. and Theobald, C. (1987). Building communities: ... conference proceedings ... 1st ed. London: Community Architecture Information Services.

UnPublished Thesis Rorabaugh. S. (2017) ‘The Role of the Contemporary Adventure Playground: how has Change impacted Children’s Agency?’. International Architectural Regeneration and Development MA. Oxford Brookes University. Oxford. Waller, M. (2015). ‘Open Spaces in Informal Settlements in Bangkok, Thailand and the Potential Role for Landscape Architects in their Design and Evolution’. Landscape Architecture Phd. University of Sheffield. Sheffield. 65

Web PDF Lester, S. and Russell, W. (2008). Play for a Change: Play, Policy and Practise - A review of contemporary perspectives. 1st ed. [ebook] London: National Children’s Bureau. Available at: http://www.playengland.org.uk/media/120519/play-for-a-change-summary.pdf [Accessed 11 Nov. 2017].

Magazines Shell, E. (1994). A great playground? That's kids' stuff'. Smithsonian Magazine, [online]. Available at: https://www.pps.org/article/kids-smithsonian [Accessed 8 Sep. 2017].

Online Article Tomlin, C. (2007). Play: A Historical Review. [online] Earlychildhoodnews. Available at: http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_print.aspx?ArticleId=618 [Accessed 15 Jan. 2018].

Online Documentary London Play. (2012). This Is Our Playground (circa late 1960). [online video]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-fhzPS8teo . [Accessed 13.Oct. 2017].

Websites Adams, R. (2017). Hundreds of children’s playgrounds in England close due to cuts. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/13/hundreds-of-childrens-playgrounds-in-england-close-owing-to-cuts [Accessed 15 Dec. 2017]. Arup (2017). Our Firm. [online] Arup.com. Available at: https://www.arup.com/our-firm [Accessed 16 Aug. 2017]. Bolt, S. (2017). Child-friendly cities benefit us all |. [online] Playengland.org.uk. Available at: http://www.playengland.org.uk/child-friendly-cities-benefit-us-all/ [Accessed 11 Sep. 2017]. Burgemeester, A. (2014). Jean Piaget’s Theory of Play. [online] Psychologized. Available at: https://www.psychologized.org/jean-piagets-theory-of-play/ [Accessed 7 Nov. 2017] Child Friendly Cities (2009). The CFC Initiative. [online] Child Friendly Cities. Available at: http://childfriendlycities.org/overview/the-cfc-initiative/ [Accessed 13 Dec. 2017]. Cycling Grants (2015). Cycling Grants London. [online] Cyclinggrants.london. Available at: https://www.cyclinggrants.london [Accessed 16 Nov. 2017].

David, L. (2014). Social Development Theory. [online] Learning Theories. Available at: https://www.learning-theories.com/vygotskys-social-learning-theory.html [Accessed 8 Nov. 2017]. Dighton, R. (2010a). Welcome to the Home of British Adventure Play: John Bertelsen. [online] Adventureplay.org.uk. Available at: http://www.adventureplay.org.uk/johnbertelsen. htm [Accessed 15 Oct. 2017]. Dighton, R. (2010b). Welcome to the Home of British Adventure Play: History of Adventure Playground. [online] Adventureplay.org.uk. Available at: http://www.adventureplay. org.uk/history3.htm [Accessed 12 Oct. 2017]. Encyclopedia Britannica (2017). Jean Piaget | Swiss psychologist. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Jean-Piaget [Accessed 15 Sep. 2017]. Innovative Learning (2008). Zone of Proximal Development. [online] Innovativelearning. com. Available at: http://www.innovativelearning.com/educational_psychology/development/zone-of-proximal-development.html [Accessed 11 Dec. 2017]. Instructional Design (2011). Social Development Theory. [online] Instructionaldesign.org. Available at: http://www.instructionaldesign.org/theories/social-development.html [Accessed 17 Jul. 2017]. Johnson, J. (2017). Mildred Parten Newhall â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Playvolution HQ. [online] Playvolutionhq. com. Available at: https://playvolutionhq.com/ecwiki-item/mildred-parten-newhall/ [Accessed 29 Oct. 2017]. London Play (2013). Our work - London Play. [online] Londonplay.org.uk. Available at: https://www.londonplay.org.uk/content_category/2435/our_work [Accessed 16 Nov. 2017]. London Play (2014a). The history of adventure play - London Play. [online] Londonplay. org.uk. Available at: https://www.londonplay.org.uk/content/29961/play_in_london/adventure_play_in_london/history/the_history_of_adventure_play [Accessed 7 Sep. 2017]. London Play (2016). London Play Streets - London Play. [online] Londonplay.org.uk. Available at: https://www.londonplay.org.uk/content/33442/our_work/recent_work/play_ streets/london_play_streets_ [Accessed 27 Sep. 2017]. May, E. (2014). Klong Toey Community Lantern | TEDCity2.0. [online] Tedcity2.org. Available at: http://www.tedcity2.org/awards/klong-toey-community-lantern/ [Accessed 1 May 2017] McLeod, S. (2014). Vygotsky | Simply Psychology. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/vygotsky.html [Accessed 5 Nov. 2017].

McLeod, S. (2015). Jean Piaget | Cognitive Theory | Simply Psychology. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: https://www.simplypsychology.org/piaget.html [Accessed 5 Nov. 2017]. NOW Gallery (2017). WALALA X PLAY â&#x20AC;&#x201D; NOW Gallery. [online] Nowgallery.co.uk. Available at: http://nowgallery.co.uk/exhibitions/walala-x-play/ [Accessed 3 Jan. 2018]. Play and Playground Encyclopedia (2011). Lady Allen of Hurtwood. [online] Pgpedia.com. Available at: https://pgpedia.com/l/lady-allen-hurtwood [Accessed 27 Aug. 2017]. Play England (2008). Glamis Adventure Playground |. [online] Playengland.org.uk. Available at: http://www.playengland.org.uk/resource/glamis-adventure-playground/ [Accessed 16 Jul. 2017]. Rowan, C. (2017). The Impact of Technology on the Developing Child. [online] HuffPost. Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/cris-rowan/technology-children-negative-impact_b_3343245.html [Accessed 8 Dec. 2017]. Shadwell Community Project (2016a). Glamis Adventure Playground: Shadwell Community Project. [online] Shadwellcommunityproject.org. Available at: http://shadwellcommunityproject.org/playground/ [Accessed 12 Jun. 2017]. Shadwell Community Project (2016b). Youth Work: Shadwell Community Project. [online] Shadwellcommunityproject.org. Available at: http://shadwellcommunityproject.org/youthwork/ [Accessed 1 May 2017]. Shadwell Community Project (2016c). Glamis Allotments: Shadwell Community Project. [online] Shadwellcommunityproject.org. Available at: http://shadwellcommunityproject. org/allotments/ [Accessed 26 May 2017]. Shadwell Community Project (2016d). Bike Workshop: Shadwell Community Project. [online] Shadwellcommunityproject.org. Available at: http://shadwellcommunityproject. org/bike-workshop/ [Accessed 25 May 2017]. Spatial Agency (2010). Spatial Agency: Giancarlo de Carlo. [online] Spatialagency.net. Available at: http://www.spatialagency.net/database/giancarlo.de.carlo [Accessed 10 Dec. 2017]. Tate (2017). Hyundai Commission: Superflex: One Two Three Swing! â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Exhibition at Tate Modern | Tate. [online] Tate. Available at: http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-modern/ exhibition/hyundai-commission-superflex [Accessed 1 Jan. 2018]. TYIN Architects (2011). Klong Toey Community Lantern | TYIN tegnestue Architects. [online] Tyinarchitects.com. Available at: http://www.tyinarchitects.com/works/klong-toey-community-lantern/ [Accessed 22 Apr. 2017].

Ulen, E. (2016). When Play Is Criminalized: Racial Disparities in Childhood. [online] Truthout. Available at: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36947-when-play-is-criminalized-racial-disparities-in-childhood [Accessed 10 Nov. 2017]. Unicef (2005). Unicef UK - Children’s charity - For Every Child in Danger. [online] Unicef UK. Available at: https://www.unicef.org.uk [Accessed 11 Oct. 2017]. Walker, D. (2014). Notting Hill Adventure Playground | The Library Time Machine. [online] Rbkclocalstudies.wordpress.com. Available at: https://rbkclocalstudies.wordpress. com/tag/notting-hill-adventure-playground/ [Accessed 24 Oct. 2017]. Weavers (2012). Weavers Adventure Playground – A unique play space in Bethnal Green, since 1974. [online] Weavers-adventure-playground.co.uk. Available at: http://weavers-adventure-playground.co.uk [Accessed 16 Jun. 2018]. Williams, A. (2008). Mercy Centre. [online] Mercycentre.org. Available at: http://www. mercycentre.org/en/who-we-are [Accessed 6 May 2017]. Williams, S. (2017). Child friendly cities benefit us all (part 3). [online] Child in the City. Available at: https://www.childinthecity.org/2017/02/28/child-friendly-cities-benefit-us-allpart-3/ [Accessed 18 Sep. 2017]. Wilson, P. (2011). Glamis Adventure Playground – Penny Wilson. [online] Theinternationale.com. Available at: http://theinternationale.com/pennywilson/28-2/ [Accessed 15 Aug. 2017]. Space Hive (2016). Weavers Adventure Playground with wooden structure. [image] Available at: https://about.spacehive.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Weavers-Adventure-Playground_Bethnal-Green-1.jpg [Accessed 10 Jan. 2018]. Tower Hamlet News (2016). Weavers Adventure Playground before the structure collapsed. [image] Available at: http://www.thnews.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/weaver-adventure.jpg [Accessed 12 Jan. 2017]. TYIN Tegnestue Architects (2012a). Community Lantern just after being built. [image] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/212214/klong-toey-community-lantern-tyin-tegnestue-architects/5017828b28ba0d225a000d3c-klong-toey-community-lantern-tyin-tegnestue-architects-photo [Accessed 11 Nov. 2017]. TYIN Tegnestue Architects (2012b). Community Lantern with structure intact. [image] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/212214/klong-toey-community-lantern-tyin-tegnestue-architects/5017827228ba0d225a000d35-klong-toey-community-lantern-tyin-tegnestue-architects-photo [Accessed 17 Dec. 2017]. TYIN Tegnestue Architects (2012c). Community Lantern Basketball Court. [image] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/212214/klong-toey-community-lantern-tyin-tegnestue-architects/5017828428ba0d225a000d3a-klong-toey-community-lantern-tyin-tegnestue-architects-photo [Accessed 9 Jan. 2018]. 69

7. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1: Mayne, R. (1957). Adventure Playground, London. [online image] Available at: https://flashbak.com/roger-mayne-brilliant-street-photography-46137/ [Accessed 2 Jan. 2018]. Figure 2: Graham, B. (1996). City Playground. [drawing]. From Rosen, M. (2007). This is our house. 2nd ed. London: Walker Book Ltd. p2. Figure 3: Davies, L. 2018. Young girl pushing a wheelbarrow. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 4: Lovelace, W. (1966). An Adventure playground in 1966. [online image] Available at: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2015/07/the-new-adventures-of-the-adventure-playground/ [Accessed 14 Jan. 2018]. Figure 5: Bengtsson, A. (1969). Construction. [image] From Bengtsson, A. (1972). Adventure playgrounds. 1st ed. London: Crosby, Lockwood and Son Limited. p131. Figure 6: Brian, B. (1955). Bombsite Playground. [ online image] Available at: https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/category/304950 [Accessed 5 Jan. 2018]. Figure 7: Grant, H. (1965). St Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Wood Adventure Playground. [online image] Available at: http://www.museumoflondonprints.com/image/679662/henry-grant-st-johns-woodadventure-playground-1965 [Accessed 9 Jan. 2018]. Figure 8: Modern Records Centre (1959). Nottinghill Adventure Playground. [online image] Available at: http://www.landscapethejournal.org/Bring-back-play [Accessed 2 Jan. 2018]. Figure 9: Brammer, ULF. (n.d.). Adventure in the city. [image] From Bengtsson, A. (1972). Adventure playgrounds. 1st ed. London: Crosby, Lockwood and Son Limited. p91. Figure 10: Davies, L. 2018. Young boy gardening. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 11: Davies, L. 2018. Walala x Play Installation. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 12: Davies, L. 2018. Tate Modern swings. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 13 : Graham, B. (1996). Children hidden in the city. [drawing]. From Rosen, M. (2007). This is our house. 2nd ed. London: Walker Book Ltd. p20. Figure 14: Davies, L. 2018. Young boy painting wooden fence. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 15: Davies, L. 2017.Equipment at Weavers. [image]. Private Collection.

Figure 16: Davies, L. 2017. Rubbish on site. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 17: Davies, L. 2017.Weavers Adventure Playground. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 18: Davies, L. 2017.Glamis Adventure Playground. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 19: Davies, L. 2017.Campire,Glamis. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 20: Davies, L. 2017.Roman Road Adventure Playground. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 21 : Weavers Adventure Playground (n.d.). What Weavers looked like originally. [online image] Available at: https://secure.thebiggive.org.uk/projects/view/24629/adventure-play-and-healthy-eating-in-the-east-end [Accessed 4 Jan. 2018]. Figure 22: Davies, L. 2017. Weavers without the wooden structure. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 23 : Davies, L. 2018. Zip wire. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 24: TYIN Architects (2012). The Community Lantern when it was built. [online image] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/212214/klong-toey-community-lantern-tyin-tegnestue-architects/5017828b28ba0d225a000d3c-klong-toey-community-lantern-tyin-tegnestue-architects-photo [Accessed 8 Jan. 2018]. Figure 25: Davies, L. 2017.The Community Lantern now. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 26: Davies, L. 2017.Klong Toey. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 27: TYIN Architects (2012). Climbing frame, Community Lantern. [online image] Available at: https://www.archdaily.com/212214/klong-toey-community-lantern-tyin-tegnestue-architects/5017827228ba0d225a000d35-klong-toey-community-lantern-tyin-tegnestue-architects-photo. [Accessed 8 Jan. 2018]. Figure 28: Davies, L. 2017.Junk yard. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 29: Davies, L. 2017.Childrens Cafe. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 30: Davies, L. 2017.Cafe entrance. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 31: Davies, L. 2017.Port hole windows. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 32: Davies, L. 2017.Roman Road Plan. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 33: Davies, L. 2017.Sandcastle. [drawing]. Private Collection.

Figure 34: Davies, L. 2017.The other playground in Klong Toey. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 35: Davies, L. 2017.Signs at Glamis. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 36: Davies, L. 2017.Pathway by Community Lantern. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 37: Davies, L. 2017.Weavers Adventure Playground Plan. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 38: Davies, L. 2017.Health Eating. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 39: Davies, L. 2017.Shadwell Community Project Plan. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 40: Davies, L. 2017.Cycling. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 41: Davies, L. 2017.Exterior Artwork. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 42: Davies, L. 2017.Indoor at Weavers. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 43: Davies, L. 2017.Donated boat at Glamis Adventure Playground. [image]. Private Collection. Figure 44: Bengtsson, A. (1969). Freedom. [image] From Bengtsson, A. (1972). Adventure playgrounds. 1st ed. London: Crosby, Lockwood and Son Limited. p119. Figure 45: Davies, L. 2017.Runaway children. [drawing]. Private Collection. Figure 46: Davies, L. 2017. Another world. [drawing]. Private Collection.