Saira Ahmed Dissertation

Designing for play:

Designing for play: A critical analysis of how spaces facilitate and impact on cognitive, behavioural, emotional, social and environmental development in children.

Saira Ahmed

Designing for play: A critical analysis of how spaces facilitate and impact on cognitive, behavioural, emotional, social and environmental development in children.

Saira Ahmed Year of submission: 2014 Kent School of Architecture University of Kent Dr Timothy Brittain-Catlin Word Count: 8753

Dr

3

Contents: 6

- Introduction

8

- Play and its effects on child development

9

- Types of play

10 - Types and a brief history of playgrounds 11 - Adventure/scrapyard playgrounds 12 - Sculptural and contemporary playgrounds 17 - A contemporary approach to adventure playgrounds 19 - A modern approach to traditional playgrounds 20 - Integration of traditional playground equipment in contem- porary playgrounds 22 - Private spaces in contemporary playgrounds 23 - Restricting play in school environments 27 - Balancing play and education environments 32 - Conclusion 34 - Bibliography 38 - Image sources

“What is playing? Playing, is first of all something that happens in the interface between our inner world and external reality. Taking place neither strictly in our imagination, nor in the truly external world, playing happens in that space where our imagination is able to shape the external world without the experience of compliance, climax, or too much anxiety.� D.W. Winnicott [Playing and Reality, 70].

Introduction This dissertation will explore places designed for play, and how they can effect child development. Play is crucial for enabling healthy cognitive, social, environmental, emotional and physiological development in children. Therefore the spaces intended for play have potential to create an environment that coud either help or hinder this development and learning. I will analyse a range of playgrounds and education centres. As nurseries for young children can act as a secondary environment to facilitate development through play.

Starting with a brief history of play space design, I will then illustrate current best practice for facilitating each of these types of play with examples. I will outline the types of play and how this relates to each form of development with references to various playgrounds and nurseries or education centres.

The processes expressed during pretend play are organisation, divergent thinking, symbolism and fantasy/ make-believe. This type of play contributes to cognitive development, scrapyard playgrounds are best for facilitating this type of pretend play. I will explore how these themes relate to adventure playgrounds and how these are expressed in current schemes such as the ‘Imagination playground’ by Rockwell group.

Scrapyard or adventure playgrounds also allow for constructive play which helps induce environmental development in children. Processes expressed during constructive play are; approach to problems, problem solving / conflict resolution ability.

Social development allows for children to develop empathy, interpersonal skills, and communication skills. Through social play children are given an opportunity to express these processes, providing children with environments that have social and private areas, this is when social development is most effectively expressed. I will explore the environments that best facilitate this. Social development and emotional development compliment each other, through play children express emotion and it enables comfort and enjoyment of play. Physiological development is the practice of motor skills and application through complex sequences of these skills. This form of development is expressed through movement on traditional playground equipment.

I will explore the development of this equipment, particularly ‘Minkar’ by Michael Laris, and how he applied engineering techniques as well as a sensitivity to social play through his revolutionary design.

Play acts an important the role in facilitating a child’s construction of knowledge.

Children learn through exploring and experimenting within an environment that will “facilitate their construction of knowledge”(Metin.P, 2003). This type of play can assist in effective development of spatial and visual perception. Traditional playgrounds and play equipment was originally designed to enable the development of a child’s motor skills. Subsequently this type of equipment does not present enough of

6

a challenge for a child to learn through an unimagined way. According to Sandra W. Russ children’s play is an important role in child development and can act as “a major vehicle for change in child psychotherapy”. A study in Play explores the idea that cognitive processes are expressed during play. It is important to account for these and other processes when analysing the effectiveness of playground equipment in a child’s development as these processes are expressed simultaneously during play.

(Russ, 1987; J. Singer, 1973; D. Singer & J. Singer, 1990)

Being outdoors for a child is much more than experiencing and practicing motor skills, through inventing and creating games a child is given an opportunity to explore the world on their own terms. Erikson explores the concept of imaginative play and emotions and the ego-building parts of play. (E.H. Erikson 1972, play and development). Piaget defines “play” as a “biological model of interaction between child and environment” (J. Piaget, 1952). His work focuses on two functions as basic human development – assimilation and accommodation.1 The idea of a mircoworld is a design artifact that can be seen as a constant in play (papert, 1982; Riever, 1992). The microworld could be found naturally or can be artificially constructed, a child’s sandbox is a classic example of a natural microworld. Although this natural microworld can have some artificial elements, such as buckets of special sizes (e.g. each doubling in volume) this can be done to increase the likelihood that the child will discover specific principles through the exercise, resulting in development of divergent thinking. There are two key constants to creating these microworlds, first; it must present the child with the simplest form of the domain, in which the learner can explore and develop more complex ideas i.e. the sand buckets. Secondly, is that they must act parallel to the users affective and cognitive state, where the child would instinctively know what to do without any training necessary in order to begin play.

Erikson argues that through play, a child’s impulse is to make a change in the environment, which must be reinforced by the experience that something actually does happen. In doing so, a child can understand and develop their cognitive processes (Erikson, E.H, 1972).

1 The harmony between the two is considered important, by Piaget, for the development of intelligence and logical thought. Assimilation could be defined as the ability to master skills through reiteration and practice.

Accommodation is correlative to assimilation, as it occurs when a previous child’s experience causes them to not cope with any new situation.

(Piaget, 1962).

7

Play and its effects on child development Physiological development This type of development can be split into two parts, sensory and motor. Sensory development is where a child will learn to perceive through its senses e.g. touching, hearing and seeing. This is seen as important as motor stimulation. A child reinforces and is able to practice their motor skills though the manipulation of materials and the repetition of simple tasks, which will then be coordinated to then create a more complex series of movements (Frost, 1992) Cognitive development This development is induced through child’s ability to learn and to apply reason and thinking. In cognitive play a child may employ role-playing, inventive games and constructing (Papalia & Olds, 1993).

Emotional development Children crave the freedom to express themselves in a playground setting in order to develop a sense of ‘self’ and facilitate emotional growth. Allowing a child to use playground equipment and exercise dramatic play will give an opportunity for a form of emotional release through experimentation. Therefore, through design it is ideal to not create limiting spaces for child play (Fogel & Melson, 1988).

Social development Hart writes about how various play environments can help to develop skills such as cooperating, sharing and enforce a clearer understanding of rules (Hart, 1993).

Through doing so, a child is given an opportunity to interact with other children within a relaxed environment. Hence, mixing children of different ages in the playground but keeping the equipment age appropriate.

Environmental development Environmental development is where a child can develop confidence to share and create ideas with other children. Thus inducing self-confidence through increased performance abilities (Hesteltine & Holborn, 1987)

8

Types of play Functional play This type of play is where a child shows an interest to learn more. Functional play deals with repetitive motor movements eg. pulling or pushing. Whereby a child can then investigate the object further and apply its limited knowledge of its reaction to other objects. This can be achieved by creating interesting environments with various materials to induce exploration. (papalia & olds, 1993) Social Play Social play is where a child is able to participate with a group, through play, this can be achieved by organising equipment where more than one child is necessary to participate. This gives a child a sense of identity, and is able develop leadership and co-operation skills. (Papalia & Olds, 1993) Constructive play “In constructive play, children can also continually change the way while they use materials: making them more complex, challenging and different. By continually rearranging their materials, they create an environment to match their level of learning his continual manipulation of the environment means that children who have plenty of constructive materials and know how to engage in constructive play rarely get bored.” (Papalia & Olds, 1993 ; Wardle,2000).

Pretend play Pretend play could be seen as a design opportunity to create spaces that will inspire a child to view an environment as a ‘symbol’. This type of play is an important step in child development, using imagination and role playing fantasy games, through the use of object relations and projections. (Susa & Benedict, 1994; Winnicott, 1971).

9

Types and a brief history of playgrounds Playgrounds could be described as controlled open spaces, the first of which was opened in Manchester during the late nineteenth century. This is a result of the rapid industrialisation of the city, which created a need for safe spaces for children to play.

There was a range in fashions as more playgrounds opened from the late 19th and throughout the 20th century. John Hicks2 writes about five different styles of playgrounds in the UK and their relative correspondence. (Hicks. J, 2003).

Monumental (1880s-1920s) These consisted of large swings and ‘witches hat’ roundabouts. These grounds were formally designed, including fountains and flowerbeds, all of which were engulfed with large fences and iron railings. (Hicks. J, 2003).

Social and natural (1920-1949) These were largely seen in the south of England mainly in the Home Counties with large investments into sports, which centered the design of these playgrounds that consisted of tennis courts, bowling greens and public pools. The Second World War resulted in many of the ground staff having to leave and contribute to the war effort, thus neglecting these public spaces. Due to this fact during the 1950s large portions of these grounds were sold for housing developments. (Hicks. J, 2003).

Scrapyard (1950-1970) Taking inspiration from Scandinavian countries, these ‘high risk’ playgrounds were not dissimilar to adventure playgrounds we now know today. They comprise of a few key elements for example railway sleeper forts and ropes hanging from trees.

The main theme of these playgrounds is the freedom for manipulation by children, facilitating construction and destruction. Although successful, they posed more than a few safety issues. (Hicks. J, 2003).

Super-safe (1970 and after) These are, justifiably, in stark contrast to scrapyard playgrounds. These came as the interest of inspection grew and the absence of responsible supervision. Children that received serious injuries as a result of ‘scrapyard’ playgrounds campaigned for these major developments using various safety surfaces. (Hicks. J, 2003).

Play for all These were developed for the inclusion of children with all needs, encouraged by The Disability Discrimination Act (1995). These playgrounds born in London, are now the scheme employed all over the UK, as they are a healthy culmination of its predecessors. (Hicks. J, 2003).

Psychoanalyst D.W. Winnicott explores the concept of how play can show a child 2 John Hicks is a mechanical engineer that runs a consultancy and playground inspection business, he also publishes extensively on playground issues and design.

10

searching for a sense of ‘self’ and how creative activities are crucial in this form of development. He makes deliberate comparisons to the work of Freud, that in order to effectively help patients a psychoanalyst must explore their ‘creative self’. Referring to early childhood when a child will use its own faeces to create something, is the type of search that will result in unsuccessful results. In contrast to this he explains that the something produced must be‘valuable in terms of art’ but the maker could still result in being unsuccessful in their search. Claiming “the finished creation never heals the underlying lack of sense of self”. Concluding that the search for a sense of self can be discovered through play, experimentation and extends past the stages of childhood. (Winnicott D.W, 1971). “it is a creative apperception more than anything else that makes the individual feel that life is worth living” (Winnicott D.W : 1971)

Adventure/ Scrapyard Playgrounds Adventure playgrounds or scrapyard playgrounds are highly successful in encouraging a child to undergo creative play, which according to Winnicott this enables a stronger ‘sense of self’. These playgrounds could be considered as a child’s first experience in shaping and forming landscapes in relation to architectural forms, in a much more literal sense. These playgrounds also known as ‘junk’ playgrounds that consist various materials, for which children are allowed to adopt their own landscape, e.g. tires, ropes, railroad ties, sand and wood. Wardle emphasises the importance of these playgrounds through their challenging nature thus inducing cognitive development as well as exercising motor skills through functional play (Wardle W.D, 2000). The investigation of these loose materials creates an architectural and stimulating environment where children can engage in constructive play. However dangerous, these playgrounds are being reintroduced into the UK, opening in 2012

Figure 1

11

in Wrexham saw a new scheme called ‘The Land’ (BBC, 2013). This fully functioning junk playground has 4 members of staff supervising the open area. It allows the visiting children to freely create and destroy with assistance of skilled workers who can enable their creativity.

Another, perhaps more successful type of adventure playground is the Nishi Rokugo Park in Tokyo, Japan (figure 1). This playground uses one material, recycled car tires, built around the concept of sustainability this play area functions as much more than that. The park is filled with around 3,000 tires, some of which are non-fixed to allow children to build and destroy where others are more interestingly placed to form a typography of hills, a wide concrete slide and tunnels with large sculptural robots and dragons. Unlike scrap yard playgrounds of the past this park has a sand ground level making it much safer for children. Unlike traditional playground equipment this park in Tokyo uses simple materials which are much more successful experience for a child. The tires are in various sizes which allows a range ages and abilities to use it, this can induce social development (Guldberg.H, 2009)

Sculptural & Contemporary Playgrounds These are in contrast to contemporary playgrounds, which are usually designed as a component of a larger scheme. These types of play equipment are often static with the absence of movable elements, thus working against any type of cognitive development of the child, focusing mainly on the practice of motor skills. Mainly designed by architects, children are not often taken into account whilst designing.

Shuhei Endo designed a park with the intent to be laid out as a playground, whereas in reality it functions as highly sculptural ramp with little or no elements for interaction. Similar to social and natural playgrounds this ramp plays with the relationship between interior and exterior through the breaking of walls, but not servicing as a playground.

A different type sculptural playground in Schulberg by ANNABAU is a contemporary playground giving children the freedom of choice. (figures 2-4). This is a key design component that makes adventure playgrounds successful for many forms of child development. The sculpture consists of a large spatial structure with an inner and outer ring, which hosts an extensive range of game opportunities and activities.

The apparatus is elevated off the ground and winds around existing trees creating an interesting conversation between the sculpture and the surrounding typography. Each of the rings are organized into a pentagon shape which create interesting vantage points for the children to observe and use inventive play. Through using a steel construction this enabled cantilevers in some areas of up to 15m. There are three main elements of this design; firstly climbing nets have been used as a mesh that follows the ever changing contours of the steel pipes. The leveling changes create a range of entrances to the sculpture, giving the child an opportunity to explore the equipment.

12

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

13

Due to its abstract nature there’s no pre-prescribed functional use, in doing so a child can use and employ divergent thinking in order to being use, not to mention inducing social play as well as functional play. There are six stopovers created by the loops which involve various materials and activities designed to engage children of a range ages and abilities. These include; a sliding membrane, a steep climbing wall, bouncing membranes, a nest swing and a tunnel. By engaging children of all ages, according to Wardle this can increase social and cognitive development (Wardle W.D, 2000).

The second component of this design is a modeled typography within the inner ring of the climbing sculpture. This type modeling reflects a collection of hills and valleys formed from a soft rubber granulate with a sand area that encompasses this soft play area. A generous pathway, that follows the curved corners of the pentagon, acts as the third constituent. Hosting benches and acting more as a boulevard to facilitate supervision of the sculpture’s inhabitants.

“How could a child possibly be naughty in such a place?” (Lawson. B, 2001).

Lawson argues that architects and designers over look a child’s true nature as a result of no real understanding of a child behavior. He uses the Radburn layout (figure 5) as an example to support his premise that children are “potentially disruptive”. This layout comprises living rooms of surrounding houses facing inwards towards a ‘safe’ grass play zones for children. In spite of this, many of the children would opt to play in the hidden garage courts made of concrete. Often these garages are left open giving children direct access to tools, cans and other various objects, which they would adopt as kind of ‘scrapyard’ playground. To Lawson this was obvious, and the assumptions made by architects through the design of this layout were illogical. He recognises that children need freedom to learn and explore the world on their terms.

The overall planning of the sculptural playground by ANNABAU is reminiscent of the Radburn layout as it restricts children into one sculptural nucleus with a wall of surveillance besieging them.

This type of playground planning correlates to Foucault and his writings of prison functions as a tactic of, or in the interest of, class domination (McNay, L. 1994).

Bentham’s Panopticon prison plans are not dissimilar to the plan of this sculptural ‘adventure’ playground, where the children act as inmates and require constant surveillance throughout their ‘sentence’. As children are aware of the presence of supervision this could hinder their exploration of the adventure playground. Deeming its embellishments that can encourage cognitive, social, environmental, emotional and physiological development pointless. This all relates to Foucault’s theories as social playgrounds will often be used by children living in flats, or children of low income or non-working families. This is in contrast to children of the middle class and above as they will often have the luxury of their own private gardens, which can facilitate private play due to its concealment, safety of children will therefore not be an issue.

14

“Children are not allowed to play on their own to the extent that they once were. And much of the play they engage with is organised and run by adults. This robs children of the opportunity to innovate and learn from risk-taking behaviours. To be sure, children, today still manage to play on their own, but it is now the exception and not the rule.� (Elkind, 2007).

Figure 5

Figure 6

15

Kim Rasmussen conducted research into the concept of places designed for children and explored a disconnection between adult and a child’s perceptions of this. Older urban neighborhood would consist of blocks of flats surrounding an internal courtyard, which would have facilities for children’s play. A child, Line (7 years old) was asked to photograph (figure 6) and describe her courtyard: “Line: This is my courtyard. There’s someone called lena and that one is called Tanja. We have some swings over there, and one of them keeps on breaking because they twist around on it. Here’s the clothes line and this is the best tree for climbing.

But Age who lives there (points to side of the picture) will NOT let us climb it.

He comes out with a pipe in his mouth and says: ‘You are not allowed to climb up there!’

Interviewer: Are you not allowed to climb any of the trees?

Line: No. Interviewer: But you do it just the same?

Line: Yes, when he has left we hop up again. And this is out sandbox and there’s our slide.

Interviewer: Are there any dangerous places in the courtyard?

Line: Yes, that green bit there.. this is where we climb up. There’s a bit that goes down to a whole lot of electricity. But we climb out there all the same when he has left.”

Line however failed to mention, when asked to describe the courtyard, the enclosed basketball court with a net. She highlighted the ‘typical’ areas in this space, for example swings, clotheslines and the sandbox, i.e the objects adults had placed there to create a child’s space. She also explains that when given the opportunity she and her friends will climb the tree, however dangerous. The tree in contrast to the sandbox is not a conventional place for children, but this study shows that children are able to adopt and create their own environments. (Rasmussen. K, 2003) According to James Benedict and Anthony Susa Contemporary playgrounds are more effective at engaging children’s divergent thinking than traditional playgrounds. Benedict and Susa conducted a study into the effect of playground design on pretend play and divergent thinking. Their research consisted of observing the children’s behavior and conducting a divergent thinking skills test after their play on contemporary and traditional playgrounds. Their analysis stated three things; “ (1) more PRP would occur on the outdoor contemporary design than on the outdoor traditional design; (2) PRP would be positively correlated with creativity; and (3) more creativity would be observed after playing on the contemporary playground than after playing on the traditional playground.” (Susa.A.M & Benedict.J.O, 2004) 3 Traditional playgrounds are those made up of ‘typical’ equipment associated with play such as swings, see-saws, slides, merry-go-rounds and climbing apparatus.

3

16

PRP is mentioned in relation to pretend play

These are the most popular playgrounds, and spread throughout the UK over the course of the 20th century. Advancements in manufacturing, as well as child safety taking an important role in their development, made these readily available to schools and local councils.

Such standardised equipment quickly became popular because it allowed more children to play in a smaller place and because it could be easily ordered from a catalog by a local school board that did not way to pay for a designer or that did not wish to explore more creative forms of play. The desire was often for inexpensive, easily maintained apparatus that could be used by the children without much supervision.

(Eriksen. 1985) “ ... our mania for safety and uniformity cosigns children to a world of tan boxes tricked out with primary-coloured objects…where’s the adventure in that? What’s missing is loose parts, idiosyncratic parts, architecture that has ideas about learning and wants to help kids figure things out ... ”. (Lange,A. 2014)

A contemporary approach to adventure playgrounds Brownsville, Brooklyn, New York saw an amazing combination between contemporary and safe adventure or ‘scrapyard’ playgrounds. Architects, ‘The Rockwell Group’ call this an ‘Imagination Playground’, they placed a huge focus on creating safe ‘Lego-like’ moveable components that children can use to self-direct their own play. David Rockwell clearly understood the importance of play to a child’s cognitive, physiological, emotional, environmental and social development, and how pivotal play is in assisting this. Through designing a range of biodegradable foam blocks this scheme can also be sold to schools and also a much wider market. The master plan of the playground shows the scheme services adults, older and younger children. It takes a natural form sweeping through the trees, which will be in this area, with a ramp that winds between basketball and handball courts, as well as an adult exercise area close by. Using sand as a ground cover under the child play equipment area, and timber boards for the sculptural form and ramps, as this scheme involves the planting of many trees surrounding it. Thus making this an enclosed outdoor space, in which children can discover and learn.

Figure 7 The ramp is raised in some areas and so creates private spaces beneath it,

17

which only seem to be big enough for children. This is a sensitively considered response to a child’s playground in terms of child development. Laris claims, “Designers are the translators” talking in the context of designing for children, this scheme names the child the architect of their own environment (Laris. M, 2005).

The foam blocks used in Rockwell playground are precisely the component that sets this park out from the rest. These enable children to expand their imagination and promote sensory development. Winnicott supports the notion of constructing and destructing in aiding emotional development and growth. Exploring object-relation through the use of projection and identification mechanisms, whereby something of the subject is found in the object (Winnicott. D.W, 1971). He explains the change from relation of useage to destruction of the object as an important phenomenon and development provided that the object ‘survives’. In the case of the foam blocks, these would survive but Winnicott is referring to found objects by the child which act as a more personal response to their projections. This can, however, be applied type to the type of play in the Brooklyn imagination playground, but would probably be more successful within a scrapyard playground where there is a range of different objects, removed of pre prescribed purposes.

Figure 8

“the subject says to the object : ‘I destroyed you’, and the object is there to receive the communication. From now on the subject says: ‘Hullo object!’ ‘I destroyed you.’

‘I love you.’ ‘You have value for me because of your survival of my destruction of you.’ ‘while I am love you I am all the time destroying you in fantasy.’ Here fantasy begins for the individual.” (Winnicott. D.W, 1971).

Winnicott is describing that through creating and projecting the subject is coincidentally destroying, this is the position taken by a child or person at the early stages of emotional growth.

The playground designed by David Rockwell, indeed does proved children the

18

opportunity for emotional growth but limits the child’s choice of object relations.

Whereby the child is able to place the object outside the area of “omnipotent control” (Winnicott.W.D, 1971) where the object can develop its own autonomy and life, provided it survives. Giving Children the freedom to create and destroy their environments and object is an important theme of emotional development highlighted by Winnicott.

“If children are the inventors, what then is the designer’s role?” (Laris.M, 2005).

A Modern Approach to Traditional Playground Equipment Design Michael Laris explores his approach to designing playground equipment in Children’s Spaces. He had observed that children will adopt any structure or object for means of play. This was supported by Roger Hart’s research, Hart writes about a group of children visiting Guell Park, Barcelona, and how they showed no interest in Gaudi’s masterpiece, instead became absorbed by a crooked tree they had found.

He explains that the children were able to read the tree’s sculptural forms and use its positive and negative spaces for a range of play activities. This example shows that the children used this undefined space as a way of projecting their own imaginative interpretation to the setting, showing how aware they are to the conformity of pre-prescribed play.

Figure 9 &10

“Designers are the translators” (Laris.M, 2005).

Minkar is a piece of playground equipment where its design provides the child direct access to play opposed to forcing the child to overcome structural barriers, such as ramps and stairs. Laris uses a Labyrinth as a metaphor for how a puzzle or space can help a child along their own path of personal development.

A labyrinth consists of a single path spiraling inward to its centre point, with a single point in, which is the same way out. Laris then applies this concept of a labyrinth into designing Minkar. A significant feature of this structure is the idea of repetition; where a component is placed at ground and higher levels. Thus making this equipment accessible for a range of ages, but also allowing children to exercise physiological development, through the

19

co-ordination of simple movements. However this equipment has a limited number of uses and may not fulfill some criteria an adventure playground does, also not providing any private spaces. The effects of an excess of control on a child can “interfere with a child’s psychological development by making them feel as though they don’t have any control over their lives” (Davenport, G.C. 1994).

The construction of Minkar is interesting as Laris had a simplistic view of the equipment; which involved a curved beam with hanging ropes and other various objects.

He took inspiration from the galaxy, and meteor showers, as they resembled the objects that could be ‘floating in space’. He used engineering techniques of a small plate welded to the beam, with two identical half parts capsulate a ball at the end of the rope or support pole. He did this in order to enable the ropes and poles to be attached to the core bar at various angles. Although this is a static addition to traditional playground equipment Laris has carefully considered the placement and potential use of each and every step, wall or platform. This done to enable what he refers to as ‘activity to activity’ play, where each component has the potential to take part in the activity of play. Thus allowing children to ‘do things in their own way’ without ‘directions around the equipment’. This feature is what significantly distinguishes it to other unimagined traditional playground equipment. (Laris. M, 2005)

Integration of traditional equipment in contemporary playgrounds JMD Design Architects designs Blaxland Riverside park, Sydney, Australia (Figures11-14). This could be seen as similar to the sculptural playground by ANNABAU through its manufactured hills and level changes, although on a much larger scale extending over 300m. The Blaxland Riverside Park combines components of traditional and contemporary sculptural playgrounds. JMD have made use of the existing typography of hills and exaggerated these to create a play experience designed to engage adults and children of all ages. This adventure playground does not ignore traditional equipment, but incorporates a piece of equipment reminiscent of ‘Minkar’ into its vast landscape. Collaboration with German manufacturer Kaiser and Kuhne equipment that had been previously banned in Australia was re-designed for this purpose, for example a large spinning dish replaced the traditional roundabout.

Tunnels, slides, climbing nets and flying foxes are built into the extreme contours of the landscape. A 12m high tree house tower comprising of stacking timber and steel cages which overlook the whole park and various levels and also enabling views over the adjacent river. From the master plan it is clear to see that its linear planning encourages children to move through the park from one activity to another, but allowing various routes due to the huge range available. This playground incorporates over 170 water jets, which can be programmed to various settings to create an ever-changing landscape. To accommodate the overwhelming emphasis on safety in Australian planning the ground covering is a soft fall poured rubber in some areas and in others an artificial turf over impact absorbing matting.

20

“ The primary program for the playspace is gross motor play”. (Corkery.L ,2012)

Figures, 11, 12, 13, 14

In Hart’s investigation into childrens’ spaces asking the children their favourite places in the nursery.

“Researcher: Where is your favourite place in the nursery? …

Gary: Going in my cave, near the big dark trees [July]. In my cave listening to music. It’s magic music”.

Other children gave a range of different responses to the simple question, with their preferences ranging from personal spaces of imagination to the safety to social spaces linked to different activities.

When shown the ‘cave’ mentioned by Gary it was not a hidden or private space, where in fact it happened to be a curved bench on the grass situated in the public play area. Hart then goes into details into how these forms can represent familiar places or objects which can be given imaginative meanings by children, which can then shape their phantom landscapes. This is supported by Wardle’s definitions of child development whereby pretend play is an important step in shaping a child’s creativity. In the case of Blaxland Riverside park, the landforms are lacking in truly private spaces but host many child only places such through its large number of tunnels. (Hart, 1997; Wardle, 2000)

21

Private spaces in contemporary playgrounds Gulliver Park, Valencia, Spain (figures 15 & 16)is a clear example of where familiar objects can be used in an imaginative way, in this case the human form. This is an artistic collaboration from artist Manolo Martin and Rafael Rivera, inspired from Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathon Swift. This playground bridges the gap between literature and experiencing space; through this, it challenges children to understand the book on an elementary level. A large sculptural human body sprawled across a sand ground covering, using his clothing to create tunnels, slides and covered private zones. There are opportunities for a many different types of play with the play sculpture hosting hidden staircases, and higher areas enabling vantage points, Corsaro emphasises their importance in child play. Although the fiberglass model is placed with large amounts of space around it, this playground enables a child the freedom to experiment without direct view or supervision, which was proved to be an issue with other areas designed specifically for play. (Corsaro, W. 1997)

Figures 15 & 16

Figure 17

22

This concept of high private spaces is seen reflected in Copenha-

gen’s Brumleby Playground (figure 17). Similar to a playground in a courtyard this play area is surrounded by houses, the houses inspired by architect Michael Gottlieb BindesBoll and his responses to Italian worker housing. The playground consists of three distorted houses mirroring the houses in its immediate context. The houses are morphed, bent and collapsed to create an interesting sculptural macquette. Similar to Gulliver’s Park in Valencia this ‘equipment’ uses familiar forms that children can instinctively recognise and encourage a child’s imaginative processes. A composition of houses with raised walkways connecting the buildings, with ladders and doors slightly elevated from the ground. It is clear to see this playground is highly influenced by architectural forms, and more directly introduces children to architectural spaces. The concept of ‘home’ for children is associated with some form of housing, in this case ‘home’ could refer to both indoor and outdoor spaces. As these forms resembling their own dwellings and will then become an extension to their home.

These buildings have both private and raised components, making this successful for social and emotional development (Corsaro, W. 1997).

Private spaces are highlighted in Hart’s study as being highly valued by the children.

This is due to the nature of the spaces being out of site of adults in which they could regulate their own social hierarchy. Many of the children highlighted this area and the tunnel as areas of importance to them. The tunnel is perhaps the more interesting of the private spaces indicated, as it acted as not only private but also a social space.

As there is a limited size of tunnels this created an adult-free zone the tunnel in the study happened to be raised above the ground, high enough to see over the heads of other children. Corsaro discusses the concept that higher spaces are important areas for children, used for governance enabled by these vantage points. Perhaps, control because they are constricted to controlled environments from a young age. (Corsaro,W. 1997)

Restricting play in school environments Dudek raises the topic of an unfair imposition of control on children, particularly within the controlled environment of a school setting and how this can reduce their scope for “independent and imaginative play” (Dukek, M. 2005) “How have we ended up in a situation where children spend more and more of their free time in adult-supervised environments – and that is assumed to be a good thing?” (Guldberg, H. 2009) It seems fair to pin some of the blame of societies fixation with supervision on politicians and policymakers, as it is their lack of faith in parents that acts as catalysis for this phenomenon. With more and more pressure on children, within a target-orientated curriculum; children have less time for play. Not only less time but also the quality of play is being hindered through our risk aversion. Schools should become

23

the playground for a child where teachers simply aid their development.

Stirling Prize nominee Hampden Gurney Primary School (2002) located in west London is removed of a conventional playground (figures 18-20). Each of the school’s six floors, instead has a rubber play deck. (Guldberg.H, 2009) The school is arranged over these six floors as follows: Dining & Assembly Hall: Basement Nursery, Offices, Staffroom & WCs: Groung Classrooms: First - Third Rooftop ‘Play-area’: Forth Figure 18

This school was described as ‘a twenty-first-century architectural classic’ (BBC, 2002). Architect Tony McGuirk defends its enclosed play areas as an essential to the ‘success’ of the scheme, through enabling children protection from the elements, and also acts as a solar shade. The school is arranged around a triangular plan, which points north with a south facing semi-circular play area. Much of the scheme centers on solar access and creating naturally lit areas, successfully, with much of the school glazed. The use of light wells extending the height of the school enable a naturally lit the basement area. The play decks are accessed through bridging across the light well, McGuirk explains that these “are more than play areas … they are part of the architecture” (McGuirk, T. 2002) “This will be a future for children in which they are even more constrained and controlled. They will be deprived of joyous, ordinary experiences like getting rained on, feeling the wind, playing outside, organising games, sitting under trees and digging in sandpits … So there is nowhere left for children to play football. Nowhere where brothers, sisters and friends in different classes can meet up at playtime.” (Grenier, 2002).

Defending this notion, McGuirk is aware that this could perhaps be seen as the most negative aspect of his ‘award worthy’ scheme. Whereas, his intentions are that these spaces were to be used as classroom extensions and multi-functional areas due to their isolation. Austin Williams writes in AJ, that in fact, separation of children

24

Figure 19& 20 respective of their age is ‘seen as a good thing’ as it prevents hostile encounters between large and smaller children, by removing any encounters altogether (Williams, A. 2002). This scheme is a classic example when architects are unaware of the importance of freedom of play in child development.

This school strips children of their imagination and experimentation stages in emotional development (Grenier, 2002).

A study by Jerome L. Singer with nursery children in a private nursery school to explore the correlation between fantasy play in structured and unstructured settings showed that make-believe play was considerably more evident in the latter. Children introduced less fantasy themes in to their play when a member of staff was present.

The teacher was there to induce and develop creativity and imagination, however resulting in the opposite (Singer, J.L. 1973). This scheme does not give children the opportunity for unsupervised, unstructured free play as these areas are removed from any natural environment or enough scope to run around without running indoors. It forces children into a confined physical and creative space. Singer also draws the conclusion that when children engage in fantasy and make-believe play they are likely to have higher concentration levels when applied to activities using divergent thinking.

“When play is allowed to be child driven, children practice decision-making skills, move at their own pace, discover their own areas of interest, and ultimately engage fully in the passions they with to pursue” (Ginsburg, 2007).

The design of children’s spaces such as nurseries, schools and play parks shows how childrens’ lives are ‘shaped by physical and bureaucratic structures which helps to create the material culture of childhood’ (Dudek, M. 2005). Increasing dependence on new technology, not only for educational purposes but also for social interaction and leisure activities can define a child’s ‘space’ be it virtual, as much as architectural spaces, in comparison to former times.

Increasing pressures on children to succeed, toddlers are exposed to academic training at young ages for example Baby Einstein. Professor of psychology, William

25

Crain, argues that these programs and adults act as an obstructive presence, and hindering children developing their own sense of curiosity (Crain, W. 2004) Arguments made that new toys and gadgets with new technology leave children little scope for children to use their own imagination. However “they are still engaging in fantasy play with those toys – or the cartoons they come in, for that matter” (Guldberg, H. 2009).

Alison Clark, a research officer at the institute of education, University of London, was inspired by Harts research. Through a child led tour she explores many of Hart’s themes of how children associate and how they can engage with their environments.

They use their experiences with a certain place and draw upon their own associations of place use. Showing that children have an extremely subjective sense of place use, knowledge and value, as their perceptions draws from each of their individual memories (Clark,A. 2005).

“During a child-led tour the children stop at a door and look in.

Researcher: What’s this room?

Clare: It’s the parent’s Room – where people have their leaving parties.” (Clark,A. 2005) The extract from Hart above shows how a child description of place was closely linked to her memories of the past use. The nursery had clearly defined spaces dependent on its use and activity purpose, but also had one multipurpose room. This room gave views onto the courtyard and outdoor garden, the children described this space simply from their experience within it, for example it was referred to as ‘the listening room’ or ‘the dancing room’. Clark explains that this is how children identify with architectural spaces (Clark,A.2005).

“The importance of the learning environment to a child’s development…what was experienced then would be carried to the end of life.” (Vale, B & Vale, R. 2013).

A school creates an environment that acts as a crucial part of a child’s holistic development. Government led curriculum aims to result in a steady conveyor-belt of compliant and disciplined children. Unfortunately, the physical form of many education buildings mirror this ‘educational straight-jacket’ (Jilk, B.A. 2005). The modernist philosophy of ‘Form Follows Function’ creates environments that do not fulfill the needs of the learner, and perceive a passive user. However within schools and nurseries children need to actively engage with their environment. Education buildings built in the modernist era cannot facilitate this, thus hindering child development outside national curriculum. Jilk discusses that in order to create spaces whereby children can engage with their environment “Authority becomes shared between the producer (architect) and the consumer (learner)”. This is articulated in ‘Critical Pedagogy of Place’, which suggests a creative learning and architectural philosophy; addressing not the environment but their relationship with the student.

26

Balancing Play and Education Environments

Figure 21, 22 & 23

Leimondo nursery school in Nagahama, Shiga, Japan is a successful response to a child’s need. Catering to children up to the age of five. Similar to Tony McGuirk, Archivision Hirotani studio’s have placed an emphasis on creating quality naturally lit spaces. Each of the seven play spaces have been designed around the changing quality of light through the seasons, using pyramidal chimneys that have incorporated skylights at various angles drawing light down into these spaces (Frearson, A. 2011). Hirotani studio has sensitively arranged the spaces that enable children to look through various shaped windows into other classrooms. Some spaces are partially undefined allowing a sense of fluidity as a child progresses through the nursery.

Enabling children of different ages to socially interact, which was something Tony McGuirk failed to recognise as important. The skylights create beams of light that changes in quality through the seasons, and position throughout the day, engaging children with the form and massing of the spaces. Using a simple pallet of timber boards and render painted in muted tones is something that increases the sense of continuity as each spaces leads to the next. A scheme like this facilitates play through its socialisation of many ages, exposing younger children to more complex games, and cognitive processes but also allowing children to actively interact with their environment.

Figure 24 & 25

27

Figure 26, 27 & 28 Another education building that follows this theme of fluidity between spaces with undefined classrooms, is the international school of the sacred hart, designed by Atelier SNS. This scheme uses overlapping arches to create a space with no corridors and open classrooms radiate from a central circular planned core. The school uses a number of metaphors to promote the concept of success to its students. Firstly, the curved walls, with hidden storage on one side, and a bookshelf on the other, act as the ‘walls’ of the classroom spaces arranged in an ‘∞’ shape, to “symbolise children’s infinite potential”. Second, “The entangled arches represent children all over the world holding hands”. The meaning of having no walls where the arches cross is to let children know that the world is without boarders”. The third being that the way the arches are arranged it encourages the feeling of progressing through a tunnel, at one end of which, a mirrored wall to allow children reflect and at the other a bright naturally lit area. Representing ‘the light at the end of the tunnel’, this is similar to Leimondon nursery school as it allows children the freedom to move between places, allowing them to make their own decisions and removing barriers between classes (Frearson, A. 2011)

“This environment develops the imagination, expression, communication and creativity skills of children and adults alike.” (Guldburg, H. 2009).

Helene Guldburg highlights the importance of socialisation between children on child development in ‘Freedom and child development’. To facilitate healthy emotional development a child needs to gain an understanding that there can be a difference of viewpoints between themselves and others. Piaget also believed this to be true and that creating relationships between peers can display these differences.

Piaget argues that adults have too much of a power over children, therefore requiring play and interaction between equals in order to socialise the child (Guldberg,H. 2009). However, Vygotsky describes that play between children can be both liberating and restraining, in referencing imaginary play and play with rules. This type of play displays a freedom as children are able to explore and learn new types of play, personal to other children. But due to the element of co-operation, a child needs to practice levels of self-control. All these themes all contribute to emotional and social development (Vygotsky, 1978).

28

“… social life is necessary if the individual is to become conscious of the functioning of his own mind ... Just as, if left to himself, the child believes every idea that enters his head instead of regarding it as a hypothesis to be verified, so the child … believes without question everything he is told [by adults].” (Piaget, 1977)

Figures 29, 30, 31 & 32

29

Creativity is what centres the design for Pixy Hall nursery by Moriyuki Ochiai architects, winning it the ‘Japan kids design awards 2010’. This nursery facility provides no barriers to enable a healthy creative environment for young children, as it has been designed as a multi-functional area resulting in no formal division of space.

This scheme seeks to design spaces in which children can adopt and also actively manipulate, opposed to designing zones and rooms dedicated to specific activities.

This has been achieved through installing play equipment that allows children to play in changing environments. Using triangular loose blocks, light enough for children to pick up and move, on a stair case that leads to various routes over, under and around the play equipment. This equipment has private and secluded spaces, raised areas and leads to more open social zones.

Children need enough freedom and space to allow a sense of emersion into their fantasty worlds of pretend play; giving them the choice of what to play with and how to play is important to their development. Adults taking control and attempts to direct their play and control their environment are things that can restrict their imagination and experimentation during play (Guldberg,H. 2009).

“And so 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” (Montessori.M, 1973) The plan and multi-functional nature of pixy hall nursery relates to the theories of Montessori. The Montessori method is one that is centered on the concept that education should be open-minded and include innovation within the classroom. There are two main themes participating to the success of a Montessori education, firstly creating a personal environment for each child. Secondly, there is an emphasis on the teachers and adults being sensitive when creating these environments. Treating each child as an individual and removing any obstacles from the child displaying to the teacher their personality and to also encourage a self-constructed learning environment. The teacher plays a key role in facilitating growth of the child. There are six components to a Montessori classroom environment, freedom, structure and order, reality and nature, beauty and atmosphere, the Montessori materials, and the development of community life (Lillard, P.P. 1973).

Firstly, freedom is essential as a child should be within an atmosphere whereby he or she can reveal themselves to the teacher, in as open an environment as possible.

This will allow the child to use his or hers inner guide to direct its own development.

“A room in which all the children move about usefully, intelligently and voluntarily, without committing any rough or rude act”. It is important to Montessori that children are allowed to move between outdoor environments freely at their own will throughout the day. As a result these schools do not follow structured days where work, rest and play is separated as a child is free to chose their own activities. (Lil-

30

lard, P.P. 1973).

Structure and order is the second component in a Montessori classroom reflecting her theories that a child builds their own mental order. A child much be able to access the materials they require and they must be grouped according to interest.

(Lillard, P.P. 1973).

Reality and nature is the third element whereby a child is exposed to real items opposed to toys that represent the purpose, also that a child understands the concept of nature and taking care of plants. (Lillard, P.P. 1973).

Montessori believed that true beauty is found in simplicity, simplicity of design and creating quality spaces. The design of the classroom should have a clear harmony and all materials should be displayed similar to an exhibit. (Lillard, P.P. 1973).

The Montessori materials does not relate to design, but allowing a child to explore objects on their own terms and without any interference from teachers or adults. This promotes self-teaching where a child is introduced to new ‘materials’ and if the child does not learn what the objects purpose is correctly, it is then removed and re-introduced at a later stage. (Lillard, P.P. 1973).

A development of a sense of community is one of the most interesting elements of this method of teaching. Where the children take a key role in maintaining order in the classroom. An important element that aids this development is that children of different ages are in classes together. With a third of each age from three to five, after five the children will move to the six to nine year olds class. (Lillard, P.P. 1973).

31

Conclusion “When children experience a school obviously designed with their needs in mind, they notice it and demonstrate a more natural disposition towards respectful behaviour and a willingness to contribute to the classroom community” (Clegg,D & Billington,S. 1994).

All these case studies show how each example of playground or education environment show how important play areas and grounds are in facilitating cognitive, social, emotional, environmental and physiological development. Montessori education is a highly successful method, not only through its results, where children out perform children from a state education, but also its considered approach to environment.

Creating environments specifically designed for the individual. This cannot be the case for playgrounds, as they need to provide for a large range of needs and children of different ages. However, successful schemes that create environments where children can develop cognitive processes include those that relate to themes from scrapyard or adventure playground. This is shown in Rockwell’s ‘Imagination Playground’ in Brooklyn, ‘The Land’ in Wrexham and the ‘Nishi Rokugo Park’ in Tokyo.

These playgrounds allow children the freedom to manipulate and interact with their environment, encouraging divergent thinking. However, the emphasis on safety and supervision can limit these schemes. This is expressed in ANNABAU’s sculptural playground where it successfully facilitates environmental and physiological development. Approach to problems and problem solving processes that are expressed during environmental development. Enabling physiological development through its sculptural elements, however children need a balance between open more social areas and private spaces to allow for healthy social and emotional development.

‘Blaxland Riverside Park’ in Sydney, ‘Gulliver’s Park’ and the ‘Brumbleby Playground’ all allow for private and social spaces where children can develop social and emotional development. Through play they can develop empathy, interpersonal and communication skills, as well as enjoyment and an emotional release through play.

The connection between social and private spaces is shown in Leimondo Nursery school, Pixy Hall and the international school of the Sacred Hart. These are successful schemes due to their sensitivity to creating spaces without any pre-prescribed notions, that children can adopt as their own.

Through analysis of these different types of spaces I have shown how play can take an important role in child development and how this can be effected by the environment of both playgrounds and schools. These environments can help or hinder varying types of child development. Children need sufficient freedom and space to explore, experiment and learn. A true example of this could be Romanian children in cramped and limiting orphanages, this hampered the children’s behavioural, emotional and cognitive development. These children carried these scars even when moved to loving families, they were helped to heal by provisions of care, and in

32

particular access to open spaces where they could explore and learn through play.

Children require safe open spaces with private and social areas in order to develop a sense of ‘self’ or emotional development. To allow for cognitive development spaces need to present enough of a challenge and be abstract or sculptural enough to facilitate the crucial fantasy or make-believe play. Private spaces are important for children to experiment without an adult or police presence. I have outlined how crucial spaces and architectural environments are in facilitating all forms of child development.

33

Bibliography Bachelard.G (1994) “The Poetics of Space” Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press Clegg, D. and Billington,S. (1994) The effective primary classroom: Management and organization of teaching and learning. London: David Fulton Corsaro, W. (1997) The sociology of childhood.

Thousand oaks, CA: Pineforge Press.

Crain, W. (2004) Reclaiming childhood: Letting Children be Children in our Achievement-orientated Society, New York: Holt Paperbacks Corkery, L. (24 Oct 2012) architectureau.com/articles/blaxland-riverside-playground/ Date accessed: 15/01/2014 D.W. Winnicott, (1971) “Playing and reality” Tavistock publications LTD Davenport. G.C (1994) “An Introduction into Child Development” Second Edition Published in 1994 by CollinsEducational Dudek.M (2005) Laris.M Jilk. B.A Hicks.Judith & Hicks.John Clark.A Children’s spaces Oxford:Architectural press

34

E.M. Standing (1996) The Montessori Revolution in Education.

New York: Schocken Books Eilan, N. , McCarthy,R , Brewer,B. (1993) Spatial Representations, Problems in Philosophy and Psychology Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Fogel, A. & Melson, G.F. (1988) “Child Development: Individual, Family, and Society” NewYork: West Publishing Company` Frost, J. (1992) “Play and Playscapes” Albany, NY: Delmar Publishing Grenier, J. (3 december 2002) ‘Playing safe’ London: spikes. Online Available HTTP://www.spiked-online.com/Printable/00000006DB6E.htm Hart, C.H. (1993) “Children on Playgrounds: Research Perspectives and Applications.”

Hart, R (1997) Children’s experience of place New York: Irvington Publishers.

Helene Guldberg (2009) Reclaiming childhood, Freedom and play in an age of fear Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, NY Heseltine, P., & Holborn, J. (1987) “Playgrounds: The Planning and Construction of Play Environments” London: The Mitchell Pub. Co. Ltd. Hicks, J. (2003) Guide to the design and management of children’s playspace. www.orston.org http://www.landezine.com/index.php/2011/05/sculptural-playground-in-schulberg-by-annabau/

35

Jerome L. Singer (1973) The Child’s world of make-believe Experimental studies of imaginative play Department of psychology Yale University New Haven, Connecticut Academic Press New York, San Fancisco, London Lange, A. (2014) http://www.dezeen.com/2014/02/20/opinion-alexandra-lange-schools-museums-playground-design-for-education/ Date accessed 03/03/2014 Lawson.B (2005) “The Langage of Space” Oxford: Architectural Press Lillard, Paula Polk. (1978) Montessori A Modern Approach.

Fifth Edition, USA: Schocken Books Inc. Lowenfeld, M. (1965) Play in Childhood.

Guilford: Billing & Sons LTD McNay, L (1994) “Foucault: a critical introduction” Cambridge: Polity Metin,P (2003) The effects of traditional playground equipment design in children’s development needs A Thesis submitted to the graduate school of natural and applied sciences of The Middle East Technical University M.S., Department of Industrial Design Supervisor: Dr. Hakan Gürsu http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/1213727/index.pdf Date first accessed: 05/01/2014

36

Mussen. Paul Henry (1973) “The Psychological development of the Child” Second edition Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice-Hall New York: BasicBooks Ockman.J (1993) “Architecture Culture, 1943-1968: a documentary anthology” New York: Rizzoli Papalia, D.E., & Olds, S.W (1993) “A Child’s World: Infancy Through Adolescence” United States of America: Mc Graw-Hill.

Phyllis Hostler (1965) “The Childs world” Revised edition Harmondsworth : Penguin Books PH 45 Piaget, J. (1952) “The origins of intelligence in children” New York : International Universities Press Piaget, J. (1971) The science of education and the psychology of the child.

London: Longman Group Limited Piaget, J. (1977) Moral Judgement of the child, London: Penguin Education books.

Piaget.J (1972) Play and development A symposium with contributions by Peter H. Wolff Rene A. Spitz Konrad Lorenz Lois Barclay Murpju Erik H Erikson Edited by Maris W.Piers New York: W.W. Norton &Company Inc.

37

Rasmussen, K. and S. Smidt (2003) “Children in the Neighbourhood: The Neighbourhood in the Children” in P. Christensen and M. O’Brien (eds) Children in the City: Home, Neighbourhood and Community, pp. 82–100.

London and New York:Routledge/Falmer.

Rassmussen, K. (2004) http://www.kingscollege.net/pomfret/3311/pdf/ReadingRasmussen.pdf Accessed on 04/03/2014 Rieber, L.P. (1992).

“Computer-based microworlds: A bridge between constructivism and direct instruction.”

Educational Technology Research & Development, 40(1), 93-106.

Schaffer. Rudolph H (2004) “Introducing Child Psychology” Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publications.

Susa, A.M., & Benedict, J.O (1994) “The Effects of Playground Design on Pretend Play and Divergent Thinking” Environment & Behaviour. Vol.26, 4 Vale.B & Vale.R (2013) “Architecture on the carpet” London: Thames & Hudson LTD Vygotsky, L.S (1978) Mind in society: development of higher psychological processes, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

38

Image Sources: Figure 1: Nishi rokugo park Tokyo http://slickpanda.com/japanese-tire-playground Figures 2-4: Sculptural playground by ANNABAU: http://www.annabau.com/index.php?site=projects&subsite=project&id=6 Figure 5: Radburn layout: http://picomeanslittle.com/blog/2012/07/ Figure 6: Courtyard picture: Kim Rasmussen http://www.kingscollege.net/pomfret/3311/pdf/ReadingRasmussen.pdf Figures 7 & 8: Imagination playground: http://www.rockwellgroup.com/projects/entry/imagination-playground Figures 9 & 10: Minkar: Laris.M (2005) Children’s Spaces Dukek.M Oxford: Architectural Press Figures 11, 12, 13 & 14: Blaxland masterplan: http://architype.org/project/blaxland/ http://www.designmagazin.cz/architektura/35602-v-sydney-vyrostlo-obrovske-moderni-hriste-pro-deti.html Figures 15 & 16: Gulliver park: http://daraparker.com/category/spain/valencia/ Figure 17: Brumleby playground: http://bozaround.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/bumble.jpg

39

Figures 18, 19 & 20: Hampden Gurney primary school: http://www.bdp.com/Projects/By-Name/F-L/Hampden-Gurney-School/ Figures 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25: Leimondo nursery school: Kurumata Tamotsu http://www.dezeen.com/2011/08/10/leimondo-nursery-school-by-archivision-hirotani-studio/ Figues 26, 27 & 28 The International school of the Sacred Hart: http://www.dezeen.com/2011/07/13/international-school-of-the-sacred-heart-by-atelier-sns/ Figures 29, 30, 31 & 32: Pixy hall: Photography is by Atsushi Ishisda/Nacasa & Partners. http://www.dezeen.com/2013/08/10/pixy-hall-by-moriyuki-ochiai-architects/

40

41