Posted by: Staff | 09.27.2007

New playground a step in the wrong direction?

TOPH TUCKER

Late last year, as horrified Spanish students looked on, the long-standing Beaver playground was viciously demolished. Now, returning students have been surprised by a brand-new playgrond. Anonymous sources say it wasn’t free, yet some students question whether it’s a step in the right direction.

“I think it’s sort of terrible,” says Toph Tucker. “It’s as colorful as the Arts Building, Athletic Center and now the Middle School Wing, but that doesn’t make it better. It’s too small, for one thing. And also, it’s dangerous. I think Dan Woo nearly blacked out on that weird spinning bowl-seat the other day. And that circular treadmill of doom? That’s a skull fracture waiting to happen.”

Worst of all, Toph regrets the way in which the old playground’s life unceremoniously ended. “No announcement, no warning, no nothing. No epitaph! Is nothing holy?”

Top image: aerial view of old playground, from Virtual Earth
Bottom image: panorama of new playground by Toph Tucker

Advertisements

Responses

  1. this playground is so much better than the other one. i am apalled that someone would speak illy (sp). People who get hurt don’t know how to properly use the playground and/or are stupid. For one thing, the playground is no longer made of rotten wood that i have gotten my fair share of splinters on it. This new one was things that bounce and spin, which the other one did not, especially since the tire swing was taken down (also for safety reasons). No offense Toph, but you’re wrong.

  2. None taken. ๐Ÿ™‚ And I think you can just say “speak ill of it,” although “illy” is a nice word too.

    Anyway, I never personally got a splinter on the old one, and it didn’t seem too rotten to me, but you make a good point, I suppose. And from a Darwinist’s point of view, you make a good point about safety, too. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    But the old one was just so… big… and this one is just so… small! The old one offered far more raw climbing space. And how cool were the tunnels!?

    The shocking truth, though, is that the fledgling newspaper just needed a good reactionary/sensationalist story to fill its then-empty pages. That said, I do miss the old playground.

    ๐Ÿ™‚

  3. “The old one offered far more raw climbing space. “

    …which provided even greater opportunities for falling. ๐Ÿ™‚

    The old playground was much too limited. Only little kids could effectively use it. A senior able to travel through the tunnel attraction was never really possible. The new playground, however, is one-size-fits-all. Plus, there’s even more space to run around. So yeah Toph, you’re definitely wrong.

  4. Only little kids could effectively use it? Not so! Climbing through the tunnels was tricky at this age, I’ll admit, but certainly not impossible. For older kids, most of the fun came from the outside of the structure. That’s fine by me. (We should also remember that little kids *are* the #1 intended audience.)

    Another point: the tower offered a fine observation point for our science club escapades. The new one is pitiful by comparison.

    Running around space? There’s a whole FIELD of running around space right next to the playground area!!!

    If you’re saying that the new playground is a lowest-common-denominator affair, then you might be right. But I wouldn’t say that’s a good thing.

  5. “(We should also remember that little kids *are* the #1 intended audience.)”

    In that case, the upper school perspective of the new playground is irrelevant! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    “Another point: the tower offered a fine observation point for our science club escapades. The new one is pitiful by comparison.”

    The observation point happened at the foot of the playground, right at the border. The structures had nothing to do with the “view” as kids generally sat on the wooden planks that fenced in the playground dirt.

    Nice try.

    “Running around space? There’s a whole FIELD of running around space right next to the playground area!!!”

    There are also giant buildings nearby…and trees for which you can climb! And…they are also right next to the playground area. ๐Ÿ˜€

    I don’t think lowest-common-denominator is a fair term to use. I would think the denomination falls short of popular appeal, which is the true underlying issue here.

  6. “In that case, the upper school perspective of the new playground is irrelevant!”

    Irrelevant!? Not at all! Less important than that of the preschoolers, yes, but far from irrelevant.

    As for the tower as an observation point, I seem to remember it serving quite well last year for various potato gun and rocket experiments, though of course it doesn’t fit as many people as the ground. ๐Ÿ™‚

    “There are also giant buildings nearby…and trees for which you can climb!”

    Buildings are generally no good for climbing, even if we were allowed to (which we probably aren’t). And unless you’re very skilled, trees don’t work that well, either, and are far more dangerous.

    (Incidentally, they also took out a tree when they took down the old playground.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: