{"title":"Improbable Metropolis: Houston's Architectural and Urban History by Barrie Scardino Bradley (review)","authors":"Kathryn E. Holliday","doi":"10.1353/bdl.2022.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"new version of the playground with smaller, linked versions of what originally had been distinct elements. The result, Warsh notes, was harshly criticized, perceived as a loss of integrity from the original, or even a “cartoonish” version of Dattner’s design. Here, as throughout the book, Warsh gives space to criticisms of the conservancy’s work in the park, but ultimately downplays these in concluding that the results ultimately were necessary and effective. Her claim that despite the criticisms of Ancient Playground, children continue to eagerly and joyfully play there, unaware of any loss of its modernist precedent, is an important one. In a space for play, is a “rich and engaging play experience” (10) the ultimate goal of preservation, rather than the specific material and formal qualities of a site? This is a question worth asking. But her defense of these preservation efforts can feel a bit onesided at times, rather than a real engagement with their critics. The book concludes on an intriguing note: while the designers of the adventurestyle playgrounds sought to create safe, protected spaces open to imaginative discovery and creative play, Warsh writes, they also sought to relate and connect playgrounds— and play— to the rest of urban life. In part, this is the motivation behind recent efforts to remove visible barriers between playground and park (as in the 2010 renovation of Heckscher Playground). But Warsh goes farther, calling on children and caregivers to look beyond the playground, “to see that play does not need to be limited to the domain of the playground . . . where there are rocks to climb, sticks to collect, lawns to run across, and no safety standards” (144). It is an interesting conjecture: if the adventurestyle playground seeks to unlock the child’s potential for exploration and limitless play, is the ultimate goal to transcend the playground altogether and return children to the park itself, as playground?","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/bdl.2022.0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
new version of the playground with smaller, linked versions of what originally had been distinct elements. The result, Warsh notes, was harshly criticized, perceived as a loss of integrity from the original, or even a “cartoonish” version of Dattner’s design. Here, as throughout the book, Warsh gives space to criticisms of the conservancy’s work in the park, but ultimately downplays these in concluding that the results ultimately were necessary and effective. Her claim that despite the criticisms of Ancient Playground, children continue to eagerly and joyfully play there, unaware of any loss of its modernist precedent, is an important one. In a space for play, is a “rich and engaging play experience” (10) the ultimate goal of preservation, rather than the specific material and formal qualities of a site? This is a question worth asking. But her defense of these preservation efforts can feel a bit onesided at times, rather than a real engagement with their critics. The book concludes on an intriguing note: while the designers of the adventurestyle playgrounds sought to create safe, protected spaces open to imaginative discovery and creative play, Warsh writes, they also sought to relate and connect playgrounds— and play— to the rest of urban life. In part, this is the motivation behind recent efforts to remove visible barriers between playground and park (as in the 2010 renovation of Heckscher Playground). But Warsh goes farther, calling on children and caregivers to look beyond the playground, “to see that play does not need to be limited to the domain of the playground . . . where there are rocks to climb, sticks to collect, lawns to run across, and no safety standards” (144). It is an interesting conjecture: if the adventurestyle playground seeks to unlock the child’s potential for exploration and limitless play, is the ultimate goal to transcend the playground altogether and return children to the park itself, as playground?