[Mintwood-place] Controvery Over Playing Field at Park - background

Tue Jul 28 17:18:28 EDT 2009

The Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the School System, in a praise worthy effort to turn Parks into filters to clean storm water runoff - have selected porous pavers.  They allow water to seep into the ground, but make the playing fields dangerous and unusable for most sports. 

This Wednesday, July 29th at 7pm, The Director of the DC Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), Xemina Hartsock, and others, will discuss the Kalorama Park Project.  All invited.  
Meeting with in the Park at the Kalorama Recreation Center building.  About three blocks from 18th and Columbia Road in Adams Morgan just off Columbia Road, Between 19th and Mintwood Place.  
http://www.kaloramapark.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$70,000 Playground Leaves Parents, Teachers Unhappy
Months-Old Surfaces Causing Stress and Mess

By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 20, 2006; DZ03

Just 16 months ago, Stephen Norton was the Peabody Elementary School playground's biggest cheerleader. Today, when he surveys the dead grass, exposed concrete edges and patches of mud, he is left wondering where it all went wrong.
When the D.C. public schools received a $70,000 grant to replace the cracked asphalt on the playground at Peabody on Capitol Hill, Norton wrote an article in a neighborhood newspaper hailing the renovation project as a model for schools nationwide. His 180-degree shift in opinion came to symbolize the disappointment and controversy surrounding a high-profile project that all sides agree is at least a partial failure.
"We're stuck with this mess, and it has gotten worse over time," said Norton, whose daughter attends Peabody. "And we've had no success in trying to dismantle this thing."
Until last year, Peabody had a traditional asphalt surface beneath its blue and orange playground equipment. But the one small drain in the schoolyard was not enough to keep the area from flooding nearly every time it rained, leaving the pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students with nowhere to burn off their midday energy.
A group of teachers and parents wrote a grant proposal, and after the project received money from the federal government and Prince George's County, Laurel engineering firm Greenhorne & O'Mara Inc. began drawing up plans. Prince George's provided a small portion of the funding to the District as a way to help the county research environmentally friendly surfaces.
The engineering firm, which specializes in low-impact development projects involving water issues, said it found an ecologically friendly solution in two new materials it installed: Turfstone and Grasspave.
Turfstone is the more problematic of the two for parents and teachers upset about the condition of the schoolyard. Turfstone is a series of interlocking concrete blocks with built-in gaps so water can reach the soil and grass can grow between the stones. The problem, school leaders say, is that the openings between the slabs are about the same size as a 4- or 5-year-old's foot, creating a constant danger of sprained ankles. Several children have been injured on the new playground surface, parent Philip Brady said.
"You can't run on it, you can't ride a tricycle on it, and it's a real problem. It's extremely dangerous," Brady said. "It's an ugly, muddy thing with sharp edges."
Turfstone originally was designed for parking lots and driveways, and all sides agree Greenhorne took a risk by installing it at a school. But whether it was a risk worth taking is the subject of controversy.
Alexi Boado, an environmental specialist within the District government who oversaw the Peabody project, said a safety inspector with the public school system examined the surface and said it was not a safety hazard. A spokesperson from Greenhorne & O'Mara said that if the grass had been watered regularly before it wilted, there would not have been a problem. Adequate grass cover would enhance the safety of Turfstone, according to city and Greenhorne officials.
Yet James L. Hassell, vice president of sales at Interlock Paving in Hampton, Va., a major supplier of Turfstone in Virginia and the Carolinas, said he had never heard of a school paving its playground with Turfstone and would not recommend it.
"If someone came to me and said they were going to make a playground out of Turfstone, I would suggest against it," he said. "It's not meant for that much foot activity, especially with little feet."
The other half of the Peabody play area was designed as a grassy field with Grasspave, mats of interlocking plastic rings that lend structural support to grassy plots. Within a few weeks of installation, parents said, most of the grass had died and the Grasspave had become exposed. As in the Turfstone area of the playground, the surface is uneven and difficult for children to play on.
"The Grasspave system definitely did not function," Boado said. Grasspave, however, does not have the large spaces that easily can catch children's feet.
Boado said the city's Health Department and the school system have offered to pay for mulch to be spread over the Grasspave area. Peabody teacher Louise Chapman, who was involved in the initial project design meetings and calls the playground "a total failure," said mulch would be a good temporary solution but added communications with the city have reached a standstill.
"We have this unusable, dangerous space, and we seem to be at an impasse in terms of getting it fixed for September," she said.
------------------------------------
From: Philip Brady <philip at jacksonbradydesign.com>
To: Eddie Becker <eddie_becker at yahoo.com>; 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:24:58 AM
Subject: RE: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field -- DANGER: DON'T REPEAT OUR MISTAKES

Hi Eddie. In answer to your question below:

I don't see how you could blame the failure of grasspave on the kids. In our case they were pre-K and K. It is not like they came to the playground in the middle of the night and dug it up as a prank. Other than that, yes, kids do run around and play on a grassy field (or any other surface) without much regard for the consequences of the friction of their feet. That being said, the friction caused by little feet running around is not negligible.

Grasspave and Geoblock shine when it comes to the issue of erosion. The cell structure works as a tough root system that retains soil and keeps it from washing away. Thus protecting the grass from repeated water flow.

Grasspave and Geoblock do not, however, have a built in microscopice magic watering system that magically keeps the grass green and growing. Everything that you have to do with a grass lawn to keep it green still has to be done. Watering, weeding, seeding, fertilizing. If you do not do it then the grass dies and then the soil becomes hard and as it moves in freeze/thaw or dry/wet cycles the grasspave and geoblock come to the surface and become very nasty and dangerous.

The Grasspave and Geoblock themselves are maintenance free. The hard plastic is impervious to weather and needs no nutritional supplement to keep on functioning. The grass is not the same way. And, of course, if the grass is on a playing field (vs, say, someone's back yard) then it is subject to the abuse of feet running over it and so it actually needs much more maintenance. Think of the maintenance you have to do to any sport field that is grass. Major.

As to your last question it is also something to think about seriously. If the grass dies and the soil is allowed to harden then the only way to get grass to grow again is to aerate the soil. Otherwise there is no way for the seeds to dig into the ground and start growing. And you cannot aerate hardened soil with the grasspave/geoblock in place so you have to rip it all up and start from scratch. Now, if the soil is not allowed to harden you can still aerate soft soil with the grasspave/geoblock in place. But again, that means staying on top of the maintenance. In fact the aerating needs to be done yearly at a minimum.

What we found out pretty quickly the hard way at Peabody (though your situation is different) is that maintenance was able to stumble along through springtime with combined resources from DC and volunteers. But as soon as summer hit then nobody did anything. And, of course, summer is when you need the most maintenance.

So, in conclusion, if the maintenance is kept up on a regular basis then the Grasspave/Geoblock soil retention system contributes favorably to the durability of the field. If the maintenance is not kept up then the Grasspave/Geoblock become a big and expensive problem. If you can guarantee the maintenance they go for it. If you cannot guarantee the mainteance then don't use such a system.

Hope this helps. Philip

________________________________
From: Eddie Becker [mailto:eddie_becker at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:47 AM
To:  philip at jacksonbradydesign.com

Subject: Re: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field -- DANGER: DON'T REPEAT OUR MISTAKES

Dear Philip,  This is a real learning curve for everyone following this thread.

The failed plastic Grasspave porous pavers at the Peabody School is almost identical to the Geoblock proposed for the children's/bocce ball playing field in Kalorama Park!  One is round the other square - both have similar plastic sized cells. The Grasspave literature says that an additional layer of sod and grass on top of the pavers are OK, while Geoblock does not recommend an additional top layer.       
 You write that the Grasspave system  "rapidly worked its way to the surface where the grass was weak."  Grasspave soon became an "even worse tripping hazard than the Turfstone. Kids' feet got tangled up in it and it is not pleasant to fall on when exposed."  
Was this failure due to kids play, cars or poor care of the planted grass?
Many people who support Geoblock here believe it is maintenance free, and protect grass in a heavily used playing field.
Did Grasspave  need much support - watering, fertilization etc?  

How much work does it take to regrow grass once it was gone?

Thanks,  Eddie

Grasspave  http://grassypave.com/GP2/grasspave.htm

Geoblock  http://www.reynoldspkg.com/alcoa-geo/en/solutions/Geoblock/porous_pavement.asp

________________________________
To: philip at jacksonbradydesign.com; Eddie Becker <eddie_becker at yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:55:01 PM
Subject: RE: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field -- DANGER: DON'T REPEAT OUR MISTAKES

http://grassypave.com/GP2/grasspave.htm

________________________________

From: Philip Brady [mailto:philip at jacksonbradydesign.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:37 PM
To: 'Eddie Becker'
Subject: RE: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field -- DANGER: DON'T REPEAT OUR MISTAKES

Hi Eddie. The plastic soil retention material that was used at Peabody was Grasspave. Very similar to the products that you are looking at. Philip

________________________________

From: Eddie Becker [mailto:eddie_becker at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:10 PM
To: philip at jacksonbradydesign.com

Subject: Re: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field -- DANGER: DON'T REPEAT OUR MISTAKES
Philip, This is very helpful.  You mention a plastic soil retention device that "rapidly worked its way to the surface" and was a "worse tripping hazard .."  Do you recall the name of this product or who might know.  Thanks,  Eddie

About a third of the area to be resurfaced was covered in plastic soil retention grids similar to the two products that you mentioned. Once again, a great product, but wrong application. It all had to be removed as well. Looked fine and worked fine at first but rapidly worked its way to the surface where the grass was weak. At that point it was an even worse tripping hazard than the Turfstone. Kids' feet got tangled up in it and it is not pleasant to fall on when exposed.

________________________________

From: Philip Brady <philip at jacksonbradydesign.com>
To: Eddie Becker <eddie_becker at yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:46:35 AM
Subject: RE: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field -- DANGER: DON'T REPEAT OUR MISTAKES
Hi Eddie. Well, the questions you aks about the process are certainly as good as they are obvious. And they all basically get summed up into one simple question: how could this possibly have happened? Like I said, it defies imagination. Truly amazing. Without going into detail this tries to answer your questions:

1--The landscape architecture and civil engineering firm that did the project does extra large projects, not this kind of project. But of course this has major PR appeal: combo of elementary school and green. You can imaging the possible marketing spins. They had never done this before and had no precedents to fall back on other than using the products in vast overflow parking areas and highway soil retention projects. But they stood up in front of the Peabody project manager and a small collection of others and said that it would work and would be great.

2--The Peabody project manager was a teacher who knew nothing about construction, drawings, or project management. She assumed that she did not need to know anything or worry about anything since, after all, there were engineers signing off on it. If there was no need to worry about anything and the project was going to be great then there was no need to involve the community. She did not ask any pertinent questions and nobody asked her any questions. Nobody asked anybody any questions. At least not the hard questions that should have been asked.

3--I got involved in the project after it was contracted (and because I knew the teacher and was an architect) and at that point there was no stopping it. Once something is contracted in a situation like this then it just goes forward regardless of how much you scream and jump up and down.

4--The project implementation was contracted to a large construction company who had never done this kind of installation before. The designers thought that since it was a well known company there was no need to supervise any of the installation (and they hadn't budgeted for any site supervision). So it was all installed incorrectly. But you can stand there and watch it happen right in front of you but there is nobody that you can contact to stop anything. It just keeps happening. Like a Kafka novel.

5--Once installed it was an immediate disaster. A monumental disaster. From all points of view. Not only that but it was not budgeted to clear the storm drain in the middle of the area so when it rained hard the whole thing still flooded. Kids and teachers injured. $70k wasted. And the whole thing had to be surrounded with yellow caution tape to keep people away from it. So who took responsibility and fixed the whole thing? Nobody. The designers said that it had been signed off on so it was not their fault. DC Dep of E said the same thing. DCPS said, of course, that the whole thing had nothing to do with them since they were not part of the contractual arrangements. The Peabody teacher just said that she assumed that since professionals were involved in design, implementation, and mangement everything should be ok. That was not really an unreasonable assumption. But very wrong. Alexis Boado was the worst of all in the whole story since he spun the story
 to his own advantage and showed complete indifference and disregard for the situation. I had to meet with his boss and plead but still there was no responsibility taken by anyone.

6--In the end it was DCPS that stepped in to solve the situation. After a very long delay. They turned it into a maintenance issue and came in and dug everything up and paved the whole thing. A tried and true solution. Not environmentally sensitive but at that point nobody cared at all.

It would have been nice to use all that wasted money to replace the aging play structures instead...

All I can say for your situation is this: ask questions and use common sense. If we had done the same at Peabody it would have saved a lot of grief.

Best of luck!

Philip

________________________________

From: Eddie Becker [mailto:eddie_becker at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 12:40 AM
To: philip at jacksonbradydesign.com

Subject: Re: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field -- DANGER: DON'T REPEAT OUR MISTAKES
Dear Philip, Thanks for the details about the total failure of the the porous pavers at the Peabody School playground.  Though the paver material is different, plastic versus concrete, both are hard and can cause falls.  In addition no one has been able to find any instances of the successful use of porous pavers in or on any playing field - which says a great deal.  At the Peabody school, wasn't there anyone who might have said - are these porous pavers appropriate surfaces for children's school yard?  Had this ever been tried before?  Didn't the engineering firm have to sign off on this?  When the pavers began to cause injuries at the Peabody School, what was the response of the sponsoring agencies, who took responsibility?  Was it the DC Department of the Environment, what about that  staff person advocate, Alexis Boado - who were featured in the news story, (below)?
Thanks,  Eddie  

________________________________

From: Philip Brady <philip at jacksonbradydesign.com>
To: Eddie Becker <eddie_becker at yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:29:26 PM
Subject: RE: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field -- DANGER: DON'T REPEAT OUR MISTAKES
Hi Eddie. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into all the details right now but maybe we can talk over the phone and anybody is certainly more than welcome to call me on this topic. The product that was installed at Peabody was Turfstone. Everything that they claim about it from an environmental point of view is pretty much true (thought the installation and maintenance is far more of a concern than anybody lets on). It is, in fact a great product and as an architect I have specified it. But not for a playground.

From an ergonomic point of view the product is a total disaster in this application. And this is no surprise since it is designed for cars and not for people. All you have to do is go to the product website where it specifically says that it is for cars and NOT for pedestrian traffic. Get this: the size of the holes in the pavers are the same size as the average foot of a kindergarten student. Since it is a cast product the edges of the pavers are very sharp and very hard. You cannot walk on it. You cannot run on it. You cannot bike on it. Kids and teachers were injured the very first day it was installed. The absurdity of the situation defies imagination.

If somebody is pushing the product they will tell you that with the grass filled in the concrete edges are not exposed and you can walk on it just fine. NOT. Correct installation requires that the grass level is below the concrete surface. There are lots of other subtleties about how the project went down and why it does not work in this application. Not the least of which is that there is no one to ensure that the grass will be watered and maintained. Again, I would be willing to discuss this at greater length with anybody. The fact that it all had to be cordoned off and removed (at no small cost) should say enough. And, by the way, it took a long time to find the funding for removing it and during that time, guess what: no playground for the kids in that area.

Everybody is searching for the great environmental product that will resurface the playgrounds of the world. Turfstone (or similar) is not it. Heads up, don't let them try to do a bait and switch and introduce permeable concrete. Also a great product, but not in this application. Fortunately we were able to see that one coming and head it off.

About a third of the area to be resurfaced was covered in plastic soil retention grids similar to the two products that you mentioned. Once again, a great product, but wrong application. It all had to be removed as well. Looked fine and worked fine at first but rapidly worked its way to the surface where the grass was weak. At that point it was an even worse tripping hazard than the Turfstone. Kids' feet got tangled up in it and it is not pleasant to fall on when exposed.

I am not trying to be a downer and try to weave environmentally sensitive products into all of our projects but there is a lot of hype out there and many products do not translate well from the application they were intended for to something else. If you look at the Peabody example you will see that there was a significant area where Turfstone was left behind: the staff parking spaces. And there it works great. Supports the cars and lets the water through. With the holes filled with gravel it has no maintenance issues. And no kids play on it.

Please let me know if you have any further questions about our experience at Peabody.

Best regards, Philip Brady

________________________________

From: Eddie Becker [mailto:eddie_becker at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:52 PM
To: philip at jacksonbradydesign.com
Subject: Fw: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field
Dear Philip,  Thanks for sharing your experience about the porous pavers once installed at the Peabody School and then removed. How dangerous was it?  I have to run out but Chris Otten may call,  He is the ANC commissioner who will be facilitating a meeting, on this, tonight.  I've also Cc'd other.  We need to be in print and on the record.

The material they wanted to use in Kalorama Park is a rigid plastic - Geoblock 2.  
http://www.reynoldspkg.com/alcoa-geo/en/solutions/Geoblock/porous_pavement.asp

Although now they want to use Geoweb, same manufacturer, pliable plastic  and a tripping danger.
http://www.reynoldspkg.com/alcoa-geo/en/home.asp
They were funded to build a bio-retention pond under the playing field using aggregate to filter the water.
They proposed to cover the plastic  2 - 3 inches of soil and grass.  But we don't expect that protective layer to wear long or last through a drought.  
Thanks. Eddie

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Philip Brady <philip at jacksonbradydesign.com>
To: Eddie Becker <eddie_becker at yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:58:26 PM
Subject: RE: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field

Hi Eddie.

Please call me at your earliest convenience. My office number is 546-7722
and my home number is 546-4377. I am very curious to know what kind of
"porous pavers" they are planning on installing. Surely it could NOT
POSSIBLY be the same kind of porous pavers installed at Peabody. The
reporter who wrote the article you attached felt terrible about having it.
Unfortunately it was written before we knew what was REALLY going to happen.
Call me if you want the details and the scoop. The short version of the
story is that the entire area where the porous pavers were installed had to
be cordoned off since it was much too dangerous of a surface for anybody.
And the entire area had to be ripped out and replaced with asphalt. A lot of
ignorance, arrogance, time and money went into that project. Classic Fiasco.

Philip Brady
http://www.jacksonbradydesign.com/

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddie Becker [mailto:eddie_becker at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 10:57 AM
To: philip at jacksonbradydesign.com
Subject: Porous Pavers for Children's Playing Field

Dear Philip Brady,  The DC Department of Parks and Recreation,  has chosen
to use porous paver in a children's playing field at Kalorama Park in Adams
Morgan.  I was hoping that you might share your experience with the use of
porous pavers in the Peobody School Playground.

Thanks in advance,  Eddie Becker

Good Clean Fun at Peabody
Playground
http://archive.voiceofthehill.com/Apr05.pdf
Voice of the Hill
vol 7 no 1 April 2005

Students at the Peabody school might not realize it
when they line up for school and burn off their
playful energy but they have an environmentally
friendly schoolyard.
Thanks to a $70 ,000 federal grant, the playground
has been resurfaced in a way to protect the
watershed that serves the greater Washington area.
The pot-holed blacktop, and cracked concret e ,
which serves as a parking area as well as the school-
yard, has been replaced with porous paving stones
placed atop a layer of sand. Each paving stone has
wide gaps to let grass grow through.
The idea is to provide a grassy surface for play that
drains and filters water, according to Alexi Boado,
an env i ronmental specialist with the Watershed
Protection Division of the District's Health
Department.
Where there are cars, there is pollution. They drip
oil, brake fluid, anti-freeze and other chemicals.
When it rains, the automotive spew sitting on compact
paved surfaces gets diluted, washes into storm
drains, and ultimately ends up in rivers, streams and
soil.
The project at Peabody makes sure that whatever
the cars parked in the area behind the school leave
behind is first grabbed by the ground and allowed to
break down in a more environmentally sensitive
way.
The project first began to take shape three years
ago, when the Environmental Protection Agency,
scouting around for demonstration projects, provided
grant money to Sustainable Community
I n i t i a t i ves, an env i ro n m e n tal group pro m ot i n g
environmentally sound growth. The District government
serves as the regulatory entity for the project.
The choice to showcase the low-impact environmental
project at Peabody school was an obvious
one, according to Boado. A school in an historic residential
neighborhood in the shadow of the Capitol
dome was ideal. Other demonstration sites in the
city include a rain garden across from the Monocle
on the Senate side of the Hill.
The project has just begun taking shape in recent
weeks. Pre-kindergarten and kindergarten students
at Peabody students are still figuring out what to
make of the permeable pavers. No doubt they will
be please with what they see when the grass grows
in the coming weeks.
"So far, so good," said Boado.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/mintwood-place/attachments/20090728/e8321a36/attachment-0001.html>