The Tots Playground, a small playground in Central Park around 67th street, has been rebuilt in a completely new circular format. The new playground is the first to be completed in a $40 million restoration project undertaken by the Central Park Conservancy. Eventually, all 21 playgrounds in the park will get a makeover.
The new playground is much larger than the former one, and includes a water sprayer, numerous swings, sand boxes, and low circular obstacles that are a good height for the 2-to-5-year-olds the playground was designed for. It also looks like it’s easy to maintain. The Adventure Playground next to the Tots Playground will likely be rebuilt too in the coming months.
Note: We originally said this playground was a big improvement after going there once, but the complaints of parents in the comments below make it sound like it’s getting a very mixed reception.
The Tots Playground was originally built as a kind of mean-spirited afterthought by Robert Moses about 50 years ago. Go figure.
This is from the Central Park Conservancy:
“The playground known as Tots Playground was constructed in 1956, the last playground created during the administration of Robert Moses. It was a result of a highly publicized conflict between upper west side neighborhood parents and the administration of the Parks Department known as the “Battle of Central Park.”
In 1956, Robert Moses planned to construct a new parking lot for Tavern on The Green to the north of the entrance drive at 67th Street, on a well-shaded, grassy area adjacent to one of the marginal playgrounds. The landscape slated for the parking lot was well-used by mothers and their children in the neighborhood, as a place to gather, picnic, and run around on the grass. Mothers described it as “an unofficial playground” and would often sit on the benches along the outside of the playground fence, from which they could keep an eye on children playing both inside the playground and in the landscape.
When the mothers discovered the plans, they quickly launched a protest to prevent the project from going forward. They contacted the press and local politicians and staged a protest at the site where a bulldozer had already mobilized. Despite a substantial amount of negative press, Moses pushed forward with the project and in a clandestine effort, directed the first round of construction to take place at night. The mothers awoke to find a portion of the landscape razed and numerous trees removed. They intensified their protest, hiring a lawyer who managed to convince a judge to put a temporary stop to the work, in part by arguing that the expansion of Tavern on the Green was a serious encroachment on the Park. After a few months of stalling, the Parks Department decided not to risk going to trial and the potential for additional negative publicity and cancelled the project. With the landscape already significantly altered, the Parks Department decided to offer what it considered a concession to those who had opposed the parking lot: they would create a new playground on the site.
The resulting playground was somewhat typical of other Moses-era playgrounds. It included standard play equipment such as swings, a slide, and a small jungle gym. It was about one-third of the size of the typical playground, however, and its rectilinear form—determined by the plans for the proposed parking lot—contrasted with the ovoid footprints of the typical perimeter playgrounds. To accommodate the playground, new paths were added and existing paths reconfigured, including the relocation of a section of the Bridle Path to the east.
The playground has been rebuilt twice. In 1968 it was rebuilt based on a design by Dattner who had redesigned the adjacent playground as “Adventure Playground” in 1966. It was intended as a complement to that playground, with smaller scale play features intended for younger children. In 1987, the Conservancy renovated the playground, installing new post-and-platform play equipment, a sandbox, safety surfacing, and drainage infrastructure. The swings from the existing playground were retained, along with the benches which lined the perimeter of the playground. The program of use was also maintained and the playground was designed for use by pre-school age children.”
I have to disagree with calling the new Tots playground a “big improvement.” I actually think it’s a huge disappointment, and like the old playground much more. While I’m all for open-ended play, I think there are a bunch of faults in the new design. The swing area is not enclosed at all, which doesn’t make sense for a playground designed for toddlers. And the circular obstacles seem too high for toddlers to safely navigate. Among all the parents I know, everyone shares the opinion that the playground was better before the renovation and that there’s not really much for kids to do at the new one.
I agree with you about the danger of the unenclosed swing areas (someone REALLY didn’t think that one out), but my daughter (aged 3) absolutely loves the new playground, much more than she did the old one, partly because she was (and is) nervous of the sort of climbing and sliding elements that the old playground centered on (though I can see that they would be attractive to older and/or more confident children). The circular obstacles are perfectly sized for her – they allow her to run, jump, and climb without fear. She would spend all day every day there if we let her.
And the benches have super sharp stone edges!
The old playground had features that are missed in the current incarnation. Gone is the old equipment where kids could climb and go down a much longer slide. The swings are significantly shorter (with a tendency to tip forward and, most importantly, not enclosed – a lawsuit waiting to happen after a runaway toddler gets clobbered because th parent couldn’t catch up in time to keep them away. And, one would think that with all the now-padded surfaces (sans the park benches and wooden infrastructure, Corporation Counsel was actively involved in the planning and execution of the remodeling. Why the parents weren’t involved in the planning process illustrates how short sighted the process was. Indeed, that portion of the $40M used for this project could have been much better spent . . .
I like the new playground but I have to agree with the other posters that failure to enclose the swing area is a big problem – particularly the swings for kids with disabilities, which are bigger and heavier than the other swings. I’ve seen many near-misses with toddlers and these swings. It’s only a matter of time before some poor kid gets injured.
like it or not, $40 million is an amazing amount of money.
def not an improvement. each time we’re there – a few kids always get knocked down because of the no swing enclosure. it was NOT thought out at all. it’s awful.
at least the old playground had a structure with a slide and enclosed swings.
this so called “improvement” – is a BIG disappointment.
what a waste of money.
I wanted so much to like the new playground, but what were the designers thinking?
The new playground has one slide. One enclosed slide. I guess to teach 2 year olds to take turns.
The water feature’s fine spray gets blown by the wind, hitting the entrance and some of those benches with very sharp edges. The spray is an easy fix, the benches less so. Why are benches needed when the entire playground is ringed by a low wall?
Unenclosed swings are a failure. I feel sorry for parents with two kids, playing zone defense as one will inevitably get hit by a swing.
The kids really like the padded circles and king of the low hill part.