HOME àà History of Adventure Play Early Pioneers Archives Articles & Papers Further Reading Links Contact About this Site 1. A Note on Languageand Definition

2. The Context andBackground of the firstAdventure Playground

3. The emergence ofBritish Adventure Play

2. The Context and Background of the first AdventurePlayground

4. How Adventure Playdeveloped in Britain

Although the creation of Emdrup, Skrammellegepladsen (Junk Playground), in

1943 was the brainchild of Carl Theodor Sørensen, there were a number ofimportant factors that led to Emdrup, including:

a. Froebel Philosophy

b. 1930’s architectural trends

c. The partnership between Dragehjelm and Sørensen

d. New theories of developmental psychology

e. Economic turmoil and the rise of right wing politics of the 1930’s

f. Sørensen’s observations of children playing naturally

The influence of Froebel Thinking

The seeds of junk or adventure play can be seen in the first Froebel school in isDenmark. This school opened in 1854 and was led by headmaster, SoerenSoerensen. He wrote:

“Children at the ages or 4 and 5 years should not be imprisoned in a dirtyairless schoolroom, at such a young age they should have play andmovement, especially in the fresh air”.

Although such a quotation does not nearly describe the genius and simplicity ofadventure play, it does reveal something of the Froebelian emphasis upon naturalplay. Sofus Bagger and Hans Dragehjelm set up the Froebel Society in Denmarkin 1902 and in 1907 Dragehjelm introduced the ‘sand box’ to Denmark and theworld. Rather than considering Emdrup to be a pure product of Froebelphilosophy, it is more that Froebel thinking was a general influence within 1930’slandscape architecture as well as a direct influence via Hans Dragehjelm’spartnership with Carl Theodor Sørensen.

The Changing Faces of Danish Architecture of the 1930’s

Throughout his early career, Carl Theodor Sørensen was developing his ownapproach to landscape architecture. Influenced by a humanist approach andmotivated to create better living spaces for families, Sørensen was especiallyinterested in meeting the play and recreational needs of children (especiallythose living in city blocks). Coninck-Smith (1999) describes the climate of ‘the“cultural-radical’ ideology with functional and socially aware architecture”. Since1925 Sørensen had designed and overseen six environments for public housingassociations. In 1935, he described his experience and thoughts of this in theDanish Journal, Arkitektens Månedshæfte (this was based on his earlier book‘Open Spaces for Town and Country’, 1931):

“Finally we should probably at some point experiment with what onecould call a junk playground. I am thinking in terms of an area, not toosmall in size, well close off from its surroundings by thick greenery,where we should gather, for the amusement of bigger children, all sortsof old scrap that the children from the apartment blocks could be allowedto work with, as the children in the countryside and in the suburbsalready have. There could be branches and waste from tree polling andbushes, old cardboard boxes, planks and boards, “dead” cars, old tyresand lots of other things, which would be a joy for healthy boys to use forsomething. Of course it would look terrible, and of course some kind oforder would have to be maintained; but I believe that things would not

5. From then to now

order would have to be maintained; but I believe that things would notneed to go radically wrong with that sort of situation. If there were reallya lot of space, one is tempted to imagine tiny little kindergartens,keeping hens and the like, but it would at all events require an interestedadult supervisor...”

The Cottage Park: Froebel Education meets Humanist LandscapeArchitecture

In 1937, Hans Dragehjelm and Carl Theodor Sørensen joined forces to develop aproposal for the transformation of the Cottage Park in Klampenborg, north ofCopenhagen into a family and children’s park (Dyrehavens Familie- ogBørnepark). It is important to note that no explanation has yet been found how orwhy Dragehjelm and Sørensen began to work together, how they knew eachother or how long this partnership continued for.

In their proposal, Dragehjelm stated that it:

“would be possible for parents with children of the common people, atno great expense, to spend their leisure time in safe surroundings, so thatthe children would find an outlet for their natural urge to be ‘children ofnature’. I am thinking in particular of the chance to play in open terrain,among trees and bushes, and in close contact with small animals, towhich children in big cities in particular usually have no access.”

Unfortunately Dragehjelm and Sørensen’s proposal for the Cottage Park wasrejected. It is unclear from the available records why such a decision was made.Nonetheless the seeds of the junk playground concept may be found in theirproposal.

The new theories of Childhood

Many of the developmental psychology theories of the day were elucidated byDanish psychologist Anne Marie Nørvig. As the writer of several books and aseditor of the parents correspondence section of ‘Børn, Alle Forældres Blad’(Children, the magazine for all parents), she communicated many of the thencurrent psychological theories and views. At this time developmental psychologywas interested in children’s natural or ordinary play – many thinkers felt that playwas a basic instinct and formed an essential part of children’s naturaldevelopment. As Anne Marie Nørvig wrote in her book ‘Det sunde Barn’ (TheHealthy Child):

“But play is not only a preparation for the work of the adult, it is also anabsolute condition of the child’s continuing to be mentally and physicallyhealthy. A child who does not play as soon as it is possible to play iseither ill or badly nurtured, and in both cases we have to find the causespreventing the child from playing and remove them, whether they areharmful to physical or mental health”. (1940).

At this time it was accepted that ‘normality’ was produced through play and thatparents and society as a whole had a responsibility to offer children the bestpossible conditions for natural play. It was essential that those play opportunitieswere in “harmony with the child’s nature and promoted the desired normality.”(Coninck-Smith, 1999).

Hans Dragehjelm had written in the Cottage Park proposal that children had anatural urge to be “naturmennesker” (natural human beings) and so children needand want to build dens, climb, fight and hunt. These were also the views that theleading educationalists and psychologists of the day supported.

Although earlier in the 20th Century, society had been concerned about children’snatural urges toward destruction, this had been replaced by a faith and belief inchildren’s play. Anne Marie Nørvig wrote in 1940:

“The destructive urge ... could ... just as well be called constructive play”

In addition there was a popular and traditional view that nature was healthy anduseful for child development. Many countries, including Denmark, had initiativesfor city children to experience clean air and the countryside. Whilst thistraditional view placed emphasis and value upon nature (and criticism of cities),Dragehjelm and Sørensen took an intriguing forward ‘leap of mind’. They felt thatnature was not enough or adequate on its own and that children needed playequipment, preferably from nature’s own materials and ones that would appeal tochildren’s creativity (such as trees for climbing, sand boxes etc). However theydid acknowledge that some limited ‘man-made’ play equipment was necessary –swings, see-saws, slides and roundabouts.

Economic and Social Upheaval of the 1930’s

Although the 1930’s was partly defined by economic crisis, significant fundswere allocated to play projects. This was seen not only as an investment in thefuture but also as a way of defending against the right wing surge in Europe.Various projects, including schools, were developed and designed within ahumanist or liberal philosophy – focussing upon the health and nature ofchildren.

It is strange that such a liberal and revolutionary concept as Emdrup startedwhen Denmark was under German occupation. As Lady Allen of Hurtwood wrote:

“In the moral confusion of German occupation the difference betweensabotage and delinquency was not obvious, and many of the childrenhad become unruly and antisocial.”

Perhaps the creation of Emdrup was also part of a wider rebellion and resistancewithin Denmark, but was ultimately the culmination of Sørensen’s thinkingthroughout the 1920’s, 1930’s and 1940’s.

Observing Children at Play

It is unclear precisely when, but Sørensen also observed an interestingcontradiction to his earlier play design projects that forever challenged the veryessence of playground design. Sorensen, along with the Workers' Co-operativeAssociation observed children playing on bombed war sites learning how to usethe construction tools and the surrounding materials to build their ownplayground (Eriksen, 1985). This observation had a profound effect uponSørensen and is likely to have been a critical moment in the development of thefirst junk playground. He changed his position of ‘architect’ (who held the powerand control regarding what play opportunities were made available to children) tofacilitator (who passed his power and control to children in order that theythemselves could create their own play environments). Quite literally, Sørensenenabled children to become architects and masters of their own play destinies. Itis not possible to describe the radical nature and sheer courage and geniusrequired of such a shift, especially in the context that Denmark was under Nazioccupation.

Emdrup is born

Within World War 2, Sørensen designed the first adventure playground. Itprovided much needed discovery and challenge for children to control andtransform their environment. In particular, children constructed their own playspaces and were able to play and manipulate the basic elements of fire, earth,wind, and water.

On 15th August 1943, Emdrup (Skrammellegepladsen) opened as part of ahousing project with 719 large family households. From the beginning around 900children attended each day (this levelled out to between 200-400 children perday). At Emdrup nothing was static or expensive. It was filled with junk - wood,rope, canvas, tires, wire, bricks, pipes, rocks, nets, logs, balls, abandonedfurniture, wheels, vehicles, and an unimaginable assortment of other things.

Sørensen said of his ‘junk’ creation:

"They can dream and imagine and make dreams and imagination reality,any rate a reality, which the child's mind is completely satisfied with…It isso obvious that the children thrive here and feel well, they unfold andthey live. Of all the things, I have contributed to realize, the junkplaygrounds the ugliest, for me, however, it is the most beautiful and bestof my works".

7373Page 24488