Bad design or different purpose?

"One thing is sure. These are not the kind of fields that produced the Ronaldo's, Zidane, Neymar, Pele, Mardona, Cruyff, M'bappe, Messi, Eusebio, Beckenbauer," said one commenter.

One problem is that people can often only see how they -- generally as a current, regular participant in the sport -- play and how that it would effect them. Even if the respondent was correct, these courts are not designed to be elite or player development facilities they are designed to bring play back to the doorstep, and invite a different participant to stay and play.

That said, the original argument disregards all those articles penned that praise Brazilian street football and its influence on the skills of their national team. As another reader said

"with this design, the players develop their technical skills. When you fence off the field you invite power (kicking hard) instead of strategy in your play style."

And this is street football provision, this court is on the doorstep, built primarily as a contingency for cloudburst events. That is the reason it is sunken, this court represents additional social amenity from flood management or sustainable drainage (SuDs).

As that writer continued

"this kind of field is more inclusive, people with less muscle power and “aggression” can play along."

Since I was on a?Churchill Fellowship?when I took this photo, a quote from the former British Prime Minster seems apt. He insisted that the shape of the British parliamentary chamber was responsible for the two-party system being at the heart of British parliamentary democracy and said

"we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us."?

Essentially, the way we play the game and the rules we create for that game are based on the environment they exist in -- and the same goes for football.

So when one commenter said:

"This low concrete step pitch edge has got to be incredibly dangerous for the players - smashing shins on edge of concrete at best or far worse a slight trip and the head is in serious danger - not well thought out at all - it's definitely designed for aesthetic style over practical usability - certainly not designed with the game or player in mind."

I questioned what we mean by good design? Do we mean a good design for the high impact way I played football in a cage aged 14, tearing around and using the fence as a rebound wall?

Or as one respondent said what if we concern ourselves more

"with the sedentary lifestyle of modern society rather than the vague risk of someone injuring themself in this clever little integrated sports facility"

The original piece challenged the U.K's ubiquitous use of cages over a greater mix of more accessible designs. So what if we consider this design through a population health lens?

This design represents a residential area that has explicitly invited informal activity on the doorstep rather than displaying a 'No Ball Games' sign.

Seating provides space for legitimate peripheral participation and potentially serves as an indicator that this isn't a space to 'hoof' the ball. Various risky play studies point out that children in particular are good at identifying risk and adapting their play accordingly. As the earlier commenter said this design leads to a slower, close to feet game.

This design may have drawbacks but a cage invites other social and physical safety risks that create barriers, particularly as evidenced by Make Space for Girls

or as another put it;

I have once coached a kid, who used to play on a local streetball court in Copenhagen. His mom had a boyfriend with foreign descent. Every time he we down there and the bullies showed up through the only entrance the fence had, he was beat up. The definition of a non-safe space. Today the fence is removed and there is a sunken court, which I’m sure he would appreciate.

There were plenty of respondents who denied this to be a problem 'in their experience' -- all strong, sporty males -- one basketball player even suggested that fences were better as

it makes me feel like a cage fighter or a gladiator.

he also

can confirm that taking down the barrier and adding benches won't encourage newbies to participate in the game.

In his opinion, you would be better

devoting the money to a weekly community basketball program with coaches would inspire more female players to get all of their friends interested in hoops. It works much better than to remove the fencing and install benches.

While I feel the first point rather supports the suggestion that not everyone would feel comfortable in a cage, his last point activation is important -- I even argue that it as 'pre-activation' should be a greater part of infrastructure development but both are important.

GAME , a Danish-based international NGO who deliver street sport, including basketball, activations through local role models (and whose founder provided the earlier Copenhagen streetball anecdote) who produced this report?making it clear that traditional sports facilities are not designed in a way that are attractive to [inactive] girls.?

Finally, by putting the court in the residential area, with regular passers-by, you create to remould the famous Jane Jacobs quote 'eyes on the court'. So many of our sport and play facilities are hidden away, tucked in a corner which make these places feel unwelcoming to a wider section of society which in turn means they become dominated by one group.

Traditional Multi-Use Games Areas will have their place, but whether they've been designed with the 'player in mind' or whether the nature of the player is a construct of its environment, that environment and that style of play will not be attractive to all.

We must broaden our notion of 'good design' for sport and consider more 'non-','latent' or 'potential' players. We must not design for sport's needs but for the needs of our community to create active, social spaces for all.

Matt Roebuck is The Active Urbanist, and available for advocacy, training, insight and other consultancy services. See www.activeurbanist.com or email [email protected] to arrange a call.