How to design a play-friendly living environment

Civil servants, project developers, and urban planners involved in housing construction often find themselves embroiled in debates about balancing affordability, return on investment, and the need for adequate housing. Architects, on the other hand, tend to focus primarily on issues such as floor plans, private outdoor space, and sunlight exposure. Often overlooked in these kinds of design processes is the (semi-)public outdoor space surrounding and between the homes, which determines the play behaviour of (young) children. After all, this is the space where children are often allowed to play outside for the first time without their parents' physical presence. In the book ‘All to play for: How to design child-friendly housing’ by British architect Dinah Bornat, attention is drawn to this blind spot in the housing sector, and several ingredients are presented to help create a more child- and play-friendly environment near residential complexes.

The review is also available in Dutch.

Doorstep play
Contrary to what the book's subtitle might suggest, the publication is not about the design or layout of houses from a child's perspective. It is about the relationship between homes and outdoor spaces and the value this has for children: “It should go without saying that homes need to be safe, well-ventilated and warm, but what of the spaces outside, the ones that allow childhood and friendships to flourish?” (p.2). Bornat, therefore, makes a passionate plea to facilitate play around the home in a better way, so that children can go outside more easily and more often. And that is a vital plea, because we know from numerous studies that playing, exercising, and socialising are invaluable for children's health, personal development, and enjoyment (Helleman, 2018). In addition, as Bornat points out, they are fundamental ingredients for a liveable neighbourhood. 

Bornat is one of the directors of ZCD Architects: a London-based architectural firm that conducts research into child-friendly designs. This British background is also evident in the first chapter, which provides a broad overview of the history of British public housing in relation to outdoor play. Although this section may not be of equal interest to every reader from other countries, it can be said that there is a considerable amount of overlap with developments elsewhere in Europe: where early post-war children still made full use of informal play areas (the street, the pavement and grassy areas), they were increasingly directed towards demarcated and fenced-off play areas, such as playgrounds and public sports fields, partly due to the rise of the car and a new planning doctrine. As a result, play is no longer an integral part of the urban fabric, but an activity that must mainly take place on enclosed islands at a suitable distance from homes (Helleman & De Visscher, 2022). In other words, the current policy focuses too much on fully equipped and protected play areas and too little on creating playable landscapes in cities, neighbourhoods and villages.

User research
Thanks to the architectural firm's research background, the publication focuses not so much on the planned city of professionals, but rather on the lived city of its users. So, there are no complicated technical drawings in this publication, but rather photographs, heat maps and quotes from parents and children that give an impression of how people play and live in and around various housing complexes. 

This is also evident from the second chapter. This chapter provides more insight into the play landscape of housing estates, particularly those built in the 1960s and 1970s in England and Wales, based on observations, an assessment framework and conversations during walks with children. These studies show how 1) direct access to outdoor spaces from the home and 2) the connection between public spaces are determining factors for children's play. This may seem obvious, but anyone who looks at the outdoor spaces of early post-war flats in the Netherlands will see that inner gardens are often difficult to access and less well connected to other public spaces. However, these inner gardens are car-free, and there are plenty of sightlines from the home to these potential play areas so that parents can keep an eye on their children and children can see when their friends are outside. Success factors that are also frequently mentioned in the publication. 

Unfortunately, the discussion of the (quantitative) research results focus primarily on communal courtyards and formal play areas. Little is said about how children play on (traffic-calmed) streets, squares, pavements, alleys or the gallery of a block of flats. Other research (Helleman et al., 2023; Holloway & Valentine, 2000; Ward, 1978) and two case studies from London, presented at the end of the second chapter, show that these types of outdoor spaces can also be of great value.

Child participation
Chapter 3 provides insight into how the architectural firm involves children in their research. Among other things, they use the Voice Opportunity Power Toolkit, which enables children to express their opinions through multiple sessions and participation formats. This is important because children are often overlooked in planning processes, resulting in their needs being ignored or insufficiently understood. Parents frequently take on this role, but this quickly leads to a “complaints-driven process [with] less play equipment” (p.70). As a result, living environments have been created that make it difficult to play outside and inhibit contact between residents. 

The chapter provides essential tips on how to use creative working methods with children and young people to start a dialogue (“listen and give feedback instead of presenting and explaining”), build trust (“don't make promises you can't keep”) and then make an impact together (“draw up a charter of statement together”). 

Inspiring examples
The last two chapters discuss ten housing projects from the 21st century. Low-rise and high-rise complexes from England (6x), the Netherlands (2x), Denmark (1x) and Spain (1x) with a similar housing typology, the so-called perimeter blocks: homes built around a shared space, often a central courtyard or communal garden. One or two parents from each project are interviewed, and they are particularly pleased that they have a sheltered, car-free space within sight and earshot of their homes where their children can play. Unfortunately, these chapters do not reveal what the children think of these communal outdoor spaces. Nevertheless, these projects do show that to encourage outdoor play and socialising, it is essential that housing and outdoor space are connected by installing large windows in the home so that there is a view of the outdoor space and that direct access to the outdoor space must be created, possibly via a private back garden. In addition, consideration should be given to separating slow and motorised traffic and to the location of parking spaces so that they do not interfere with movement and socialising.

The disadvantage of these ten ‘best practices’ is that they are merely a snapshot based on a single visit and a single conversation. There is no in-depth analysis. It would have been interesting if the earlier-formulated research methods had also been applied here. In addition, they seem to paint a slightly too rosy picture of this housing typology, as the projects presented mainly concern cohousing communities, housing collectives, and Collective Private Commissioning (CPC). However, we know that in places with low social cohesion, there is a greater tendency towards neglect, self-interest, and complaints about noise nuisance from children playing (Agricola et al., 2002). 

Another essential point to note is that several projects feature enclosed communal spaces. Other children cannot use such enclaves unless they are visiting a friend in the complex. Based on the photographs and text, the indoor gardens also do not always appear to be play-friendly, as they lack play and seating facilities. These are aspects that can make or break a public outdoor space. Sometimes they are ornamental gardens with lots of greenery that other residents do not want to be played in, because a ball could damage the plants, for example. Or families add all kinds of (play) elements to a space themselves - sometimes to the dissatisfaction of other residents - to make it more attractive for children and parents. In other words, little attention is paid to these kinds of conflicting uses of space, despite Dutch research indicating that courtyards and inner gardens often face this issue (Nio, 2024). 

This also applies when children from outside the residential complex use semi-public indoor gardens. We read that homeowners often dislike this, leading to fences or signs indicating that the outdoor space is for residents only. It is striking that the author does not take a position on this or offer any advice. 

This may be because her analysis primarily examines the subject on the micro level. The focus is on the design of residential blocks and the accessibility of the shared outdoor space for the children who live there. The impact of this housing typology and the closure of the outdoor space on other children in the neighbourhood is not addressed. The book mainly describes how young children can play outside in the vicinity of their protective parents. This overlooks the fact that children benefit most when they are allowed to explore their own neighbourhood independently, so that they can choose their own places to play, friends, and activities. Free play will enable them to make independent choices and build confidence.

Hotchpotch
All in all, this colourful publication is a mixture of a manifesto, research report and project overview, in which it is sometimes unclear where the author's ideology ends and the research results begin. The common thread is a set of recurring elements (car-free areas, collective outdoor spaces, accessibility, connections between places, and sightlines) that can encourage outdoor play. This is a message that deserves more attention and one that immediately proves the added value of this publication for people who plan, design, and manage housing and regeneration projects.

An abridged version of this review was previously published in Dutch in Rooilijn, the Dutch platform for knowledge exchange and debate in spatial planning.

Literature

Agricola, E., Bouwhuis, A., Geelhoed, R., Giele, G.J., Janssen, J. & Pronk, H. (2002). Den Haag Zuidwest; een naoorlogse stadsdeel in verandering. THOTH.

Bornat, D. (2025). All to play for: How to design child-friendly housing. RIBA.

Helleman, G. (2018). Playable cities: Why? Blog Urban Springtime.

Helleman, G. & De Visscher, S. (2022). Op zoek naar nieuwe verbindingen tussen kind en stad. Ruimte & Maatschappij, 13(4), 49-69.    

Helleman, G., Nio, I., & de Vries, S. I. (2023). Playing outdoors: What do children do, where and with whom? Journal of Childhood, Education & Society, 4(3), 322–337. https://doi.org/10.37291/2717638X.202343285  

Holloway, S.L. & Valentine, G. (eds.) (2000). Children's geographies: playing, living, learning. Routledge.

Nio, I. (2024). Ouders over hun kinderen en buiten spelen. Geraadpleegd via www.speelvriendelijkesteden.nl 

Ward, C. (1978). The Child in the City. Architectural Press.