HOME à History of Adventure Play Early Pioneers Archives Articles & Papers Further Reading Links Contact About

Links Contact About this Site

1. A Note on Language
and Definition
2. The Context and
Background of the first
Adventure Playground
3. The emergence of 2. The Context and Background of the first Adventure
British Adventure Play Playground
4. How Adventure Play Although the creation of Emdrup, Skrammellegepladsen (Junk Playground), in
developed in Britain 1943 was the brainchild of Carl Theodor Sørensen, there were a number of
5. From then to now important 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 is
Denmark. This school opened in 1854 and was led by headmaster, Soeren
Soerensen. He wrote:

“Children at the ages or 4 and 5 years should not be imprisoned in a dirty

airless schoolroom, at such a young age they should have play and
movement, especially in the fresh air”.
Although such a quotation does not nearly describe the genius and simplicity of
adventure play, it does reveal something of the Froebelian emphasis upon natural
play. Sofus Bagger and Hans Dragehjelm set up the Froebel Society in Denmark
in 1902 and in 1907 Dragehjelm introduced the ‘sand box’ to Denmark and the
world. Rather than considering Emdrup to be a pure product of Froebel
philosophy, it is more that Froebel thinking was a general influence within 1930’s
landscape architecture as well as a direct influence via Hans Dragehjelm’s
partnership with Carl Theodor Sørensen.
The Changing Faces of Danish Architecture of the 1930’s

Throughout his early career, Carl Theodor Sørensen was developing his own
approach to landscape architecture. Influenced by a humanist approach and
motivated to create better living spaces for families, Sørensen was especially
interested in meeting the play and recreational needs of children (especially
those living in city blocks). Coninck-Smith (1999) describes the climate of ‘the
“cultural-radical’ ideology with functional and socially aware architecture”. Since
1925 Sørensen had designed and overseen six environments for public housing
associations. In 1935, he described his experience and thoughts of this in the
Danish 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 one

could call a junk playground. I am thinking in terms of an area, not too
small in size, well close off from its surroundings by thick greenery,
where we should gather, for the amusement of bigger children, all sorts
of old scrap that the children from the apartment blocks could be allowed
to work with, as the children in the countryside and in the suburbs
already have. There could be branches and waste from tree polling and
bushes, old cardboard boxes, planks and boards, “dead” cars, old tyres
and lots of other things, which would be a joy for healthy boys to use for
something. Of course it would look terrible, and of course some kind of
order would have to be maintained; but I believe that things would not
order would have to be maintained; but I believe that things would not
need to go radically wrong with that sort of situation. If there were really
a lot of space, one is tempted to imagine tiny little kindergartens,
keeping hens and the like, but it would at all events require an interested
adult supervisor...”

The Cottage Park: Froebel Education meets Humanist Landscape

Architecture
In 1937, Hans Dragehjelm and Carl Theodor Sørensen joined forces to develop a
proposal for the transformation of the Cottage Park in Klampenborg, north of
Copenhagen into a family and children’s park (Dyrehavens Familie- og
Børnepark). It is important to note that no explanation has yet been found how or
why Dragehjelm and Sørensen began to work together, how they knew each
other 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, at
no great expense, to spend their leisure time in safe surroundings, so that
the children would find an outlet for their natural urge to be ‘children of
nature’. I am thinking in particular of the chance to play in open terrain,
among trees and bushes, and in close contact with small animals, to
which children in big cities in particular usually have no access.”
Unfortunately Dragehjelm and Sørensen’s proposal for the Cottage Park was
rejected. 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 their
proposal.

The new theories of Childhood

Many of the developmental psychology theories of the day were elucidated by
Danish psychologist Anne Marie Nørvig. As the writer of several books and as
editor of the parents correspondence section of ‘Børn, Alle Forældres Blad’
(Children, the magazine for all parents), she communicated many of the then
current psychological theories and views. At this time developmental psychology
was interested in children’s natural or ordinary play – many thinkers felt that play
was a basic instinct and formed an essential part of children’s natural
development. As Anne Marie Nørvig wrote in her book ‘Det sunde Barn’ (The
Healthy Child):
“But play is not only a preparation for the work of the adult, it is also an
absolute condition of the child’s continuing to be mentally and physically
healthy. A child who does not play as soon as it is possible to play is
either ill or badly nurtured, and in both cases we have to find the causes
preventing the child from playing and remove them, whether they are
harmful to physical or mental health”. (1940).
At this time it was accepted that ‘normality’ was produced through play and that
parents and society as a whole had a responsibility to offer children the best
possible conditions for natural play. It was essential that those play opportunities
were 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 a
natural urge to be “naturmennesker” (natural human beings) and so children need
and want to build dens, climb, fight and hunt. These were also the views that the
leading educationalists and psychologists of the day supported.

Although earlier in the 20th Century, society had been concerned about children’s
natural urges toward destruction, this had been replaced by a faith and belief in
children’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 and
useful for child development. Many countries, including Denmark, had initiatives
for city children to experience clean air and the countryside. Whilst this
traditional view placed emphasis and value upon nature (and criticism of cities),
Dragehjelm and Sørensen took an intriguing forward ‘leap of mind’. They felt that
nature was not enough or adequate on its own and that children needed play
equipment, preferably from nature’s own materials and ones that would appeal to
children’s creativity (such as trees for climbing, sand boxes etc). However they
did 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 funds
were allocated to play projects. This was seen not only as an investment in the
future but also as a way of defending against the right wing surge in Europe.
Various projects, including schools, were developed and designed within a
humanist or liberal philosophy – focussing upon the health and nature of
children.
It is strange that such a liberal and revolutionary concept as Emdrup started
when Denmark was under German occupation. As Lady Allen of Hurtwood wrote:
“In the moral confusion of German occupation the difference between
sabotage and delinquency was not obvious, and many of the children
had become unruly and antisocial.”

Perhaps the creation of Emdrup was also part of a wider rebellion and resistance
within Denmark, but was ultimately the culmination of Sørensen’s thinking
throughout the 1920’s, 1930’s and 1940’s.
Observing Children at Play
It is unclear precisely when, but Sørensen also observed an interesting
contradiction to his earlier play design projects that forever challenged the very
essence of playground design. Sorensen, along with the Workers' Co-operative
Association observed children playing on bombed war sites learning how to use
the construction tools and the surrounding materials to build their own
playground (Eriksen, 1985). This observation had a profound effect upon
Sørensen and is likely to have been a critical moment in the development of the
first junk playground. He changed his position of ‘architect’ (who held the power
and control regarding what play opportunities were made available to children) to
facilitator (who passed his power and control to children in order that they
themselves could create their own play environments). Quite literally, Sørensen
enabled children to become architects and masters of their own play destinies. It
is not possible to describe the radical nature and sheer courage and genius
required of such a shift, especially in the context that Denmark was under Nazi
occupation.

Emdrup is born
Within World War 2, Sørensen designed the first adventure playground. It
provided much needed discovery and challenge for children to control and
transform their environment. In particular, children constructed their own play
spaces 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 a

housing project with 719 large family households. From the beginning around 900
children attended each day (this levelled out to between 200-400 children per
day). At Emdrup nothing was static or expensive. It was filled with junk - wood,
rope, canvas, tires, wire, bricks, pipes, rocks, nets, logs, balls, abandoned
furniture, 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 is
so obvious that the children thrive here and feel well, they unfold and
they live. Of all the things, I have contributed to realize, the junk
playgrounds the ugliest, for me, however, it is the most beautiful and best
of my works".

73Page 248