I found a couple of articles online about the conversion of Highlands Park in San Carlos to artificial turf.
The arguments in favor of artificial turf seem to be:
- reduced recurring maintenance costs for the city fro reseeding
- increased availability of playfields due to not needing to close the field for reseeding
the arguments against artificial turf seem to be:
- increased usage of playfields causes additional congestion and noise, and in the case of King Park, possibility additional use of late night lighting
- the congestion, noise and lighting reduce the desirability and therefore the value of the adjacent housing
I wonder about some other things:
- Does the artificial turf mean no dogs allowed? (cleanliness issues)
- Are there other possible limitations on use of the park
- What are the health implications? The San Carlos park went with "turf, made of coconut husk, cork and sand" — I want to know why they chose that and if that is the type of turf we’d get?
- Are there any plans to address the possible negatives to the neighborhood of more frequent scheduled use?
- How many other people feel that natural grass is a benefit to the neighborhood and important to hang onto?
- What is the long term cost of maintaining the playfield — if it costs more to maintain in good condition over time for grass or for turf?
- What is the expected life of the artificial turf?
- Is it hard to go back to grass if, in the future we’d like to?
Here’s a link to some background info and the "No Artificial Turf" point of view, from a real estate blogger in 2010, about the artificial turf issue in San Carlos:
and a later post from the San Carlos Patch on opening day of the new, artificial turf, field. This is very pro turf with no comments from the neighborhood:
I think a trip up to Highlands Park might be a good idea for those concerned with this issue — to see what it looks like. Here’s a map
–Karen Jensen, your Hancsm web-person