This is the third part in a series looking at the newly-renovated playground in Cambridge Common and examining the concerns of parents and caregivers, particularly those with children in the "tot" age range that the former playground served.

A major feature of the renovated Kemp Playground is its aesthetic and open design. That’s what sets it apart from a number of other parks.

But upon experiencing the playground, it dawns on you, maybe there’s a reason that all the other parks have those features.

As a friend of mine said, “The park looking pretty is mostly for the parents. Anyone who knows kids knows that usually the less attractive or dirtier things are, the more enticing they are for small children.”

Yesterday, I touched on the challenges of having such a large age range at the Kemp Playground. The troubling part is that many of those problems could have been easily avoided with a better design and layout.

Age-appropriate areas

Young children and older children play very differently. This is why many area parks, such as Raymond Park and Alden Park, separate toddler-specific structures from structures designed for grammar-school age children. When they are distinct areas for each age group, potential issues can be avoided.

There isn’t any real separation in the Cambridge Common playground.

Because there are so many hands on interactive areas, this issue especially becomes a problem. On one of the days we were there, older children (probably ages 7-9) were at the water table building a “complex system of drains,” as one kid described it.

That’s great that children are using their imaginations, cooperating and so excited about playing at the park. However, as a result, they were literally pushing smaller children away from the water table and yelling at anyone who disrupted their endeavor. This went on for over half an hour. Because the water table is such a central part of the park’s layout and because there is no barriers on any kind separating the area from the rest of the park, it becomes difficult to avoid.

This issue moved from annoying to dangerous when it came to the “blocks” and older children climbing on top of play structures.

Many problems and stresses could have been easily resolved if there was a specific area for younger children.

Water play

The park has two water stations – a water table, where water runs down a number of troughs into the sand, and “a shower.” The release of water in both is activated by spinning a wheel.

The first time my daughter and I stopped by the new park was kind of on a whim, which is the kind of thing you should be able to do with a neighborhood park. We were passing through the Common, and I thought it would be fun to stop in and check it out. I didn’t happen to have an extra change of clothes on me, but I decided I would make an effort to keep her away from the water play areas.

When we left half an hour later, it was with a sopping wet child.

For parents who want to keep their children from the water area, there’s not easy way to do it. In fact, the water table spills directly into the primary sand play area, making it very difficult to allow a child to play in the sand and keep them out of the water at the same time.

The shower sprinkler is located between the pirate ship and the water table, but again without any real separation from the non-water areas.

In contrast, parks like Dana Park near Central Square or Filippello Playground in Watertown have clear delineations between the water and playground areas. Separating the two areas completely likely they do in Watertown could have presented a challenge given the size of the space, putting the water stations together and separating them with a fence the way they do at Dana Park – or even the way the picnic table area is set apart in the renovated play area – would have been a simple and made the area much more user friendly.

While the plans were available to the public, it's hard for the layperson to fully envision the actual designs come to life and foresee potential problems based off a computer-rendering. However, one would hope that is where the expertise of those overseeing the design and execution of project would come in, especially given the considerable amount of money (it was partially, not completely, funded by an Urban Self-Help Grant from Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs).

Tomorrow: Safety Issues
Saturday: It's Not All Bad

Part 1: Braving the Crowds
Part 2: From Tot Lot to Lots of Tots Left Out