The political and societal atmosphere of each city shapes the physical construct and

social order of its public parks and play spaces. Parenting practices found in those park
playgrounds also often mirror the policies of the city. Oosterpark, in the city of Amsterdam,
offers an interesting comparison to Volunteer Park in Seattle because of the comparable physical
surroundings in an urban setting. Like Capital Hill, Amsterdams Oost neighborhood is urban
with a diverse social spectrum of visitors. Both neighborhoods are home to people, couples, and
families all along the socioeconomic spectrum. In addition, both parks attract visitors outside the
neighborhood with their variety of available resources. The play areas of both parks are just a
small part of both parks, but offer insight to larger community attitudes and policies, and
therefore offer dynamic and perceptive field cites within each of the cites.
Seattles Volunteer Park Built Environment
Volunteer Park is located in Seattles Capital Hill neighborhood and offers park visitors
of all ages and interests something to do. Up the initial hill to enter the park and towards the
entrance is the childrens play set, consisting of a swing set, a sand pit, a play area for smaller
children, smaller individual toys that one child can play on at a time, and the larger main
structure of the play set. As visitors continue to move further into the park, they are met with the
band stage, a couple large fields, a wading pool open during the summer months, and a
community dahlia garden. Further along still is the large conservatory. If visitors continue along
to the left, there is the Asian Art Museum across from the reservoir which overlooks downtown
Seattle. Throughout the park there are footpaths to walk on and one wide cemented road on
which cars can drive through the park.
Because of the variety of structures and resources that the park has to offer, there are
multitudes of people and many reasons for people to come to the park. Tourists from inside and

outside of Seattle come to see the museum; others in Seattle interested in horticulture come to
see the rare plants and conservatory; and residents of Capital Hill come to walk, relax, let their
dogs and children play. Because of its expansive area and multitude of possible activities, I chose
to focus my study on the area where children play. I found this area to have the most social
interaction as well as the most interesting dynamics between the park-going parents and adults
and the children.
The play area is set up in the shape of a circle with two smaller conjoining circles to the
side. The core and larger circle contain the main play structure, swings, and individual toys. This
circle is surrounded by a cement ring on which the park benches sit completely closing in the
large circle. Older kids, aged 7 to 10, tend to visit this area with their parents and adult
supervisors surrounding them on all sides quite closely. The two smaller circles that sit next to
the main play structure contain a sandbox and a play structure that is smaller in size and meant
for younger park visitors. Toddlers and their parents or supervisors usually stick to the sandbox
and only venture to the main area with the larger toys when it is less crowded. Younger kids,
aged 4 to 6, generally remain in the area of the sized-down play structure, but sometimes go to
the swings when unoccupied. Parents of these children stand around the smaller structure to
watch their kids or sit on a bench but turn as to be able to see their children at all times. To one
side of the entire area is a sharp drop-off, isolating the play area even more from its
surroundings. On the other side, there is a rather wide expanse from any walking paths or other
park activities other than the wading pool which is opened infrequently.
The built environment creates informal social control over the children and the adults
depending on their activity. The entire park is laid out in a way that makes clear what activities
are appropriate and will be accepted in each area, despite the lack of absolute authority, like a

park patrol or a rules sign, present. A single example of this is the cement barrier enclosing the
play area beyond which, on one side, is a steep hill and on the other is a dog park. Almost no
children went outside the wood chip area and beyond the barrier of cement. The ratio of children
to parents during the school outing made it possible to slip past without any of the supervisors
noticing, but the children stayed within the confines of the play area and within sight of the
chaperones because of the visual cement barrier and the unattractiveness of the possibilities
outside the play area. The area in which children want to play remains compact and within the
view of the surrounding benches.
Additionally, the built environment contributes to how the adults and children interact
with one another. Adults must remain closer to their children if they want to maintain visual
contact with them. On the weekends when there is an absence of large school groups, parents,
therefore, watch their own children rather than the group as a whole because they stay close to
their children at all times. Additionally, the benches are set up so the children are surrounded on
all sides by adult supervisors. In total, the childrens actions are condensed into a small space and
each child is watched by his or her own parent, not collectively.
Amsterdams Oosterpark Built Environment
Oosterpark is located in Amsterdams East (Oost) neighborhood and has an extremely
diverse set of visitors economically and generationally. Upon entering the park from the
Linnaeusstraat entrance, park visitors can bike or walk along the large cemented paths around the
large park that features ponds, tennis courts, a large grassy area, art structures and monuments, a
historically protected gazebo, and a childrens play area with a wading pool that is open year
round. This entire park is void of cars or other motor powered vehicles and is separated from the

road by fences and hedges, leaving walking and biking to be the only modes of transportation
through the park.
Oosterparks play area is quite large and broken up into two main areas: the wading pool
area and the grassy area. Furthest from the main paths around the park is the wading pool area,
made in the shape of a circle with benches on one side facing out over the entire play area. The
grassy area holds a few play structures that include slides, bars, and ladders as well a few
individual toys.
The toddlers in the park were accompanied by their parents when near the pool but, other
than that, the parents or supervisors of the children sat on the benches or the grass despite where
in the play area their children ventured off to. Past the pool is the grassy area which holds toy
structures as well as a lot of space for kids to pass around a soccer ball or families to picnic. The
division of age groups was less obvious in this play area because of the openness of the entire
park. Though there were clearly two different areas used for different types of playing, there
were no barriers between the two, leaving the childrens play to be fluid between the two areas.
Toddlers and older kids enjoyed the pool alike. While the older children usually did not play on
the smaller, individual toys, they used the larger structures and open space to play in the grassy
area.
Compared to the rest of Oosterpark, the play area has more regulations as shown on
signs, including the banning of alcohol, dogs, and bikes within the confines of the short hedges
that map out the childrens area. Additionally, the play area has an attendant whose job it is to
keep the play area clean and make sure the rules are being followed.
In a few years, the play area will be remodeled, keeping the same layout, but increasing
openness of the area and interactions between park visitors. The rear of the play area will be

leveled so safety will be increased and illegal activity decreased. The entire surrounding of the
wading pool will be one large bench so families will not be isolated onto single benches away
from other families.
The built environment creates a need for informal social control to maintain order in such
a large space in which so many children are present. The layout of the park necessitates the
cooperation of many parents at the park to watch over children that are not always theirs and to
make sure that the rules are being followed by all the park visitors. Even though there is a figure
of authority, the pool attendant, he also could not watch all the children or visitors at once.
Oosterparks built environment potentially creates more distance between the children
and adult visitors, shaping their interactions. Because of how big the play area is, parents are not
always closest to their own children. Therefore, the parents and supervisors watch over the
children closest to them and trust that other parents are doing the same for their children. All
interactions in the play area are spread throughout a larger space, so watching children must be a
community effort. Additionally, the remodel of the play area will increase the feeling of
community by eliminating the current architectural barriers that are present with the current set
up.
Social Interactions and Controls found in Volunteer Park
Interactions between children and other children and adults seemed largely based on their
organized groups and task expectations. Generally, the people that arrived without a large
predetermined social group do not appear to seek out a group. The school groups who came to
the park together stayed together and interacted with one another, but those who came as single
families interacted with those they already knew. This is seen throughout the park, not just in the

play area. In some areas of the park, the acreage is so expansive that people keep enough
distance between themselves and other groups and avoid almost all contact whatsoever.
The childrens interactions with other children and adults seemed to be premised on the
built environment and the availability of toys at any given time. Some groups of children stuck
together for extended periods of time, but most children switched who they were interacting with
depending upon which toy or space interested them at that particular time. This could be seen by
the amount of time spent on each toy or at each area as well as the dispersal of children, each
running around by him or herself.
The children were surprisingly cooperative with one another. There was no visible
fighting and they all seemed to get along during their play, study, or lunch time. When the large
group from the school was present, children took turns pushing each other on the swings and
included each other in the games they were playing. During each visit to the play area, there
never seemed to be lines waiting for the toys. Rather, once a toy was open whoever got there
next got to play on it. This fluid method of sharing never caused any disagreements or annoyance
in the children.
The adults supervised their own children, not the children in general. Dictated by what
the children were doing, the adult supervisors of the school group that visited the park either
became part of the first and second graders interactions with the toys or were ignored. Some of
the chaperones would try to interact with the children without first being approached by the
children and the adults would often be ignored. If, however, the children were interested in
receiving help from the adults, the children would initiate conversation and then engage in
behavior that was beneficial for them.

The playground facilities do have a role in drawing older children into interactions they
might otherwise not engage in, as there was still interaction between children who did not
previously know each other when they shared the space of the park play area. This is
distinguished from the behavior of younger children, who were observed as being more reticent
to interact with non-caregivers or older children, even when attracted to playground facilities.
Formal social control over the children is exhibited by the parental and adult authority the
parents had over the children at the park. Unauthoritative conversation initiated by the adult
supervisors was ignored by the children, but a remark by the chaperones to stop or to gather their
things was quickly listened and attended to.
Social Interactions and Controls found in Oosterpark
Similar to Volunteer Park, people generally only interacted with those who they already
knew when visiting their local park in Amsterdam. However, there was a bit more variation in
this behavior in Oosterpark. Because of the atmosphere and community effort to watch over the
children, parents needed to interact more often. If another parent was the first to react to a child
who was hurt or if there was an argument between children, then the parents from the two
different families would interact to take care of the child or resolve the situation. Outside of these
situations, most families do not seek out interactions from people they do not know and is made
possible by how large the play area is.
There is also more interaction between children who do not know each other in
Oosterpark than in Volunteer Park. The wading pool seemed to foster interactions because it was
a commodity that many children wanted to use, and therefore had to share. There were other toys
that had a similar use pattern that required interacting in order to use optimally at the same time,
such as the merry-go-round and jungle gym. Without speaking to each other, the children would

not be able to make the merry-go-round spin or all be on the jungle gym at the same time without
getting in each others ways. However, interaction without necessity is, again, rare except for the
most outgoing of children.
The number of interactions between children and adults were around the same amount
but the ratio of the different type of interactions differed in Oosterpark. There were fewer adult
initiated interactions and an increased amount of child initiated interactions. Adult supervisors in
Oosterpark still issued authority over their children if their children did something wrong or
against the rules, but in general, gave their children space to play and to make their own
mistakes. Children, on the other hand, are much more likely to stop by where their parents are
sitting with their belongings in Oosterpark, despite the average increased distance between
parent and child. Those who do not physically check in with their parents would often verbally
check in from across the park to get their parents to see something happening in the wading pool
or a new trick on the jungle gym.
Because it was summer time, there were no school groups at the park to observe. The
largest groups of people that showed up to the park together were parties of multiple families.
These groups acted similar to the school groups that frequented Volunteer Park and shared toys
similarly with the other kids in the park.
Also similar to Volunteer Park visitors were the ways that the older kids would interact.
The older the children were, the more willing the children were to interact with unknown people.
Facilities of the park were usually dominated by the older children who could dictate how the
structure would be used. Therefore, the older children had authority over the younger children
and would manage the most used spaces verbally and through what they were physically doing
in that same space. Most of the younger children are submissive to the older children and follow

the dictated codes in order to get to use the space. These interactions did not create conflicts,
however. The younger children were happy to oblige in order to get to use the toys and space.
Political Environments of Seattle and Amsterdam
Seattle: Levies, Bonds, and the Possibility of Legal Action
The voting on and passing of levies and bonds has become a political fact for those living
in Seattle or its surrounding areas. Budget shortages all but require these to be passed in order to
maintain an updated and working community environment.i Even though education is
Washington States supposed number one priority, school budgets have dramatically decreased,
and it has become the tax payers burden to pay an extra tax or support a school levy or bond if
he or she wants to have local schools remodeled, qualified teachers, and ample programming for
the education of the children in the community. These policies similarly affect the funding of
parks, which are so low on the priority list of the government that levies and bonds must be
passed for community parks to remain opened let alone maintain and updated. There appears to
be a lack of political will to adequately fund that which the population may be convinced to
provide extra funding. Voters are then left to choose between paying the normal amount of taxes
and improving their community.
If the low priority of government spending on childrens facilities like schools and parks
are any indication of help that will be received while parenting, it makes sense that parents take a
very individualized approach to watching their children in Volunteer Park. The built space
facilitates parents and adult supervisors always being close to their children and parenting is not
considered a community effort. There is no need to have trust in another parent to watch ones
child because that child is always in the sightline of the parent. Additionally, the lack of
governmental effort or spending on community facilities mimics the lack of community-based

parenting efforts. Parents watch their own children, not the communitys children as a whole. It
is up to the individual family to watch their children, leaving each family even more isolated
from one another and eliminating much of the community aspect of the park. School groups
changed this dynamic a little, because the ratio of children to adults meant the supervisors had to
watch more than just their children. However, this would be mandated for them when they
signed up to volunteer to supervise the school outing, lessoning its pull as a sign of communitybased parenting.
The political construct regulating parenting in the U.S., including Seattle, is perceived as
more individual responsibility, regulatory, and fraught with dangerous consequence. In addition
to the need to individually fund education and parks, parents and caregivers are responsible for
arranging or providing individual child care, largely unsubsidized. Examples of failures in
supervision or consequential harm to children are addressed with legal consequences to the
parents and publicized harm to the children. An example of this is newspaper coverage of a child
left in a car unattended as well as more serious neglect. A parent can be charged with neglect and
that is well publicized, creating fear on the part of the parent. The children also must follow
stricter rules in order for the parents to insure their safety in the medias portrayal of an unsafe
community. This results in an atmosphere of fear for the parent and child, resulting in strict rules
for the child on the part of the parent.
Amsterdam: Gedogen, Harm Reduction and Fact-of-Life Approach, and Sexuality
The Netherlands has adopted the approach of gedogen, the enforcing of certain laws and
tolerating the breaking of others. Gedogen rules over such things like the supervision of
marijuana and coffee shops that distribute marijuana. These shops are still overseen by the law
and legal forces, such as the police who do half-yearly inspections, but commit illegal acts by

buying their product without facing consequences so long as the shops follow the regulatory
practices. The policy regulates and tolerates without criminalizing. Similarly, the practice of
euthanasia is formally banned by the law in the Netherlands. However, physician-assisted suicide
is tolerated if the doctor can prove the patient meets a set of conditions. The doctor then must
register the act through a governmental board, but is not legally punished. Practicing gedogen
allows the Dutch people to follow obligations to treaties while practicing domestic policies.ii
Like the Dutch practice of gedogen in formal law practices, formal rules of the childrens
play area are overseen. However, the authority overseeing the area of the park has no legal
authority, so informal control monitors behavior. Paul, the pool supervisor, is in charge of
making sure the rules are being followed, but cannot punish, arrest, or prosecute anyone who
breaks park rules. He claims that his lack of punishing authority has nearly never been an issue.
If he asks, people will change their behavior to follow the mandated rules or will leave the play
area. Only once has he ever had to call the police, and the cause of disturbance was an elderly
women who would not remove herself or her dog from the space. While the space does have a
form of authority and regulations to follow, just as the coffee shops in Amsterdam do, much of
the control must happen between legal bounds and away from the eyes of authority. While the
coffee shops are managed under illegal conditions, they still must keep order while under watch
of an authority figure or not otherwise they will be forced to close shop. Because Paul cannot
watch everything and is not present at the park during all hours, park visitors must monitor their
own behavior to keep the park enjoyable for everyone.
Similar and related to the Dutch policy of gedogen are their policies regarding harm
reduction and the fact-of-life approach when regulating laws that are surrounded by morality.
Their laws regarding drug use and prostitution are examples of this approach. Using the

progressive view that there will always be drug users and those who seek out prostitution, the
Dutch policy aims to regulate these facts of life and reduce the harm in potentially harmful
behaviors through regulation and supervision rather than penalize these behaviors.iii An
important legal actor in these practices is the Dutch community police officer who, if necessary,
can apply force and use his or her legal power to arrest law-breakers. But many of the police
officers, especially those around the tourist areas of Amsterdam used their titles to keep the
peace and order rather than to use their monopoly of violence. Police officers are often used how
information tourist booths are used in other tourist-laden cities. Visitors approach the police
officers for information or directions and, most of the time, the police officers were happy to
help. Though they still did their duty and maintained order in the streets, and there has been a
shift to a more central and tough system of policing in the Netherlands, the authority is seen as
approachable to visitors and natives alike, creating a more open community atmosphere of safety
instead of a violent atmosphere of hostility on the part of the police.iv
Dutch parenting also mimics the Dutch political practices of harm reduction and fact-oflife approach. Parents in Oosterpark tend to give their children space to make their own mistakes,
believing that children are going to make those mistakes and get hurt anyways, so, might as well
have their children learn from those mistakes. This fact-of-life parenting approach is made
possible by the parents also employing the harm reduction tactic of community parenting and
watching the children as a whole. The park users that I spoke too seemed to feel very strongly
about this, claiming that Americans foster an environment that teaches children and parents to
be frightened which usually translates to the parents being afraid to let anyone else take care of
their child. Many of the Dutch parents thought this approach was impossible to maintain, and
that raising a child is a community effort and they trust people in their neighborhood and other

park visitors to watch their children because they are doing the same for the other children. The
community therefore has this unspoken rule, necessitated by the parks built environment and
perpetuated by their collective parenting style, that in order to reduce the harm that will come to
the children, they must be watched over as a whole unit rather than each individual parent
watching their own individual children.
Though comfort about sexuality is a community defined policy, through Dutch policies
regarding prostitution, it has become a political aspect as well. Compared to the United States, all
of Europe seems to be much more open to the display of sexuality as seen through posters on the
street of naked people advertising a new art exhibit in Budapest to the black light theater in
Prague doing a rendition of Alice in Wonderland in which Alice takes the stage naked for one
scene. The legalization of prostitution in the Netherlands and the prominence of sex workers in
the Red Light Districts in Amsterdam are just part of the European spectrum of openness
towards sexuality and nudity. However, there has been a political push in Amsterdam to close
many windows that sex workers solicit out of and an increased amount regulations for becoming
a sex worker, including the increased minimum age for workers from 18 to 21. These changes
could perhaps be signaling the start of a shift from sexuality that is socially-tolerated and
therefore a positive community aspect, to something that is legally-tolerated and is seen as a
blemish on the community.v
Nudity, especially among children, is accepted at much higher rate in Amsterdam than is
seen in Seattle. Children up the ages of five or six could be seen splashing around the wading
pool without a bathing suit on. When the adult supervisors were asked about the toleration of
nudity in public spaces like the park, they seemed almost surprised that it was even a noticeable
aspect of the play area. Parents were generally not worried about letting their child be naked in a

public space because they assumed the safety of their child, not the ill-will of other human
beings. Others proclaimed that raising their children in a sex-positive culture promotes sexual
health later in life and, again, claiming that they should not raise their children in fear of sex or
sexual predators. One mother did mention that, with the increased media coverage of child
molesters, there has been a noticeable increase of very young children being clothed in the park
or on the beach. Whereas it is normal to see school-aged children naked, it has also become
normal to seen one or two year-olds in little bikinis. This change in attitudes is mimicking the
shift in prostitution policies from what was once a very sexually open and sex-positive culture to
one where fear of sexuality or harm due to nudity might reign.
What This Means in Volunteer Park and Oosterpark
Through my research, I found that the built environments played a large role in the type
of controls that occurred in each park and also show the general style of parenting of their
surrounding communities. Seattle parenting tends to be very individualized and protective,
enhanced by the structure of the play area. The park encourages this type of parenting by making
it possible. Children can always be seen by their parents, so parents only watch their children,
isolating themselves further from other families and eliminating community-based parenting that
would be expected in a public space. The close proximity of the parents and children are also a
manifestation of the general protectiveness of Seattle parenting. Parents and supervisors in
Volunteer Park exercised a lot of control over the children in order to make sure children
followed the rules and did not get hurt. Even the older children seemed to be subject to many
rules and much scrutiny of their playground behavior. Interactions between children were also
watched and managed to make sure social norms were followed, despite their being little conflict
to begin with.

Conversely, the built environment of Oosterpark was a result of and resulted in the
general style of parenting in Amsterdam. The layout and space of Oosterpark allows children to
play without being under the constant scrutiny of their parents watchful eyes. Parents encourage
this behavior and allow their children to be outside of their eyesight without worrying. The space
also mandates that parents trust each other to watch out for their children. Parents watch over the
group of children as a whole, keeping an eye on the kids closest to them at the moment. The
parenting style in Oosterpark is laid-back and community oriented. The changes to the built
environment of the park that will happen in the next few years will only amplify this type of
parenting behavior. Opening up the space and creating one big seating arrangement will increase
the community feel of the park and continue to encourage community-style parenting.
Research of these two parks also revealed a connection between the political environment
and policies of the city and parental behavior and attitudes. Certain aspects of both cities politics
were mimicked in parenting practices. For Seattle, the necessity of levies and bonds to improve
childrens facilities relates to the individualized responsibility for child care practices seen in
Volunteer Park. Another Seattle practice of highly publicized media concerning parental neglect
and the ensuing legal consequences is reflected in the general strict parenting style of its
inhabitants. In Amsterdam, the political practice of gedogen and tolerance is mirrored by the type
of authority present in Oosterpark and how it manages park visitors. The harm reduction and
fact-of-life approach that Dutch politics administers in their soft drug and prostitution policies is
similar to the way parents treat their children, giving them space and using a laid-back parenting
style. Nudity and sexuality are linked by the current openness of nudity and sexuality as can be
seen through current prostitution laws and the amount of nude children in the parks. However,
attitudes around sexuality are shifting through the 1012 Project and changing prostitution laws

and the media surrounding child molesters and the new habit of young children wearing bathing
suits.
Observations of the play areas in parks exposed the general Seattle-American and
Amsterdam-Dutch parenting styles. The informal social control exhibited by the built
environment on the park effects the play area through the types of interactions it fosters.
Parenting practices in the two cities also seem to mirror the formal social control of laws and
political policies in that same city.
What This Means Sociologically
Though it cannot be concluded that either parenting or politics is a product of one
another, it does seem that the two aspects of a community have many similarities and are often
closely related in terms of policies and attitudes. The playground in a park reveals the general
parenting style of its area and the style encouraged by the city through the social controls of the
built environment and the authority of the adults in the park. Parks, parenting, and politics all
occur in conjunction with one another, affect one another, and can be seen throughout one
another. I believe that this could hold true not just for parks in the Seattle and Amsterdam area,
but in large cities throughout the world.

United States. King County Government. Major Levies and Bonds 2010 to Present. King County. Web. 10 Aug.
2014.
ii
Bos, David. "Diversity & Tolerance in Contemporary Netherlands." University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam. 25 June
2014. Lecture.
iii
Mares, David R. "The Netherlands: From Drug War to Dynamic Harm Reduction." Drug Wars and Coffeehouses:
The Political Economy of the International Drug Trade. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2006.
iv
Punch, Maurice, Bob Hoogenboom, and Kees Van Der Vijver. "Community Policing in the Netherlands: Four
Generations of Redefinition." The Handbook of Knowledge-based Policing: Current Conceptions and Future
Directions. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2008.
v
Buruma, Ybo. "Dutch Tolerance: On Drugs, Prostitution, and Euthanasia." Crime and Justice 35.1 (2007): 73-113.