A couple of different overhead photos have been posted here. This one shows pretty thorough wear on the two rectangular fields. A shift “a few yards to the left or right,” as Paul’s article put it, appears possible but minimally effective. Even if you change the direction of play — tilt the larger field 90 degrees to the right and move the smaller field to the opposite corner — I don’t see a lot of difference in the areas that would be most heavily trafficked.
A couple of different overhead photos have been posted here. This one shows pretty thorough wear on the two rectangular fields. A shift “a few yards to the left or right,” as Paul’s article put it, appears possible but minimally effective. Even if you change the direction of play — tilt the larger field 90 degrees to the right and move the smaller field to the opposite corner — I don’t see a lot of difference in the areas that’d be most heavily trafficked.
part of the issue is that if the baseball diamond stays, it limits the possibilities for reorienting the fields. I don't think anyone would consider it a good playing surface if one end of a soccer or lacrosse field is on the infield dirt.
This pic isn't as dark as the other. I would love to work on a solution to fixing this. I would like to know what field system we have to compare with. What Jersey town has had success in maintaining their Grass fields and what is their yearly usage?
If we think about just how much space is available above ground and we find a way to use it, I think we can squeeze lots of baseball and soccer fields into DeHart!
Let's say for arguments sake that the highest a fly ball can go up is about 200 feet. If we then build a bunch of fields starting at 225 feet up we can double our capacity at DeHart. We could probably add a third level beginning 450 feet up. 675 another set of fields.
Of course we would have to put in a lot of lights to help the grass grow given the loss of sunlight, but we could effectively solve the whole problem pretty easily this way.
Throw in some unicorns and different colored trees and we would be set!
It's as realistic as some of the other horseshit being posted here.
This pic isn't as dark as the other. I would love to work on a solution to fixing this. I would like to know what field system we have to compare with. What Jersey town has had success in maintaining their Grass fields and what is their yearly usage?
Here's a photo of DeHart taken on Sat Nov 6 2021 at about noon.
I saw a whole lot of trailers at the Maplewood Pool parking lot this morning as I was dropping off books at the library book return. I asked and they said it's for the Zach Braff movie that was talked about on this thread last week.
It’s about seeding and aerating and water and grooming and repairing, etc. Things that we either don’t have the appetite, budget, or expertise to do.
Letting fields go fallow or “rotating” them isn’t going to happen. We don’t have enough fields. If changing sprinkler timing mattered, it could have been done at any time. In minutes. These “solutions” sound great but won’t cut it. Investment of time, manpower, seed, fertilizer, and money are the only things that will make a difference. Just like 13 years ago.
It’s about seeding and aerating and water and grooming and repairing, etc. Things that we either don’t have the appetite, budget, or expertise to do.
Letting fields go fallow or “rotating” them isn’t going to happen. We don’t have enough fields. If changing sprinkler timing mattered, it could have been done at any time. In minutes. These “solutions” sound great but won’t cut it. Investment of time, manpower, seed, fertilizer, and money are the only things that will make a difference. Just like 13 years ago.
Even these “solutions” of time, manpower, money, etc. won’t make a difference given the use of the field.
It’s about seeding and aerating and water and grooming and repairing, etc. Things that we either don’t have the appetite, budget, or expertise to do.
Letting fields go fallow or “rotating” them isn’t going to happen. We don’t have enough fields. If changing sprinkler timing mattered, it could have been done at any time. In minutes. These “solutions” sound great but won’t cut it. Investment of time, manpower, seed, fertilizer, and money are the only things that will make a difference. Just like 13 years ago.
Even these “solutions” of time, manpower, money, etc. won’t make a difference given the use of the field.
does anyone else find the pro-organic grass stuff way more exasperating than any of the anti-artificial turf arguments?
I wrote about it from the beginning, but do these folks sincerely believe that we can have a beautiful organic grass field and use it nearly every day from April until November? Or do they not really believe it themselves, they just figure there are enough gullible people to believe it?
or are they just concerned that artificial turf in some reduced plan will be raised in the task force, and they're trying to throw more BS at the wall to see if it sticks to head off the plastic grass?
every time I read one of their fantasies about organic grass athletic fields, a voice in the back of my head says "don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining."
Not really on topic (and I'm not a Maplewood resident, so have no standing on this topic anyway), but given the intense discussion on turf here, thought some might find this article a fun read:
Not really on topic (and I'm not a Maplewood resident, so have no standing on this topic anyway), but given the intense discussion on turf here, thought some might find this article a fun read:
That's an interesting article. The science that goes into the perfect field is something. You can also see the movie - Pitch Perfect.
The other point of note is that as turf science evolves, turf fields will be improved to the point where sports injuries are less frequent on turf fields rather than being slightly more frequently as is now the case.
In the article you posted, there was an discussion of why, with respect to injuries, you don't want the field to be too sticky or to be too slippery. Same would apply to turf.
does anyone else find the pro-organic grass stuff way more exasperating than any of the anti-artificial turf arguments?
I wrote about it from the beginning, but do these folks sincerely believe that we can have a beautiful organic grass field and use it nearly every day from April until November? Or do they not really believe it themselves, they just figure there are enough gullible people to believe it?
The argument that I'm aware of was that the grass field could be improved and downtime could be reduced. I'd like to see what you're talking about.
or are they just concerned that artificial turf in some reduced plan will be raised in the task force, and they're trying to throw more BS at the wall to see if it sticks to head off the plastic grass?
every time I read one of their fantasies about organic grass athletic fields, a voice in the back of my head says "don't piss in my ear and tell me it's raining."
Sounds like you're seeing a number of these "fantasies". Again, could you share one?
With regard to the Task Force, it will be bound by the terms of the referendum:
FYI, re the rental option, I just walked by turf field next to the Millburn library and it was empty. A couple of days ago I walked around the track at Millburn HS, which encircles the turf HS football/soccer field, and a group of men were playing there and had a permit.
Sounds like you're seeing a number of these "fantasies". Again, could you share one?
With regard to the Task Force, it will be bound by the terms of the referendum:
I hope the task force will go beyond the terms of the referendum and take a broader view of steps that can be taken to improve the condition of all of our fields, not just DeHart. Hopefully "all our fields" will include the fields managed by South Orange and those managed by the school district. Since all three jurisdictions use the fields, it would be appropriate to have representatives of all three work together to find a viable solution.
Sounds like you're seeing a number of these "fantasies". Again, could you share one?
With regard to the Task Force, it will be bound by the terms of the referendum:
I hope the task force will go beyond the terms of the referendum and take a broader view of steps that can be taken to improve the condition of all of our fields, not just DeHart. Hopefully "all our fields" will include the fields managed by South Orange and those managed by the school district. Since all three jurisdictions use the fields, it would be appropriate to have representatives of all three work together to find a viable solution.
By all means, let's expand the scope of it to ensure that nothing ever gets done.
Nothing will be accomplished if we limit the discussion to Dehart Park. The driving issue is that our fields cannot support the demand for playing hours and still remain in playable condition. This includes fields outside of DeHart Park, teams that do not play at DeHart. Improving Dehart, which may not even be possible under present conditions, won't improve the other fields used by our sports teams. To have safe, playable surfaces, we need to limit play to the number of hours the fields can support.
Sounds like you're seeing a number of these "fantasies". Again, could you share one?
With regard to the Task Force, it will be bound by the terms of the referendum:
The "terms of the referendum" are that the proposed bonding was rejected.
Everything else is back to square one.
In addition to the constraint imposed by the Interpretive Statement, another difference between the last "square one" and the new "square one," will be the new voice on the TC.
Nothing will be accomplished if we limit the discussion to Dehart Park. The driving issue is that our fields cannot support the demand for playing hours and still remain in playable condition. This includes fields outside of DeHart Park, teams that do not play at DeHart. Improving Dehart, which may not even be possible under present conditions, won't improve the other fields used by our sports teams. To have safe, playable surfaces, we need to limit play to the number of hours the fields can support.
To save the fields we have to limit the sports. Joan, you constantly argue that seniors on town need tax freezes, jitneys, etc to be able to stay in their homes. What if we just said that jitneys pollute too much and we need the tax dollars, so seniors should leave? The families that use these fields are the bread and butter residents and tax payers in our towns. They deserve to have their needs met as well
Nothing will be accomplished if we limit the discussion to Dehart Park. The driving issue is that our fields cannot support the demand for playing hours and still remain in playable condition. This includes fields outside of DeHart Park, teams that do not play at DeHart. Improving Dehart, which may not even be possible under present conditions, won't improve the other fields used by our sports teams. To have safe, playable surfaces, we need to limit play to the number of hours the fields can support.
Oh I thought we are going to have an excellent organic grass field at DeHart. Now it may not even be possible and the hours would be limited? Well golly, there is a surprise.
First I am hearing this.
Joan, you know what happens when you kick the can down the road? Nothing happens.
Sounds like you're seeing a number of these "fantasies". Again, could you share one?
With regard to the Task Force, it will be bound by the terms of the referendum:
The "terms of the referendum" are that the proposed bonding was rejected.
Everything else is back to square one.
In addition to the constraint imposed by the Interpretive Statement, another difference between the last "square one" and the new "square one," will be the new voice on the TC.
The referendum was about approving the specific financing (but I repeat myself).
The fact that the financing was not approved, does not limit what is to be considered by the Township in the future.
The membership of the Township Committee after January 1 is a separate issue, which I'm not commenting on.
Nothing will be accomplished if we limit the discussion to Dehart Park. The driving issue is that our fields cannot support the demand for playing hours and still remain in playable condition. This includes fields outside of DeHart Park, teams that do not play at DeHart. Improving Dehart, which may not even be possible under present conditions, won't improve the other fields used by our sports teams. To have safe, playable surfaces, we need to limit play to the number of hours the fields can support.
Nancy Adams said at the last TC meeting that she's reaching out to South Orange as well as the BOE to look for solutions that would involve sharing all the athletic field spaces in the two towns.
A couple of different overhead photos have been posted here. This one shows pretty thorough wear on the two rectangular fields. A shift “a few yards to the left or right,” as Paul’s article put it, appears possible but minimally effective. Even if you change the direction of play — tilt the larger field 90 degrees to the right and move the smaller field to the opposite corner — I don’t see a lot of difference in the areas that would be most heavily trafficked.