Community Featured

Reader Poll: Should the Multi-Use Field at Puopolo Park Be Synthetic Turf or Grass?

Boston Parks & Recreation hosted their third and final community meeting last week to discuss improvements to Langone & Puopolo Parks. Two final design concepts were presented and attendees provided feedback on which layout, or which features of the two layouts, they preferred.

One of the biggest concerns discussed was whether the multi-use field at Puopolo Park should be synthetic turf or grass. Those arguing for the synthetic turf said it would require less maintenance and allow soccer to be played in the area. Those against the turf raised concerns about the smell, potential health threats and safety.

What do you think? Should the field be turf or grass? Vote in our poll and add your comments in the section below.

Note: Web polls are not scientific, representing only those readers who choose to vote.

7 Replies to “Reader Poll: Should the Multi-Use Field at Puopolo Park Be Synthetic Turf or Grass?

  1. I had palyed on artificial turf surfaces. The arguement for no maintenance means forget any maintenance. These things seem ot compress and harden over time leading to more injury. Old surfaces were like playing on a parking lot.

  2. Just think about all the people who will let their dogs pee and poop on the turf. There’s hardly anywhere in the NE for dogs to go other than the sidewalk as is. I can already smell the filth.

  3. Artificial turf fields are made up of ground up tires. It solved a great problem for the EPA, because tires are considered toxic waste and not allowed in landfills in the US. Instead all those potentially carcinogenic materials are ground up into small pellets to fill the artificial turf fields all over America.
    Turf fields are considerably hotter than grass, as the black pellets absorb the heat. The hotter it gets, the more off-gasing occurs and it is pretty noxious.
    By the way, almost all of the studies addressing potential dangers of artificial turf have been conducted or sponsored by the artificial turf companies. Caveat Emptor.
    If I lived in Boston, I would love to have a little relief from all the other things that are not of nature in that environment. Many cities and towns in the US are converting back to grass. In many cities and towns in Europe artificial turf is being banned.
    Stay with nature, folks.

  4. Is this a case for ‘caveat emptor’ ? Surely the NE would be taking a risk in using turf, however, would there not be some warranty for such a large plot ? Well, in any case, turf is harmful and considering the public’s presence in that area, we need grass. Why pollute such an open space? It’s refreshing down there by the water.

  5. Grass is the obvious and only choice here.The arguments against turf have been well stated by the earlier comments.

Comments are closed.