15 FEBRUARY 1930, Page 5

Mr. Lansbury and the Parks

IT is possible to be grateful to the Times for severely criticizing Mr. Lansbury's innovations in the London parks without being convinced that it has struck the happy mean which is obviously necessary in this matter. Discussion ought to be welcomed, since a very important point of policy is at issue.

Among the various possible policies for securing that the parks shall be places of recreation, rest and beauty, any conceivable principle can be pressed to an absurd extreme. A woodland theory may become a jungle theory ; an amusement theory may become a swings and round-abouts and nigger-minstrel theory. The golden mean is to be discovered only by a balancing of the needs of all the elements of the population. Children must be remembered as well as grown-up people. Philistines, as well as those who have the fine shades of the nice feelings,; are citizens and taxpayers. The needs of those who want disciplined exercise within reason are as valid as those of the potterers. Healthy young barbarians are, after all, one of the most important parts of every rising generation.

No city in the world, as Lord Crawford has remarked in a letter to the Times, is so fortunate as London in the position of its parks. Our parks are at the heart of things. We have not to make a considerable journey from the centre as the Parisians have to do when they want to spend a day in the Bois. It is delicious to be able to plunge from the roar of London straight into a glade in Ken- sington Gardens.

One is tempted to dwell upon the charm of such seclusion and upon the illusion of immensity which the planners of Hyde Park miraculously contrived, but, having barely begun to meditate, one is suddenly and violently recalled to thoughts of those who have very different needs from our own. If we had only ourselves to consider we should like Hyde Park to approach very nearly to the jungle theory. We would willingly see all the paths, particularly the tarred ones, removed ; we could dispense with the bandstand, and all the buildings, and with all the electric lights. We could wish that Hyde Park should be an uncultivated wood with snowdrops and aconites, ane- mones, primroses, wild daffodils and carpets of wild hyacinths growing everywhere in their proper seasons. But what would be the result of that ? This romantic wood and tangled grassland would become the haunt of lawlessness. It would be impossible for the police to control it. Nor would it provide for such regulated pastimes as are essential for youth. The vision must fade.

Equally, thank goodness, we must dismiss the vision of over-formalized and over-regularized parks. It is possible that Mr. Lansbury, who is exposed to all the dangerous temptations of a genial sentimentalist, is in too great- a hurry. It is no doubt time to take stock of our _position and to see exactly whither we are. tending when We hear of private benefaCtors giving Mr. Lansbury grants for this and that new building, and when Mr. Lansbury is inclined to assume that he must be right and that Parliament need not be given opportunities of discussing his schemes unless it particularly asks for them. So far, nevertheless, we cannot think that Mr. Lansbury has gone astray. The call to watchfulness has come in time.

The Playing Fields Association, which has always been careful of the amenities, would not have asked for a moderate amount of extra ground for organized games if it could possibly have found the necessary space else- where. If there were plenty of playing fields—football notoriously turns grass into an ugly bog—there would be no case for allowing such games in the parks, but unfor- tunately the scarcity of playing fields is precisely one of our urgent problems. We do not feel justified in objecting to a little more organized football in Hyde Park near Knightsbridge Barracks, nor can we object to the proposed putting green and bowling green in the same part, of the Park. The pavilion, we imagine, will be no more than a place for keeping the equipment of these two greens and sheltering the staff and it certainly ought not to be obtrusive.

As for bathing in Hyde Park, we have long regretted the too rigid rules which have prevented the Serpentine from being used for bathing by both men and women at all times of the day in the summer. Obviously such bathing cannot be allowed without bathing sheds. These, again, need be no more unpleasing than the boat-houses on the opposite bank. It is not unusual to find a lake in a remote part of the country provided with a bathing but and a boat-house. There is not necessarily any excessive air of sophistication about them.

A paddling pool for children seems to us to be more desirable than anything else. If it is wrongly placed, so as to break up a view, it may be a monstrous offence, but there is no reason whatever why it should not be discreetly placed or be screened by trees. To children a shallow paddling pool is a thing of sheer delight, and it takes up very little room. Most people who have watched children playing in the sand-pits (which have been in the parks for years) will not want to deprive them of the other part of that perfect union—sand and water. Those who can go to the sea-side at least once a year may think little of a paddling pool, but the children who chiefly value these pools never go to the sea-side. If the children could have written letters to the Times quite a different turn would have been given to the expressions of opinion.

We think we have not demanded too much. But Mr. Lansbury, or anybody else holding his office, will deserve very badly of the State if he cannot manage to make the concessions which are required for the greatest good of the greatest number without sacrificing the sweep of long vistas and the illusion of unbroken space which are the majestic virtues- f the public parks of London.