With renovations coming to two heavily used playing fields in Norwood and Bedford Park, the debate over which surface is better – grass or synthetic turf – is heating up.

The city says synthetic turf, either FieldTurf or AstroPlay, is cheaper and easier to maintain in the long run and feels much like grass. Grass supporters are critical of FieldTurf, saying it could pose serious health risks.

In the past five years, the Parks Department has installed 63 synthetic turf playing surfaces throughout the city. Two new projects – a new track and field at Williamsbridge Oval Park in Norwood and three new synthetic ball fields at Harris Park in Bedford Park – are in the works.

Tire Crumbs

At the center of this turf war is the fact that the new synthetic fields (as opposed to the carpet-like AstroTurf first introduced in 1965), which play like natural grass, are filled with ground up old tires. Those tire grounds, or pellets, contain carcinogens (cancer causing chemicals) that may or may not be harmful to people and/or the environment.  

Citing recent studies noting the potential harmful effects of synthetic fields, Carl Lundgren, chair of the Bronx Green Party, wrote in a letter to the Norwood News that he saw “no compelling reasons why these materials should ever be used in public green spaces.”

Sonia Lappin, a board member at Scott Towers, just across the street from Harris Park, is “troubled with the idea of artificial turf in any public park where neighborhood children, Little League teams, and adults play.”

Studies conducted by grass advocates have found numerous carcinogenic materials in the rubber pellets. But it remains unclear if they are actually harmful to humans.

The company FieldTurf and the Parks Department counter with recent studies claiming “there is no cause for concern to human health” because the turf does not emit a high enough level of toxins to be harmful to humans or the environment.

Other studies have shown that even ingesting these tiny pellets would not be cause for concern.

The Parks Department calls these fields “more environmentally friendly than ‘natural’ grass fields,” which require more work and the use of harmful chemicals to maintain. They also cite a 2003 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory study that said “You are more likely to absorb [these harmful materials] from eating a grilled hamburger than from the rubber pellets you would come into contact with while playing soccer.”

Heat and Cost

Another point of contention is heat. The average temperature of a natural grass field is around 70 degrees. A study conducted by Columbia University this summer found that on a typical early afternoon the surface temperature at several synthetic fields in Manhattan and the Bronx was between 140 and 160 degrees.

Supporters of synthetic turf claim there is no potential health risk in this overheating and that they can control the temperature by cooling it with water on a regular basis.

Still, opponents are rallying support.

On Nov. 29, activists, educators, and environmentalists gathered in the basement of the Trinity Lutheran Church in Manhattan to discuss the numerous harmful effects synthetic turf can have to children’s physical and mental health.

Some groups there even wanted to put a moratorium on building any new synthetic turf fields until further research can be done.

Dr. William Crain, a City College professor, led the discussion. “Children need rich contact with nature to grow and develop well,” he said.

Crain said replacing natural grass with synthetic turf will hinder children’s creative and imaginative skills. Lundgren agrees, calling synthetic turf “a step backwards.”

On the other hand, one recent survey said children spend less than one hour a week playing outdoors. Because it can be used all year, Parks officials say, synthetic turf will actually give children more contact with the outside world.

What Players Say

Supporters cite the low maintenance cost to defend the initial high price tag of synthetic turf ($800,000 versus $260,000 for grass). Maintenance of synthetic fields, which can last up to 15 years, costs seven times less ($6,000 a year versus $42,000 for grass), according to a 2005 study by the City Fields Foundation.

For athletes, the jury is still out. Major League Soccer (MLS) star David Beckham of the Los Angeles Galaxy recently called synthetic turf “one major thing that should change” in the MLS, and a 2004 NFL Players Association Survey showed that 85 percent of more than 1500 active NFL players would rather play on natural grass surfaces than on synthetic turf.

Locally, however, Evelyn Colon, the president of the Fordham Bedford Little League, reports that the children love playing on the synthetic field behind Walton High School because “the kids think they are in Yankee Stadium [which is grass].” Colon, who hadn’t heard any of the health concerns with regards to synthetic turf, said she loves being able to use the field year round.

While the Parks Department says it will go ahead with installing synthetic turf in Williamsbridge Oval Park and Harris Field, the City Council was scheduled to hold a hearing on Dec. 13 to discuss the costs and benefits of installing turf in city parks.

The advocacy group New Yorkers for Parks also just issued a report on synthetic turf. Among its many recommendations, the group suggested that efforts to improve the performance of natural grass fields be expanded; that new green space be added nearby wherever turf is installed; and that safety information be included on signage at synthetic turf fields.

The full report can be found at www.ny4p.org.