At a recent council meeting there was a citizen discussion about the high school field refurbishment positioned as a simple question of “turf or grass” question. As a city resident and coach of a city soccer team I would like to offer that the question is unfortunately not that simple.

The core issue is we do not have enough space for natural fields as is to support the use load. I was not a fan of playing on turf fields in other cities when my kids started up soccer this past April. The snowplowed fields were hard, cold surfaces. In the summer they turned into radiating, hot surfaces. But the turf fields meant that the kids could be out there playing. Turf can be cleared after the snow and the kids could play under the lights into the evenings as the fields could sustain heavy use. Turf fields are absolutely not perfect, and I am not advocating we turf everything. But even a few lighted turf fields at the high school would go a long way to helping mitigate the challenges teams face with field access city-wide.

I would offer that while choosing a limited amount of turf does mean more artificial green space, it also means more use of the fields, more hours to play, and ultimately more kids and time outside. In an ideal world I, too, would love to see natural grass fields that can thrive under reasonable use rates and support all the teams trying to play. But in a space-constrained world with growing use, I would gladly trade a few natural grass fields for field turf and lighting at the high school if it means more kids can be safely playing sports for more hours of the day and months of the year.

Rich Crowley
South Portland