Ahern field closed due to rain on May 30. Credit: Andrew Farrar
In the heart of Cambridge, a critical debate is unfolding over the future of Ahern Field. While there is an understandable push to install artificial turf to accommodate high-demand sports, we must consider the true cost of replacing a living landscape with a synthetic one. For the residents of East Cambridge, Ahern Field is more than just a potential athletic facility; it is a vital natural lung in an increasingly urbanized and warming landscape. And for all of Cambridge, we should ask ourselves: is the environmental and health cost of turf worth the extra playing time? In the past I supported installing new turf fields. I cannot now.
The Plastic Burden and Environmental Cost
The scale of plastic introduced by an artificial turf field is staggering. Even though field infill has improved dramatically in recent years (previous use of crumb rubber from shredded tires has been replaced with a more sustainable option, and the materials are independently tested for PFAS), there are still significant and persistent issues with turf field installations. Aside from the infill, a single field can contain roughly 40,000 pounds of plastic carpet and blades, a massive environmental footprint. When these fields reach the end of their 8-to-10-year lifespan, they present a significant disposal burden which adds to the overall costs, both financial and environmental. Because they are composed of complex, bonded materials, components from turf fields are notoriously difficult to recycle. Most end up in landfills or are incinerated, contributing to the emissions considerations that local health experts warned would undermine our city’s climate commitments. Furthermore, natural grass provides essential flood mitigation and harms biodiversity when replaced by an impermeable plastic barrier.
The Heat Island Effect
One of the most pressing reasons to reject artificial turf is the escalating climate crisis. City planners have identified Fulkerson Street as one of the hottest corridors in Cambridge during the summer. While the city has made efforts to plant trees to mitigate this heat, installing an artificial turf field would counteract these gains by raising the local temperature significantly higher than a grass field. As the number of hot days is projected to rise in the coming years, our neighborhoods need more tree cover and grass open space, not less, to maintain a livable environment.
Health and Safety: Beyond the Surface
Medical professionals have raised serious concerns about the health risks of artificial turf, citing concerns over elevated risk of chemical exposure for children. When plastic degrades, microparticles are created — and some end up in our kids’ lungs and our soil and eventually our water supply. Beyond chemical risks, there is the issue of physical safety. Studies published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, indicate that athletes are more likely to suffer non-contact lower-extremity injuries — specifically ACL tears — on synthetic turf compared to natural grass. While turf fields have improved, studies of injury rates are concerning. Many players prefer grass for playing due to how the field affects their bodies. Turf burn is another negative for players. Risk of heat injury is also elevated on artificial turf, and vigorous play on these artificial heat islands can seriously elevate the risk of heat illness in players. Investing in properly maintained grass fields is the only way to ensure a truly healthy play space for our children.
A Neighborhood Asset
In East Cambridge, most homes lack private yards, with lot lines often extending directly to the sidewalk. For many families, Ahern Field represents a convenient green space where children can engage not only in organized athletics, but also in unstructured play like running around, looking for bugs and picking flowers. To replace this natural surface with plastic would eliminate a cooling respite. Fields are well used, but structured playtime isn’t 24/7. And for some days of rain, depending on age and level, the City can explore using the nearby indoor gym for some sports when weather prevents use, and partner with institutions to occasionally use their fields. This would allow Ahern Field to remain a natural grass space.
I acknowledge there is no perfect solution. There are tradeoffs — less playing time on a grass field for sure. I cannot justify trading off health and adding more plastic pollution to our environment for a few more hours of structured play. Rather than opting for a solution that creates a waste legacy for future generations, Cambridge should invest in the upkeep of natural grass. Good maintenance of grass costs more — but a turf field costs more to install and redo. We should keep Ahern Field a more natural landscape for the health of our children and the resilience of our city. Ten years from now, people will wonder how we ever thought that such plastic fields were acceptable. Plastics may have been the future when Dustin Hoffman starred in “The Graduate.” Decades later, we know better. Plastics are harmful in too many ways to justify compromising our city’s and our kids’ health.
Nolan is a Cambridge city councillor.
Like this:
LikeLoading…
Related Stories
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Ahern Field: Plastics should not be our future
Share this:
In the heart of Cambridge, a critical debate is unfolding over the future of Ahern Field. While there is an understandable push to install artificial turf to accommodate high-demand sports, we must consider the true cost of replacing a living landscape with a synthetic one. For the residents of East Cambridge, Ahern Field is more than just a potential athletic facility; it is a vital natural lung in an increasingly urbanized and warming landscape. And for all of Cambridge, we should ask ourselves: is the environmental and health cost of turf worth the extra playing time? In the past I supported installing new turf fields. I cannot now.
The Plastic Burden and Environmental Cost
The scale of plastic introduced by an artificial turf field is staggering. Even though field infill has improved dramatically in recent years (previous use of crumb rubber from shredded tires has been replaced with a more sustainable option, and the materials are independently tested for PFAS), there are still significant and persistent issues with turf field installations. Aside from the infill, a single field can contain roughly 40,000 pounds of plastic carpet and blades, a massive environmental footprint. When these fields reach the end of their 8-to-10-year lifespan, they present a significant disposal burden which adds to the overall costs, both financial and environmental. Because they are composed of complex, bonded materials, components from turf fields are notoriously difficult to recycle. Most end up in landfills or are incinerated, contributing to the emissions considerations that local health experts warned would undermine our city’s climate commitments. Furthermore, natural grass provides essential flood mitigation and harms biodiversity when replaced by an impermeable plastic barrier.
The Heat Island Effect
One of the most pressing reasons to reject artificial turf is the escalating climate crisis. City planners have identified Fulkerson Street as one of the hottest corridors in Cambridge during the summer. While the city has made efforts to plant trees to mitigate this heat, installing an artificial turf field would counteract these gains by raising the local temperature significantly higher than a grass field. As the number of hot days is projected to rise in the coming years, our neighborhoods need more tree cover and grass open space, not less, to maintain a livable environment.
Health and Safety: Beyond the Surface
Medical professionals have raised serious concerns about the health risks of artificial turf, citing concerns over elevated risk of chemical exposure for children. When plastic degrades, microparticles are created — and some end up in our kids’ lungs and our soil and eventually our water supply. Beyond chemical risks, there is the issue of physical safety. Studies published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, indicate that athletes are more likely to suffer non-contact lower-extremity injuries — specifically ACL tears — on synthetic turf compared to natural grass. While turf fields have improved, studies of injury rates are concerning. Many players prefer grass for playing due to how the field affects their bodies. Turf burn is another negative for players. Risk of heat injury is also elevated on artificial turf, and vigorous play on these artificial heat islands can seriously elevate the risk of heat illness in players. Investing in properly maintained grass fields is the only way to ensure a truly healthy play space for our children.
A Neighborhood Asset
In East Cambridge, most homes lack private yards, with lot lines often extending directly to the sidewalk. For many families, Ahern Field represents a convenient green space where children can engage not only in organized athletics, but also in unstructured play like running around, looking for bugs and picking flowers. To replace this natural surface with plastic would eliminate a cooling respite. Fields are well used, but structured playtime isn’t 24/7. And for some days of rain, depending on age and level, the City can explore using the nearby indoor gym for some sports when weather prevents use, and partner with institutions to occasionally use their fields. This would allow Ahern Field to remain a natural grass space.
I acknowledge there is no perfect solution. There are tradeoffs — less playing time on a grass field for sure. I cannot justify trading off health and adding more plastic pollution to our environment for a few more hours of structured play. Rather than opting for a solution that creates a waste legacy for future generations, Cambridge should invest in the upkeep of natural grass. Good maintenance of grass costs more — but a turf field costs more to install and redo. We should keep Ahern Field a more natural landscape for the health of our children and the resilience of our city. Ten years from now, people will wonder how we ever thought that such plastic fields were acceptable. Plastics may have been the future when Dustin Hoffman starred in “The Graduate.” Decades later, we know better. Plastics are harmful in too many ways to justify compromising our city’s and our kids’ health.
Nolan is a Cambridge city councillor.
Like this:
Related Stories
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.