Anonymous wrote:Whitman, Einstein, RM and JW were done by the same company, who supposedly fixed the problems after RM pointed them out (layered the filler rather than mixing). WJ is being redone right now by a different company.
I get that some don't like turf, but MCPS is unable to maintain grass fields when they are used by so many (ESs used to be 350-450, now built to 740, MSs used to be 900 now being built to 1200 and Pyle already over 1500, and HSs used to be 2000-2400, now being built to 2700). When being built to X, MCPS won't do anything to relieve overcrowding until the schools reach 150% of X and even then maybe not.
Most, maybe many, MCPS fields are being well overused from their original intent, and end up dirt, mud, gravel and holes. So I will take turf abraisions over divots that break ankles and cause falls that break wrists any day.
Anonymous wrote:My DD and DS have played on most of the soccer fields in MoCo and I believe that the most recently installed fields the worst. Whitman and JW both seem to provide less traction and player stability than other fields. Has any experienced the same. If so, what is the problem? Is the contractor different than the one which installed older fields.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:wasn't the JW field done by some private soccer group?
I hope this thread doesn’t another artificial turf bashing thread claiming environmental danger.
No. JW field was built under the direct management, supervision, and contracted by Montgomery County
Unlicensed School. For exclusive use, other than MCPS usage, MSI has paid for the rights to use it for 10 years. In essence, a 10 year prepaid rental.
Anonymous wrote:wasn't the JW field done by some private soccer group?