Every GRHS student knows about Hurrell Field — a longstanding athletic facility, and one of the only fields in the borough in Glen Ridge. Over many years, the borough has considered whether to replace the natural grass surface with synthetic turf. Glen Ridge currently has no turf field to call its own; even George Washington field has limited access for athletes due to being shared with Montclair. This cements GR as an outlier in the area, since many neighboring towns have long since made the switch to turf on most fields. The question of whether to turf Hurrell is a live issue of cost, schedule, health, environment, equity, and longstanding community values, all of which are profoundly affected by the unique factors of GR’s economy, population, and history.
When evaluating the debate of turf vs. natural grass for Hurrell Field, looking at broader evidence and comparisons between the two is absolutely necessary. Artificial turf often has increased usable hours and weather tolerance, being able to sustain heavy use with quick recovery. Grass fields often need rest or recovery from rain, which is not ideal for districts (like GR) with limited field assets. Turf also requires much less maintenance than natural grass, and does not require mowing, watering, seeding, or any other cumbersome horticultural tasks. This can translate to savings for GR in the long run. In this same vein, turf does not require irrigation, which can save substantial volumes of water. For players, turf provides a more uniform playing surface, which can often reduce variability in ball bounce or missteps and eliminate potential injuries. Additionally, many people simply view turf as a more modern and high-quality option for athletic facilities than grass.
However, turf comes with its drawbacks. It has a high upfront cost — often upwards of $1 million — and a relatively limited lifespan of 8-10 years, depending on wear and maintenance. After this point, replacement or refurbishment is necessary. Turf surfaces also heat up significantly more than natural spaces like grass, posing the risk of heat stress or discomfort for athletes, especially during hotter months. Furthermore, many environmental concerns exist around the implementation of turf. For example, turf fibers erode over time, which releases microplastics into soil and water runoff. Turf also cuts down on the biodiversity of a habitat, which can contribute to carbon sequestration and reduce ecological function. And finally, many conversely view turf as a less aesthetic option than grass, due to its reduction of natural “green” space in an environment.
In Glen Ridge specifically, the push for turf is driven in part by the field scarcity addressed earlier. However, it is unclear whether turfing Hurrell alone can meaningfully relieve this pressure, or whether GR teams would still have to rely on external fields like Watsessing or Glenfield. A petition debuted in 2018 in favor of turfing the field had about 1,500 signatures, which indicates significant public interest. However, GR has voted down at least 2 turf proposals in recent years, with the reluctance seemingly tied to the cost and environmental concerns turf may pose. At meetings, citizens have cited many reasons for this hesitation. For one, the field’s physical dimensions are unique and are not suitable to host certain regulation meets. This may mean that its potential utility with turf is less than what proponents might hope. People also suggest that Glen Ridge’s lack of artificial fields may suggest that the town lacks experience with this kind of operation and maintenance, making it a potentially risky investment. Furthermore, any turf project of this scale would demand upfront capital, resulting in increased taxes for residents of Glen Ridge.
Thus, although the notion of changing Hurrell to a turf field may seem like a promising idea for the future of Glen Ridge athletics, there are simply too many limiting factors within the town to make this idea a reality any time soon. Turf is not an end-all-be-all solution for the problems that exist with Hurrell field. Its constrained size and geometry would limit games regardless of the surface, and turf would not completely eliminate any current maintenance burdens, just shift them to the future. Community resistance is strong, and too many concerns still exist around health, safety, and environmental uncertainties, as well as potential tax increases for all residents. So, while most students and athletes would certainly enjoy seeing a turfed Hurrell Field in the near future, it is simply not in the best interest of most residents to undergo such a robust change.
