I disagree completely. Parks should have useful features that give people options for things to do, so that they have a greater incentive to go there. And installing outdoor gym equipment that anyone can use for free year round to induce healthier lifestyles is certainly not a “gimmick”.
On the gyms, do keep an eye out for what kind of use you see them getting. I noted that I'm open to them, so long as there is good uptake and they are properly maintained.
Gimmick may be turn of phrase that's too dismissive for you, which I get.........but I will say, Parks does pick up on certain ideas, sometimes due to organic popularity, sometimes media coverage and sometimes just someone in the dept has an enthusiasm for something they've seen somewhere, and suddenly (relatively) there are two dozen or two hundred 'x'.
Past examples might include the Ping Pong Tables that were suddenly a thing, which I rarely see used, pickleball is currently having a moment; we've also seen it with pollinator gardens, and bake ovens.
I'm not opposed to any of these, though I do wish we wouldn't run away w/the trend of the week; as these things cost money to install, money to maintain and money to remove if they fall into disuse/lack of interest.
Yes, it would be much nicer without the playground. Expanses of grass are far more beautiful and enjoyable when it's just grass accented with flower beds on the perimeter to prevent people/dogs from destroying it. Europe seems to be a lot better at designing serene green oases that aren't littered with infrastructure, gimmicks, etc.
If Towered's enthusiasm reads a bit much for some, your polar opposite reaction also seems a tad extreme.
Toronto has botanically maintained parks, like Rosetta McClain Gardens or James Gardens, or Edwards Gardens. I'll happily accept the suggestion there could be more of these, and a higher standard of care of plants and paths in every park.
But the idea that everything needs to be prim, proper, formal, and is only there to be seen/admired and not interacted with sounds quite unpleasant actually. Parks should include passive spaces for sure. And equally, I'll support the notion that we ought not to just drop a facility into a park just to say we did and check a box; because that type of over-programming, particularly in small parks makes for crowded space and sub-par facilities. Better to do fewer things better than lots badly.
But people do use parks to be active..........and if that's a sports field, great, a skating trail, wonderful, tennis courts, sublime, or gym equipment.......its all good, so long as its well thought out, well designed, well maintained, and consistently made use of/appreciated. There's a balance to be struck. One I think Parks often muffs on both sides of the coin...........but that's a different post/thread.