{"id":7679,"date":"2017-01-27T12:00:21","date_gmt":"2017-01-27T16:00:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/spacing.ca\/national\/?p=7679"},"modified":"2017-01-27T15:11:09","modified_gmt":"2017-01-27T19:11:09","slug":"parks-natural-places-engagement-across-difference","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/spacing.ca\/national\/2017\/01\/27\/parks-natural-places-engagement-across-difference\/","title":{"rendered":"Parks as natural places for engagement across difference"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ahead of Park People\u2019s first national city parks conference in Calgary<\/a> this coming March 2017, Park People\u2019s Jake Tobin Garrett caught up with keynote speaker Jay Pitter,\u00a0 an author, placemaker, senior stakeholder engagement professional, and frequent Spacing contributor<\/a>. Her work focuses on increasing the capacity, resources, and relationships required for co-creating more inclusive, safe, and vibrant cities.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

Jake Tobin Garrett<\/strong>: The vision of the organization you work for, the Inspirit Foundation, is to create a more inclusive and pluralist Canada where differences are valued and engaged. How do you see that vision relating to parks and public spaces?<\/p>\n

Jay Pitter<\/strong>: In addition to acknowledging and addressing systemic inequities,\u00a0 we believe that encouraging an inclusive and pluralist Canada is predicated on encouraging people to engage each other across difference. The public realm plays a large role in that. The Inspirit Foundation supports many projects that leverage the public realm to bring people together to address issues that are paramount within their local context.<\/p>\n

For instance, we funded an Edmonton-based project called iHuman. The project provides supports for Indigenous youth, many of whom are street-involved, to engage with the broader community in the public realm. Last year they hosted a block party and there were performances and workshops led by Indigenous youth who are street-involved engaging the wider community. What\u2019s really exciting about this project is it really recast Indigenous youth who are experiencing homelessness from being a vulnerable to powerful. The project demonstrates their capacity not just their struggles; the public realm plays an integral role in amplifying this respectful approach to youth engagement and addressing systemic exclusion.<\/p>\n

JTG<\/strong>: In a very visible way, too.<\/p>\n

JP<\/strong>: Yes, and in a visceral way too. While it\u2019s important to address issues at the systemic level, there\u2019s something powerful about how change, hope, and tension can be felt on the street-level. We\u2019ve attempted to employ policy and formalized training to address issues of social equity and inclusion for many years. However, we also need to support initiatives in the public realm that bring people together to sort things out themselves. A\u00a0 project that encourages this on-the-ground public engagement is MABELLEarts. The foundation funded the organization to host workshops in Etobicoke. There\u2019s a public park and its betwixt high-rise buildings where there are a lot of low-income and newcomer families. On the other side is established, higher-income suburban communities where the residents are generally of European descent and higher-income earners. The workshops will culminate in four open Iftars [the breaking of the Ramadan fast] which will happen in the park. It\u2019s an educational experience, but in a very experiential way. There\u2019s a way that the park can, in a very natural manner, facilitate people coming together, participating in this meal and learning about the Muslim faith. Again, I think there\u2019s something very visceral and intimate about learning about faith and culture in this manner rather than having heady, and often polarized conversations in formal spaces.<\/p>\n

JTG<\/strong>: I don\u2019t want to bring the recent US election into this really, but there\u2019s been a pretty divisive and hateful conversation in the US. And in Toronto as well we\u2019ve seen some of that bubble up. I\u2019m wondering if you think parks and the public realm will have an increasing importance as a place to have these conversations and work some of these things out.<\/p>\n

JP<\/strong>: Absolutely, I think so. Prior to the Trump election the Provincial government here in Ontario was hosting conversations about racism in formal public spaces. They\u2019d pack four hundred people in a room with a microphone and a deep sense of disenfranchisement. Unsurprisingly, the results were disastrous. People spent much of the time hurling rage and insults across the room. I believe that parks are a much better venue for having difficult conversations. I\u2019m not suggesting that parks are neutral spaces. In fact, parks can be sites of increasing violence, inappropriate policing, and tension. However, they are beautiful, more intimate spaces, which can create the conditions for creative, intimate, and productive exchanges.<\/p>\n

JTG<\/strong>: We often hear a lot about the word placemaking and I think we\u2019re not often sure what it means. What is your placemaking practice?<\/p>\n

JP<\/strong>: Placemaking is a multi-disciplinary approach to the planning, design, and management of public places. While many practitioners and thought-leaders often stress important ideas such as walkability, economic sustainability, community consultation, triangulation, and belonging, they fall short when it comes to issues of equity. I\u2019m explicit about equity and inclusion in my practice and research. As far as I\u2019m concerned consulting a community is meaningless if we don\u2019t take into account the systemic barriers faced by community members and intentionally design public spaces, which facilitate movement, mental wellness, opportunities, and a sense of hope. To achieve this, you must be willing to have nuanced and uncomfortable conversations pertaining to class, race, gender, sexual identity and Indigenous land rights. Traditional placemaking and engagement processes are often rushed and incomplete.<\/p>\n

JTG<\/strong>: The idea of traditional engagement is often come out to this meeting or fill out this online survey or put a dot on a map or something. What does engagement mean to you?<\/p>\n

JP<\/strong>: From my perspective, true engagement is predicated on communities both shaping and co-leading the conversation. It\u2019s also important that they have a clear understanding of options and scope of influence on final decisions. Sadly, most engagement processes simply provide space for community members to respond to narrowly framed prompts, fail to take the time to really educate communities about their options, and pretend to be \u201cneutral\u201d.<\/p>\n

In my practice, I\u2019m always asking myself. \u201cWho\u2019s not here?\u201d Although I work from an extremely inclusive framework, I never allow myself to become complacent or arrogant. Inclusive placemaking is complex and on-going work. In addition to keeping myself accountable, this question ensures that the same handful of privileged and often loud voices (able to interpret dense planning documents and take the afternoon off work) aren\u2019t dominating the discussion. The other thing I\u2019m mindful of in my work is rejecting the notion that my job is to solve a problem. This is a key tenant in urban planning practice and a debate I often have with traditional planners. The thing is that long before planning was formalized, people self-organized and solved their own issues. As such, I think that the focus should be less on problem solving and more focused on listening, asset-mapping, and contributing to community resilience. Even when I\u2019ve been brought in to solve a problem because it\u2019s been determined that this group of people or this place\u2014that something is not working, something\u2019s gone askew\u2014I still begin by listening for what\u2019s working. I\u2019m always looking for the asset in the individual or the community or the place.<\/p>\n

JTG<\/strong>: Why do you start off by asking what\u2019s good, even in certain cases where someone\u2019s said \u2018Oh this is the issue we have to deal with here?\u2019<\/p>\n

JP<\/strong>: Imagine having an outsider parachute into your community and beginning a placemaking conversation or process by listing off its \u201cproblems\u201d. For many professionals, they are simply stating a fact or referring to the conditions of a place. For people connected to particular communities and places, it\u2019s deeply personal not factual or incidental. Focusing on issues sets the tone for mistrust, shame, and deeply imbalanced power dynamics. I\u2019m not denying that communities and public places face many serious issues; I\u2019m suggesting that it\u2019s really important to build on people\u2019s knowledge and what they\u2019re doing really well. It also situates the expertise in the community. I never want to be the person who gets parachuted into a community to tell what\u2019s not working. When I look at what is working, I know that my starting point is informed by the local context and not my knowledge or even biases. I think that\u2019s where we brush up against this notion of centering expertise rather than community. I absolutely bring my expertise into the process, but I begin by listening to and honouring what\u2019s exceptional about every community and stakeholder group I have the privilege to work with. I think much of this sensitivity is derived from being a kid who grew up in social housing and witnessing the ways my community\u2019s knowledge and capacity was disregarded.<\/p>\n

JTG<\/strong>: This kind of goes into the next question, which is I\u2019ve heard you say that it\u2019s not about empowering people, but understanding people are already powerful. We often see that language: empower the community. Can you explain a little bit about the distinction?<\/p>\n

JP<\/strong>: People are innately powerful. Sure, there are systems and personal choices, which can impede the manifestation of this power, but everyone has something valuable to offer. When placemaking professionals claim to empower individuals or entire communities, it negates this inherent power. It is also incredibly arrogant. It takes considerable focus and hard work to foster personal and professional power; the notion that one has so much power to grant others is magical thinking. That said, I understand what placemakers and others mean when they claim to empower others. It\u2019s often well-intended and meant to convey a desire to share resources and encourage participation. However, it\u2019s important to recognize multiple forms of power. For example, many of us work for organizations with institutional power such as budgets, research, and the ability to shape policy. This is not the only form of power. Individuals and communities are also powerful. They have in-depth knowledge of inner-workings of their communities, stories, strong informal networks, and a passion for making positive change. It\u2019s also important to remember that many communities, even those considered marginalized, tend to be extraordinarily resilient and able to problem solve in a highly intelligent manner. For these, and many other reasons revealed through my practice, I think it\u2019s disrespectful to claim to \u201cempower\u201d others.<\/p>\n

JTG<\/strong>: This kind of goes back to what you were saying about that first step being listening to people and asking them about what\u2019s good, what they like, and what\u2019s working well in their community.<\/p>\n

JP<\/strong>: Absolutely. When we say we\u2019re empowering a neighbourhood or a group of people, we\u2019re also negating the fact that cities have historically been comprised of self-organizing groups who possess incredible insights around creating local networks. For example, think about neighbourhoods like The Ward, once considered \u201cslums\u201d, these neighbourhoods were quite sophisticated. They had local industry, places for worship, ways to integrate newcomers into the community, childcare, ways of supporting older people to age in place. I would argue that some of those communities were better off before planning and municipal interventions.<\/p>\n

JTG<\/strong>: I want to go back a little bit to talk about parks and public spaces where different groups of people meet and sometimes clash. I\u2019m thinking of that story you told at an event I was at recently about people organizing large family picnics in a park and making goat stew and how that didn\u2019t necessarily jive with what some other people would say is a \u201ctraditional park picnic.\u201d When these sorts of tensions arise, what are strategies we can use to have a constructive dialogue about different ways of using public space?<\/p>\n

JP<\/strong>: I think we must have the courage to unpack these kinds of coded criticisms. They are almost always directed to visible newcomers. The real issue isn\u2019t the goat stew. The issue is that park culture and etiquette has been defined by European values and cultural practices for many, many years. There\u2019s an unspoken etiquette regarding \u201cappropriate\u201d behaviours such as playing Frisbee and barbequing hamburgers. Some newcomer communities are preparing entire feats in the parks, taking long naps on comforters, and have large inter-generational families. While I think most people are welcoming to everyone in parks, there are sometimes unspoken tensions and power dynamics pertaining to the ways the space is occupied.<\/p>\n

JTG<\/strong>: We work with a lot of community members that are volunteering their time in parks to do improvement projects and animate and program parks. Do you have any advice to community groups to help them think about new ways to engage and reach out to other people in their neighbourhood?<\/p>\n

JP<\/strong>: More than ever parks are places where activities once considered private are happening in the public realm. I really respect the work of volunteers animating parks and appreciate that parks are increasingly becoming places of ritual, courageous conversation, art-making, and meals fostering community connections. In terms of local engagement, it\u2019s important for people animating parks to allow for a certain degree of organic and fluid interaction. This is a part of what makes parks wonderful and so we must be careful not to inadvertently institutionalize parks through over-programming. Also, parks respond to their local context so there aren\u2019t prescriptive ways of animating them but at a high level I\u2019d recommend the following:<\/p>\n