What Does Public Space Mean to You?

Public Recreation and Public Access

Our project addresses the inequities faced by low-income residents in Regent Park in accessing the new facilities in their neighbourhood – particularly, the Pam McConnell Aquatic Centre. Previously named the Regent Park Aquatic Centre, the highly-anticipated facility opened in 2012 as part of the neighbourhood’s revitalization plan. Pagliaro (2019) highlights that the need for more recreation opportunities in the neighbourhood dates back to the late 1960s, where residents protested at Nathan Phillips Square over the lack of recreation spaces in their neighbourhood in 1969. Although this space was welcomed by residents with open arms, the general lack of recreation facilities in the City of Toronto and the resulting competition for access has created a situation where low-income residents in Regent Park must go to extreme measures to access the facilities in their own neighbourhood.

The main entrance of the Pam McConnell Aquatic Centre, formerly named the Regent Park Aquatic Centre.

One of our Diva Girls shared stories of neighbours and parents who waited outside the Wellesley Community Centre overnight to secure swimming lessons for their children. This is a reality for many low-income families as Pagliaro (2019) highlights how parents in Regent park must compete with “some who are using multiple devices and high-speed internet to get through the City’s often cumbersome online system in hopes of getting the spaces they want.” It could be argued that as a public swimming facility, all residents in the City of Toronto have equal claims to ownership and access. Here, public accessibility is conflated with collective ownership by the state on behalf of the public – therefore, it is assumed that everyone has equal access and opportunity to benefit (Iveson, 2003, p. 221). This is effectively in line with the liberal model of access, in which public space should be consumed for the benefit of all, regardless of identity and socio-economic status (Iveson, 2003, p. 217). This further begs the question, who is the “public” and for which “public” are recreation facilities built for?

Liberal, distance-based notions of access ignore the inequities that racialized and low-income families experience in accessing public recreation space due to an uneven distribution of fiscal resources and technological limitations (Iveson, 2003; Talen, 2000). The reality is that the social need for public recreation space is greater for some groups, which therefore requires the implementation of strategies to increase the capacity of disadvantaged groups to access space (Rigolon, 2017, p. 74; Talen, 2000, p. 348). Distance-based notions of availability of recreation facilities are inaccurate measurements of access, as Harrington et al. (2017) notes that they instead measure “potential access rather than realized access, which considers barriers to individual, interpersonal, and environmental levels in addition to availability” (p. 8).

Filling in the Gaps Through Satire

We bring this reality to light through the form of an honest infomercial. By “honest,” we mean that the content is true to the lived experiences of our group’s Diva Girls. In our video, Mr. Developer is promoting the new public spaces in Regent Park, but two Regent Park residents interrupt and challenge his position, hence introducing the “honest” aspect of our infomercial. By portraying a debate between the developer and residents, we create a stark contrast between the dominant narrative and lived experiences. In this way, our project mirrors other grassroots satirical media projects in that we juxtapose the official discourse with local bodies of knowledge to reveal the gap between them (Marzouki, 2015, p. 291).

Ron preparing for his role as Mr. Developer.

We chose the infomercial format for one main reason: its comedy. The exaggerated and exuberant tone, compounded with ridiculous dialogue, is a defining feature of infomercials from the 80s and 90s. However, infomercials generally use comedy for sheer entertainment purposes. Our video pushes the comedic traits to their extreme and adds subversive commentary through the Diva Girls, thus repackaging the comedy as satire and parody. These specific forms of comedy serve two functions. Firstly, satire and parody undermine authority by laughing at and, in turn, questioning a particular discourse. Robert Hariman (2008) argues that in parodic media, the dominant discourse becomes a self-conscious image of itself, open to the appropriation and scrutiny of others. In other words, “[T]hat discourse now has been offered to the audience” (Hariman, 2008, p. 254). That is precisely what our infomercial does. When Mr. Developer cites “official” sources, such as Toronto Community Housing and politicians, on the revitalization of Regent Park, the parodic infomercial exposes the flaws with this position. Mr. Developer’s blind praise and overdramatic delivery of the dominant discourse invites laughter. What we are watching is no longer the discourse itself but an appropriated image of that discourse, one where the meaning is contested and mocked.

Another function of satire and parody is to imagine political alternatives (Harrebye, 2015, p. 133). Mohamed Marzouki (2015) shows how Moroccan youths use satire to create a discursive counter-public, forming an alternative imagined community to the one imagined by the state. Likewise, our project presents the two Diva Girls as their own imagined community with a different view of public spaces. Their definition of “public space” at the end of the video firmly declares how they imagine the ideal Regent Park, i.e., its public spaces should be designed for and accessible to residents of Regent Park. That said, some have suggested that satire is a limited form of critique since it cannot cause political change (Marzouki, 2015, p. 293). But that is not the point of most satire and is certainly not the point of our project. Imagining alternatives is a way of voicing opinions and challenging discourse. Through satirizing the new public spaces in Regent Park, our infomercial asserts the presence of an alternative voice and ultimately reimagines what public spaces should be like.

Sumeya posing in between takes to show off her henna design.

Our Goals

The goal of our project comes from the Diva Girls of our group: raise awareness about the disconnect between having and accessing public spaces. Indeed, passing through Regent Park or looking at images of the new facilities, it is tempting to conclude that “Regent Park boasts arguably the best community amenities in Toronto” (Starr, 2016). Our project aims to question that narrative, reveal the barriers to access hidden behind the elegant facades, and ask people to think critically about public spaces in Regent Park and beyond. Our project also has a complementary and less academic goal: make people laugh. The audience’s laughter is vital to satire because it is the measurement and validation of the satirist’s success (Hariman, 2008, p. 256). As a satirical infomercial, our project aims to make the viewer laugh at our ridiculous behavior, witty dialogue, and odd editing choices. Ultimately, laughter strengthens our critique of public spaces through “social and political leveling” (Hariman, 2008, p. 256). What was once a complicated issue, i.e., access to public space, is levelled and brought down to the masses. In sparking laughter, we invite more people to join the conversation and ask what are we laughing at? Why are these public spaces being mocked? How can we improve these public spaces?By letting the Diva Girls take the lead on the vision for our project, we witnessed the role of participatory action research in harnessing the lived realities of community members in creating a platform for “insider” knowledge, which is often neglected in academic research. Coming to Regent Park from institutional academic backgrounds, engaging with the community is a learning experience that is not accessible in traditional classroom settings, and we learned more about the dynamics of access and public space by building relationships and gaining trust from our group’s Diva Girls. More specifically, we learned that the antagonism from residents is not so much about keeping people out of Regent Park, but rather an urge for outsiders to check their privilege and recognize that cries for accessible recreation from those in most social need are not evidence of ungratefulness, but are responses to power structures and social justice inequities.

Watch our final video here:

References

Hariman, R. (2008). Political parody and public culture. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 94(3), 247-272.

Harrebye, S. (2015). The ambivalence of creative activism as a reorganization of critique. Culture and Organization, 21(2), 126-146.

Harrington, D. W., Jarvis, J. W., & Manson, H. (2017). Parents’ perceived barriers to accessing sports & recreation facilities in Ontario, Canada: Exploring the relationships between income, neighbourhood deprivation, and community. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(1272), 1-15.

Iveson, K. (2003). Justifying exclusion: The politics of public space and the dispute over access to McIvers ladies’ baths, Sydney. Gender, Place and Culture, 10(3), 215-228.

Marzouki, M. (2015). Satire as counter-discourse: Dissent, cultural citizenship, and youth culture in Morocco. International Communication Gazette, 77(3), 282-296.

Pagliaro, J. (2019, Feb 2). Regent Park residents say they can’t access their neighbourhood pool. City data backs them up. Toronto Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2019/02/02/regent-park-residents-say-they-cant-access-their-neighbourhood-pool-city-data-backs-them-up.html

Rigolon, A. (2017). Parks and young people: An environmental justice study of park proximity, acreage, and quality in Denver, Colorado. Landscape and Urban Planning, 165, 73-83.

Starr, R. (2016, May 9). 5 ways Regent Park’s revitalization is a game-changer. Toronto Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/life/homes/2016/05/09/5-ways-regent-parks-revitalization-is-a-game-changer.html

Talen, E. (2010). The spatial logic of parks. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 473-491.

Wolch, J., Wilson, J. P., & Fehrenbach, J. (2002). Parks and park funding in Los Angeles: An equity mapping analysis. Urban Geography,26(1), 4-35.

Sumeya, Aziza, Prashansa, Ron, and Nikki are the Space Jammers.

"So, Mr. Developer ..."

Our main goal for this team session was to complete the filming for our infomercial. Our final script casts Ron acting as “Mr. Developer”, and Sumeya as “Resident 1”. Though Aziza was unable to join us last week, we were happy to have her this week and gave her the role of “Resident 2.” Nikki was our camera operator while Prashansa assisted Ron, Sumeya, and Aziza with their lines throughout the filming process.

Our infomercial begins with Mr. Developer promoting the new public spaces in Regent Park, specifically the Aquatic Centre, Athletic Grounds, and upcoming Catholic elementary school. However, two residents soon barge in and challenge the things that Mr. Developer is saying. While Mr. Developer tries to defend the amazing things that these facilities bring to the community, the residents continuously provide a counter-narrative, exposing how the community is actually marginalized or forgotten in many ways. The infomerical thus unfolds like a heated debate between Mr. Developer and the residents.

While the residents’ lines were largely shaped by Sumeya and Aziza’s personal experiences and/or knowledge, such as parents lining up at 3 a.m. to sign up for swimming programs, our own research guided much of what Mr. Developer was saying. For example, we found that “social inclusion” and “social cohesion” were two outcomes that Toronto Community Housing emphasized in its 2007 Social Development Plan, so we used those terms to establish the official narrative of why new public spaces were being built. Moreover, we found a quote from Pam McConnell about the Regent Park Athletic Grounds, which we included in the infomercial to once again illustrate the optimistic and positive narrative surrounding the revitalization, in contrast to what the residents suggest.

Sumeya, Ron, and Aziza acting out the infomercial while Nikki films.

We began our day by practicing our infomercial in front of the greenscreen so our actors could tweak their lines and actions as needed. Ron, Sumeya, and Aziza were great with their parts and also inserted some fun improvisation while still sticking to the outline of the script. During practice runs, Nikki and Prashansa tested out different camera angles and shots to determine what would work best. Because we only had one camera, we collectively decided that it would be easier to film using a full-shot, then zoom-in as needed during the editing process. We completed filming in relatively good time while also taking multiple shots to ensure we would have a variety of clips to choose from when we begin editing.

Filming with a greenscreen meant we needed to be cognizant of our shots and how they would look with our photos and videos in the background. As we were filming, we were imagining the different elements we could include in our infomercial through the editing software, such as zooming in and out, text-layers, and audio and visual layers. Prashansa edited a clip from last week to project some of our images onto the greenscreen using Final Cut Pro, and it looked very clean and professional. We are all looking forward to playing around with the software and piecing our clips together to make our infomercial as cringey, yet thoughtful, as possible.

A still from one of our shots, where Regent Park residents (Sumeya on the left and Aziza on the right) are questioning Mr. Developer (Ron in the middle) of his definitions of “public” and “public space”.

Because our script was shaped by the experiences of Sumeya and Aziza shared with us as well as our external research, it was important to stick to the general outline in order to do their stories justice. However, the process of acting – from memorizing lines to embodying particular characters – is difficult, especially since none of us have much training in it. Nevertheless, we would say our filming process was successful as Sumeya, Ron, and Aziza were confident with their lines and were able to paint a funny, dramatic, yet genuine picture of the barriers residents of Regent Park face when accessing some of the public spaces in their community.

Ron as “Mr. Developer” trying to highlight the new public spaces that came out of the revitalization of Regent Park.

Since Prashansa is skilled in using Final Cut Pro editing software, Nikki and Ron will assist as she will be taking the lead on editing the infomercial. We will meet-up at least once during this week to go over the infomercial together, and we aim to have a preliminary draft to show Sumeya and Aziza at our next session.

Sumeya, Aziza, Ron, Prashansa, and Nikki are the Space Jammers.

Scripts, Rehearsals, and Bad Jokes

This week, things really started kicking off as our project began to materialize. On Sunday, the U of T students gathered to write a first draft of our script (meanwhile, Sumeya successfully earned her bronze medallion for lifeguard training!). After much procrastination, we produced a script that unfolds like an infomercial. In our video, a developer is trying to promote all the amazing things about the revitalized Regent Park, but a resident interrupts and challenges the developer, in turn providing her own account of what the revitalized Regent Park really is. We modified our idea slightly from the original “honest commercial” to the current “fake infomercial” partly because we needed a way to incorporate heavier research. The developer was a great way of doing so since he could serve as a mouthpiece for the government/developer/those in power. Through his character, we could cite, for example, government reports and news events to inform the audience and concurrently make fun of these things.

July 1969 protests for a wading pool in Regent Park. After discovering this incident in our research, we were able to reference it via the “developer” character in our script. (Photo: Bob Olsen for the Toronto Star)

As we wrote the script, one thing that we kept reminding ourselves was not to impose our ideas onto Sumeya and Aziza’s voices. Although our group has had several conversations and we feel like we get the gist of what Sumeya and Aziza feel, empathy and lived experiences simply are not the same. For example, we wanted to end the script by offering a definition of public space from the residents’ vantage point. We tried to think of one, but our ideas were either imprecise or jargon-heavy. Today, when we asked Sumeya to give us her definition of public space, she responded instantly, “Public space should be shared by the community that the space is in, where residents are able to access it without any difficulties.” Precise, jargon-free, and authentic. We had exactly what we needed.

After drafting the script on Sunday, our entire group met today and Sumeya edited the script. As Sumeya changed some words and added some snarky comments, Professor Mehta offered some helpful suggestions on what to clarify or research further. All of this feedback helped us produce a more nuanced script, one that felt true to someone from Regent Park and simultaneously spoke clearly to other audiences. After all, since our main goal is to raise awareness about the flaws with the revitalization, our final product needs to communicate effectively with those who live outside of Regent Park. Now with our script ready to go, it was time to film.

At least, that’s what we thought. Time was running tight and we unfortunately didn’t manage to shoot anything decent today. However, the thirty minutes or so we spent in the green screen room was very helpful insofar as it gave us the chance to rehearse. Prashansa and Nikki worked diligently as the camerapeople, setting up the right angles and testing the audio. Ron and Sumeya gave Oscar-worthy performances as Mr. Developer and Regent Park Resident respectively. Hopefully, Aziza can join us next week to play another resident. Nevertheless, we were able to go through the script and rehearse our actions. The rehearsal also emphasized the importance of somewhat memorizing our lines, so that we can have a smooth-flowing conversation on camera. We wrapped up with a good sense of how to film our infomercial. As long as we practice the script a few times throughout the week (and as long as Ron brings a snazzy suit), then we should be able to film quite quickly next week and proceed to editing the footage.

Screenshot of our rehearsal footage. We would put up the whole video, but it’s quite embarrassing.

Finally, a note on the materials that we need for our final showcase:

1. Projector

2. White sheet/screen. We might not need this depending on what the wall looks like in the Aquatic Centre party room and how many other groups will be projecting their final products.

3. Laptop and headphones (we will use our own). This brings up the possible issue that we can only have one person listening each time, so we will put subtitles in the video and be prepared to talk to guests during the showcase as they wait to use the headphones.

That’s it from us. Until next time, please remember, “Not everyone has Bell Wi-fi fam!” (If you want to know what that means, come to our final showcase on April 8!)

Aziza, Sumeya, Nikki, Ron, and Prashansa are the Space Jammers.

Beginning the Jam

This week, the Space Jammers focused on beginning production for our commercial, as well as merging our ideas from the past two classes into a cohesive storyboard. Hoping to stay on schedule, we decided to revisit the spots that we scoped out last week to gather material that we could then use for the green screen. We got lucky with two pieces of good news early on today: firstly, that it was not as cold as last week, and secondly (and more excitingly), that the Diva girl Aziza would be joining our group, making us a group of five!

Before leaving to shoot, we met with Dmitri, the Regent Park Focus videographer, who let us borrow a Camcorder and showed us how to use it.

Dmitri teaching Aziza how to use the Camcorder (thanks Dmitri!).

We then bundled up and went on our way to a few key locations: the property purchased by the Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB) slated to be a Catholic School, the Aquatic Centre, Daniel’s Spectrum building, and Regent Park’s new soccer field.

On our walk, Sumeya caught Aziza up to speed on what our idea was, and she was not only on board but also expanded our ideas with us. It was easy then for all of us to continue to bounce ideas back and forth. We further discussed the changes that were seen in the neighbourhood and the experiences the girls and other residents have with the redevelopment. A lot of our conversation revolved around who the newer spaces are built for, and why the change is both good and bad. The girls expressed that these spaces are made for the higher-income, newer and white-r residents, who were also not the most neighbourly. We used this perspective to see how to frame our commercial, as well as to help us UofT students decide how to better focus the research portion of our project.

Ron captured the other Space Jammers at maybe not our proudest moment, somehow walking on the iciest part of the sidewalk on our way to the TCDSB sign.

After taking pictures and videos for about an hour, we were able to cover a good chunk of the neighbourhood and shoot a lot of material. We then returned to the classroom to begin putting our ideas on paper and drafting a storyboard.

During the time we had left in the evening, Sumeya and Aziza worked on making signs that mocked some of the signs we noticed this week and last, such as the “No trespassing or loitering” ones on the TCDSB property. Meanwhile, Nikki worked on drawing out the storyboard while Ron and Prashansa worked on uploading the footage and typing out an outline and script.

A big challenge for us during the plotting session was deciding how to be bold and blunt in our commercial, while also being nuanced and informed. We questioned how bold is too bold, and what tone is most appropriate. In the end, we were able to find a balance between being a parody that is a call-out versus one that is seen as an accusation that would seem distasteful.

On the other hand, the U of T students had already done some scholarly research, as well as compiling articles and social media posts, about the realities of social mixing, public space, and more information on the spots we filmed. We brainstormed on how to apply both research and theory onto our commercial while also keeping its tone and purpose. A lot of discussion went around envisioning an end goal for what we want the project to mean, and who we want it to speak to.

Sumeya and Aziza suggested that for our audience, we frame the commercial towards those who are unaware of what is truly happening in Regent Park. Using that, we then outlined the goals of our commercial to be:

• Help people think critically of the spaces they consume or hear about when it comes to the redevelopment happening in Regent Park.

• Highlight the disconnect between the physical existence of public space versus the access and representations that exist.

• Letting outsiders know so that the voices of Regent Park residents are taken more seriously

This week was definitely productive and presented us with a framework to build our project on. Though we have a lot of work to do ahead - including still needing to finalize that cringe-y jingle - we are very excited to keep going!

Aziza, Sumeya, Nikki, Ron, and Prashansa are the Space Jammers.

Who is the “Public” For Which Public Space is Made For?

Our goal for our class on March 4th was to develop an action plan for moving our project forward and begin conducting research. For us UofT students, we found it important to further our understandings of how the redevelopment of the neighbourhood as impacted accessibility to and use of public space for the neighbourhood’s original residents. Sumeya discussed some of the spaces in Regent Park where she witnesses the most disjuncture in terms of who the public spaces were created for (i.e. Regent Park residents) and who the main users are (i.e. neighbourhood outsiders), namely: the site of the demolished Duke of York Junior Public School; the new soccer field; the Pam McConnell Aquatic Centre; and Daniel Spectrum. We collectively decided to highlight these places in our satirical commercial and, with Sumeya walking us through, we went out to explore them.

Despite the frigid cold and the lack of light, our walk through the neighbourhood and the insight Sumeya shared with us allowed for a more nuanced appreciation of the changing “public” quality of new public spaces in Regent Park. Though these spaces are meant to create a “complete” community in the neighbourhood by equipping it with a variety of amenities and resources, Sumeya told us that people from all over the city come to use them, making it more difficult for the residents of Regent – particularly long-term, pre-development residents – to use them. For instance, a new Catholic elementary school is slated to be developed on the land which the Duke of York Junior Public School was previously located. Here we remembered one of the Diva Girls saying on our first walking tour of the area, “Why would you build a Catholic school in a Muslim neighbourhood?” We questioned the kind of people who will be attracted to the neighbourhood because of this development, and we pondered on the broader role of development in shaping access to new development projects in the neighbourhood.

Prashansa pointing to the space where the new Catholic school will be built.

A “no trespassing” sign sits on the fence that blocks off the land which will be developed into a Catholic school.

In a similar way, the new soccer field exemplifies the challenges that new development brings to the neighbourhood by disrupting historical patterns of use. A park surrounded by residential buildings used to exist on the site, and Sumeya told us how she would sit on the steps to the houses and in the park with her family and friends in the summer. She notes how the new soccer field and condominium buildings lack places to sit, congregate, and socialize, and she no longer uses the space as often as she used to. Neighbourhood outsiders (like the UofT Space Jammers) would not necessarily know this history if they were using the soccer field out of the blue. Ultimately, walking through Regent Park with someone who is deeply familiar with the neighbourhood’s public spaces was an important learning experience for us as we were given insight that only someone with lived experience and connection to the neighbourhood would have.

The new soccer field that used to be a community park surrounded by many residential buildings.

“Toronto ‘NOT FOR’ Regent Park Aquatic Centre!” Sumeya mocked, referencing the dominance of neighbourhood outsiders who use the aquatic centre.

With our walking tour in mind, the spaces we visited above will be the focus of our satirical commercial. It will run for a maximum of three minutes, and we will be utilizing the green screen to produce it. Our next step is to take photos and videos of the spaces we selected to use in our commercial. A few aspects are still up in the air – such as a cringe-worthy jingle, and subtitles to assist viewers at the final showcase – but we want our commercial to evoke critical thinking by being as blunt and sardonic as possible. Outlined below is our production plan:

Pre-production

• March 11 – take photos and videos of the selected spaces in the neighbourhood, decided on what content to use, and develop a rough script

Production

• March 18 – filming in the green screen room

• March 25 – filming in the green screen room

Post-production

• March 25 – editing

• April 1st – editing

Nikki, Ron, Prashansa, and Sumeya are The Space Jammers.

Space Jammers

Let’s start with our team name. We called ourselves the Space Jammers, as a cheeky reference to the classic Michael Jordan movie Space Jam, but it’s more than that. It’s also about interrupting, challenging, and “jamming” the dominant narrative about public spaces in Regent Park. It’s about finding and magnifying the holes in the tales that we are told about these spaces. We hope that our project will make these holes more apparent and, in turn, help us find ways to mend these problems.

Our topic is public space, but what particularly interested Sumeya (the Diva Girl of our group) was the Pam McConnell Aquatic Centre. She told us about her mum lining up at 2 am at a site outside of Regent Park to register for a swimming program. She told us that there were even some people who camped out at the site to ensure that they could enroll in the program. But still, many of the program participants end up being kids from outside of Regent Park. This issue of access sparked lots of questions and highlighted the irreplaceable insight of lived experiences. From this, inklings of a project idea were born.

We are the Space Jammers!

Our preliminary media project is an honest commercial, perhaps of the Aquatic Centre specifically or the revitalization project in general. By honest commercial, we mean a video in the form and style of a commercial, but with content that is true to the lived experiences of Regent Park youths, as opposed to the constructed narrative that those in power attempt to promote. We seemed to agree on the idea rather quickly (Nikki was unfortunately absent, so our idea remains unconfirmed) and thankfully Sumeya was open to different ideas. She even started coming up with a line that she wanted to put in the video. I believe it was something along the lines of, “Here at the Aquatic Centre, we only care about your money.” And yes, she told us that some programs cost up to $200.

Right now, the biggest challenge going forward is probably our technical skills in producing the media project. Some of us have editing experience, but the filming component will be a new venture for most of us. Figuring out how to use the equipment, what to film, how to make a good honest commercial that is both entertaining and critical … These are among the first hurdles that come to mind, but then again we have only just found this idea today. As our meetings progress and more ideas accumulate, we will likely have a more concrete vision of what our project looks like and what technical skills need to be learned.

Nikki, Ron, Prashansa, and Sumeya are The Space Jammers.