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.