Explaining the Impact of Funding on Public Skatepark Design: A Case Study of Skateparks in Hamilton, Ontario by Sam Heaman A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph In partial fulfilment of requirements for the degree of Master of Landscape Architecture Guelph, Ontario, Canada © Sam Heaman, May 2020 ABSTRACT EXPLAINING THE IMPACT OF FUNDING ON PUBLIC SKATEPARK DESIGN: A CASE STUDY OF SKATEPARKS IN HAMILTON, ONTARIO Sam Heaman Advisor: University of Guelph, 2020 Dr. Nadia Amoroso Over the past decade, Hamilton, Ontario has been committed to bringing new and improved skateparks to the city. Some of these projects were funded via the municipal tax base, and others were funded by developer fees. The aim of this study is to determine how support and funding was garnered for these new projects and discern what impact the source of funding has on each project’s final design. This study covers three case studies of skateparks within Hamilton and compare their funding and design to determine how alternative funding impacts public recreational space. Each case includes semi-structured interviews with key informants involved in planning, design and community engagement and secondary analysis of news articles and studies on skateboarding conducted by the City of Hamilton. Findings indicate that funding through developer fees places limits on the location and size of the project, but overall is beneficial from an advocacy standpoint. Key Words: public space, neoliberalism, skateboarding culture, skatepark iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I want to thank the friends that I made in the program, whose support throughout the program was truly indispensable. I have no doubt that Nate’s predictions will come true and we will remain friends for the rest of our careers. I am also indebted to the MLA faculty especially Dr. Nadia Amoroso, whose direction and leadership helped assuage my worries and lend a designer’s eye to my research. Thanks also to Steven Clarke for acting as co-advisor, and to Dr. Nate Perkins for serving on my committee. To Diana Foolen, thank you for performing your responsibilities with patience and grace. I promise to read my emails every day. And thanks also to Dr. Martin Holland for chairing my defense and proving that philosophy has a place in landscape architecture. To the participants, my research would be nothing without your help. Your time and insight brought skateboarding in Hamilton to light in a way that would have been impossible otherwise. A thousand thanks and much love to my family, Mom, Dad & Jessie. Finally, thanks are due to the “staff” at “Guse & Associates” who made me feel wanted and helpful, even if all I ever did was go on coffee runs. Go flamingos. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ............................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ............................................................................................................iv List of Tables .................................................................................................................. vii List of Figures ................................................................................................................ viii List of Appendices ...........................................................................................................ix CHAPTER 1 l INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1 1.1 l OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 l THESIS OUTLINE ............................................................................................ 3 CHAPTER 2 l LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 5 2.1 l PURPOSE OF LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................... 5 2.2 l THE ADVANCE OF SKATEBOARDING AND OPPOSITIONALITY .................... 5 2.3 l SKATEBOARDING AND NEOLIBERALISM ...................................................... 9 2.4 l CASES AND TECHNIQUES OF ADVOCATING FOR SKATEPARKS .............. 16 2.5 l A CONTEXTUALISATION OF NEOLIBERALISM IN CANADA ......................... 18 CHAPTER 3 l THE CURRENT STUDY ......................................................................... 22 3.1 l PROBLEM ......................................................................................................... 22 3.2 l RESEARCH GOAL ............................................................................................ 22 3.3 l RESEARCH QUESTION ................................................................................... 22 3.4 l RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 23 CHAPTER 4 l METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 24 4.1 l CASE STUDY APPROACH ............................................................................... 24 v 4.2.1 l CASE STUDY SITE SELECTION CRITERIA .............................................. 24 4.2 l SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ....................................................................... 25 4.3 l KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ...................................................................... 25 CHAPTER 5 l RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................... 29 5.1 l BEASLEY PARK ................................................................................................ 29 5.1.1 l HISTORY .................................................................................................... 29 5.1.2 l PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................ 31 5.1.3 l SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................. 32 5.1.4 l KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ................................................................ 39 5.2 l TURNER PARK ................................................................................................. 49 5.2.1 l HISTORY .................................................................................................... 49 5.2.2 l PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................ 50 5.2.3 l SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................. 51 5.2.4 l KEY INFORMANT DATA ............................................................................ 56 5.3 l VALLEY PARK ................................................................................................... 62 5.3.1 l HISTORY .................................................................................................... 62 5.3.2 l PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................ 64 5.3.3 l SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS ................................................................. 65 5.3.4 l KEY INFORMANT DATA ............................................................................ 69 5.4 l CHAPTER OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 78 CHAPTER 6 l DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS .............................................................. 79 6.1 l FUNDING........................................................................................................... 79 6.1.1 l BEASLEY PARK ......................................................................................... 79 6.1.2 l TURNER PARK ........................................................................................... 81 vi 6.1.3 l VALLEY PARK ............................................................................................ 82 6.2 l ADVOCACY ....................................................................................................... 83 6.2.1 l COMMUNITY DESIGN................................................................................ 84 6.2.2 l COMMUNITY BUILDING ............................................................................ 85 6.2.3 l ACESSIBILITY ............................................................................................ 86 6.2.4 l ALTERNATIVE FUNDING........................................................................... 86 6.2.5 l NEED / DEMAND ........................................................................................ 87 5.2.6 l SKATEBOARDING CULTURE ................................................................ 88 6.2.7 l YOUTH HEALTH ......................................................................................... 89 6.2.8 l FOSTERING ENTREPRENEURIALISM ..................................................... 89 6.2.9 l URBAN REDEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 89 6.2.10 l SURVEILLANCE ....................................................................................... 90 6.2.11 l SKATEPARK SIZE .................................................................................... 91 6.2.12 l LEGACY CONSERVATION ...................................................................... 91 6.3 l CHAPTER OVERVIEW ..................................................................................... 91 CHAPTER 7 l CONCLUSION ....................................................................................... 92 7.1 l LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................