Community Space and Youth There Are Many

Community Space and Youth

There are many benefits for young people when public space is made available, or when citizens work together to both pressure government and work with government and business to establish quality space. Public access should not be denied to young people and as a youth says on page 7 of Another Winter, Another Spring (Social Planning Toronto -- SPT), "Schools shouldn't be charging for the use of space." In Whitehorse, volunteers proved that with a firm goal in mind, change can be accomplished and young people can be afforded quality space for their activities. The volunteers have worked within the system -- embracing members of the business community and others from government to establish a space for the visual and performing arts (Canadian Case Studies).

Today there is a well-functioning Yukon Arts Centre, open year-round, hosting theatre presentations, music events, and even training for young would-be artists (Canadian Case Studies). This is classic community cooperation within the framework of community development. Another example of creating quality space for youth is the Saskatoon Communities for Children, which holistically provides support for the "physical, mental, spiritual and emotional well-being of children, families, and communities" (Canadian Case Studies).

What are some of the barriers that youth go up against when they try to get access to public spaces? In SPT, young people have several objected to the slow bureaucracy (filling out forms, making arrangements for security), to the unclear rules, to the "limited flexibility" and the number of months ahead of time that youth have to secure permission to use the space. Moreover, when successful booking has been done and youth are gathered at some public spaces, they feel the video camera that monitor their activities demonstrate "a lack of trust" (SPT).

Beyond the above-mentioned restrictions, on page 9 of SPT youth justifiably complain that there is a lack of respect for them and there is discrimination (based on gender identity, disabilities, age and ethno-racial makeup), there are activities that are not appropriate to youth and are "not reflective of their interests."

In the Journal of Community Development Society (Raphael, et al., 2001, pp. 310-311) the authors discuss quality of life situations in Toronto's low-income neighborhoods. Several reasons that understanding the dynamics of community structures is important in low-income communities -- outlined by the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion -- include: a) citizens have a right to a healthy quality of life; b) without social justice, a community cannot become truly healthy; c) social exclusion is an unhealthy policy for a community; d) when there is a great deal of unemployment, that community cannot be considered a healthy one (Raphael, 311).

In the study of Lawrence Heights that Raphael and colleagues conducted, young people spoke out about the quality of life they appreciated, including having the right to the things adults have access to: a) shopping and a variety of activities; b) health center services; c) recreational facilities; d) open space and parks with trees and room to play; e) a sense of neighborliness and caring; f) public transportation; and g) adequate educational opportunities (Raphael, 315-316).

Why so few protests about poor conditions in Lawrence Heights? The community is "isolated from more well-off communities around it" and Lawrence Heights is "much more diverse and residents have not established a stable community"; moreover, there are not many businesses that allow culturally appropriate amenities "to be easily available" (Raphael, 326).