block parties in the HRM by owen mccabe

Block Parties In The Halifax Regional Municipality:

Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Block Parties In The Halifax Regional Municipality: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility Author: Owen McCabe Advisor: Dr. Susan Guppy Instructor: Dr. Eric Rapaport Dalhousie School Of Planning Halifax, Nova Scotia PLAN4500: Thesis Project Winter 2011

Contents

Acknowledgements

I would like to extend my gratitude and appreciation to all those who provided their invaluable insights into the intricacies of block parties; to the HRM’s Traffic & Right-of-Way Services and ‘Good Neighbours, Great Neighbourhoods’ program co-ordinators; to the School of Planning faculty, specifically Susan - whose wisdom and ability to both clarify my thoughts and calm my nerves made this work possible and Eric - whose enthusiasm and expertise was endless; to my family for their constant support and care; and to Adrienne for always providing comfort and confidence when I need it most.

In cities the world over ordinary citizens are realizing their abilities to act not only as consumers of the city, but as active producers of it. Through engaging in collective, playful, and temporary appropriations that change the city in accordance with their desires, citizens create small-scale changes that are meaningful, immediate, and enduring. Through an examination of block parties in the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM), this study explores one expression of this larger assemblage of actions. It presents the patterns of usage, meaning, and possibility that characterize block parties in the HRM. These patterns evince (1) the significant presence of block parties, (2) the positive effects and outcomes this type of action engenders, and (3) the ability of planning to encourage and enable this approach to changing the city.

Abstract

This work begins from the premise that the city, in its fluidity, is simultaneously shaped by forces both immense and infinitesimal. While large-scale forces such as economy may have the most pronounced effects on our cities, the small-scale actions of ordinary citizens can exact equal, though perhaps more subtle effects. The expressions of this sentiment are increasingly seen across many cities in the form of the ‘actions’ that emerge from the following formula:

While these attributes find endless expression and variety in an infinite number of ‘actions’, the formula contains one constant - the desire of citizens to change the city - and, an overarching context - the imaginative, simple, and informal approaches available to citizens. who: you what: change where: the city when: now how: do it yourself - Keffer (2010)

The purpose of this study is to understand (1) the occurrence and the outcomes of these types of ‘actions’, and (2) the potentials they provide from the perspective of planning. To achieve these understandings, block parties in the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) form the focus of this study on account of their characteristics which situate them as both a subset of ‘actions’ and as a product of a planning framework the ‘Block Party Permit’ - that encourages and enables their occurrence.

Executive Summary The patterns of usage, meaning, and possibility that emerge from block parties in the HRM form the findings which enable the study’s purpose to be met. To generate findings concerning these three patterns, a mixed methods approach was employed. This consisted of (1) a review and synthesis of relevant literature, (2) a collection and analysis of quantitative data on the use of the ‘Block Party Permit’, (3) a collection and analysis of qualitative data from semi-structured interviews with block party organizers, and (4) the subsequent analysis on the basis of the interrelations between the literature and the quantitative and qualitative findings. These methods produce three key findings:

(1) Block parties maintain an active and sustained presence in the HRM. From 2004-2010, 137 streets played host to 381 block parties - an average of 54 block parties per year. Further, of all streets active in 2010, 58% were also active in 2004, indicating a strong level of continual action.

(3) The Block Party Permit process is evaluated positively from the perspective of both planners and organizers. In enabling and encouraging a form of ‘actions’, the HRM’s approach to empowering citizens to act as producers of their city is a useful model that provokes thought concerning the possibilities an ‘actions’ approach can provide for planners.

(2) The immediate and enduring impacts of block parties on community capacities are significant. Through their playful approach to the temporary transformation of their streets’ sociospatial consistencies, citizens create connections that engender a sense of community and cohesiveness that provides possibilities for further co-operation and action.

These findings substantiate the notion that the smallscale ‘actions’ of ordinary citizens can have meaningful impacts, and, that planners can play a role in providing a framework which directs but does not define how citizens’ desires for a different city are explored and expressed through the approach and ethic embodied in ‘actions’.

Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1.1 - Changing the City 1.2 - Block Parties in the HRM 1.3 - Research Question & Goals 1.4 - Outline

p. 4 p. 6 p. 8 p. 9

2.0 Literature Review 2.1 - The Block Party & ‘Actions’ 2.2 - Theory & Themes 2.3 - Planning & Practice

p. 12 p. 13 p. 15

3.0 Methods 3.1 - Approach 3.2 - Methods 3.3 - Discussion

p. 18 p. 18 p. 18

4.0 Usage 4.1 - Overview 4.2 - Quantity 4.3 - Location 4.4 - Annual Distribution & Last Activity 4.5 - Frequency & Longevity 4.6 - Demographics 4.7 - Discussion

p. 22 p. 22 p. 24 p. 26 p. 28 p. 30 p. 34

5.0 Meaning 5.1 - Overview 5.2 - Street Profiles 5.3 - Descriptive Analysis 5.4 - Thematic Analysis

p. 38 p. 38 p. 44 p. 52

6.0 Possibility 6.1 - Overview 6.2 - The Permit: Planners’ & Organizers’ Perspectives 6.3 - Possibility: An ‘Actions’ Approach

p. 60 p. 60 p. 63

7.0 Conclusions 7.1 - Conclusions

p. 66

References & Appendices Academic Sources Data Sources Photographs Appendix A - Block Party Permit Information Appendix B - Block Party Permit Usage By Year Appendix C - Block Party Permit Usage By Geography

p. 70 p. 72 p. 72 p. 76 p. 78 p. 92

1.1 - Changing the City 1.2 - Block Parties in the HRM 1.3 - Research Question & Goals 1.4 - Outline

1.0 Introduction

1.0 Introduction 1.1

Changing the City

The city is a fluid entity subject to the infinite forces that constantly act upon it. While our cities are often shaped by large-scale forces such as economy, they are equally - though perhaps more subtly - shaped by the comparatively small-scale actions of ordinary citizens. There is a growing awareness of the impact these actions can exact, and, of their utility as an approach to instigating and initiating meaningful change in the city. In DIY Urbanism: Testing the Grounds for Social Change, Ruth Keffer (2010) addresses the awareness of this approach to changing the city by asserting a simple and succinct formula that describes the process by which this type of change can occur:

who: you what: change where: the city when: now how: do it yourself The formula arises from a central desire to position people not simply as consumers of the city, but as citizens with the abilities to be actively involved in its ongoing change and production (Zardini, 2008). While Keffer’s formula contains one constant - the

desire to act and change the city - and, an overarching context - the imaginative, simple, and informal approaches available to ordinary citizens - the other variables contain a wide spectrum of potentials:

who: individual / small group / organization what: change (the constant) where: site / street / neighbourhood / city / region when: immediate / ephemeral / medium-term / long-term how: various possibilities This expanded formula creates an almost infinite array of possible combinations and expressions. In their totality, these possibilities are termed ‘actions’. While the nature of ‘actions’ as a construct is therefore fluid and amorphous, its infinite expressions are bound by a singular commonality: they all propose a different reality, and, in acting to express this desire through imaginative, simple, and informal approaches, they trigger a temporary ‘disturbance’ in the city’s sociospatial consistencies (Borasi, 2008). ‘Actions’ are a way citizens engage and explore what the city could possibly be, and in their occurrence, propose ways of getting there. This study focuses on one particular way ordinary citizens can produce a space that triggers a ‘disturbance’ that has the potential to change the city: the block party.

The characteristics of a block party are expressed in the very nature of its name: it involves closing a block of a city street to vehicular traffic for the purposes of a party. When situated within the possibilities in Keffer’s expanded formula, the block party finds itself on the smaller side of the spectrum’s scale. It is an act of individuals or small groups, an occurrence at the scale of the site and the street, and an action that is both immediate and ephemeral.

Block parties, while understood within the overall context of ‘actions’ in this sense, also present a key difference which adds another layer of interest. Block parties are often enabled and encouraged by the institutional structures of municipal governments. This is the case in the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) whose block parties - which occur through the use of the Block Party Permit - fit both of these contexts and therefore form the focus of this study. This study of block parties in the HRM then, provides an opportunity to understand (1) the intricacies of the occurrence and outcomes of particular subset of ‘actions’, and (2) the effect planners exact in enabling and encouraging citizens to engage in this type of approach to changing the city.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

“Guerilla Gardening” photo credit: http://publicspace.ca/gardenerspics2006

“Critical Mass” photo credit: http://flickr.com/photos/sgtfun/

“Intersection Repair” photo credit: http://cityrepair.org/

“Better Block Project” photo credit: http://fortworthology.com

‘Actions’ - (A Few) Examples of ‘Changing the City’ 5

1.0 Introduction 1.2

Block Parties in the HRM

Located in the province of Nova Scotia, the Halifax Regional Municipality (HRM) is the largest population centre in Atlantic Canada. While the region has a long and storied history, the HRM was formed quite recently through an amalgamation process in 1996. This process placed an area of 5,490 km2 - comprising rural, suburban, and urban communities - under a unified municipal framework. Any large-scale change of this sort is bound to be accompanied by challenges. In many areas of the HRM, concerns about belonging, connection, cohesion, and citizen satisfaction with the regional nature of the municipality linger. These concerns are not only felt at the regional scale, however; as in other contemporary cities, concerns about belonging, connection, and cohesion manifest themselves within the many neighbourhoods and communities that exist throughout the HRM. The HRM is cognizant of this context and has developed strategies to address it. Indeed, their Community Development department has “building strong communities throughout the municipality” as one of its mandates. While it is responsible for the HRM’s large-scale regional planning, it also maintains a focus on small-scale initiatives that “empower and organize communities [by] fostering active civic engagement” (http://halifax.ca/communi-

tydevelopment). One of the small-scale initiatives that addresses “building strong communities” through “active civic engagement” is ‘Good Neighbours, Great Neighbourhoods’ (GNGN). Initiated in 2008, the GNGN program was developed to coordinate and make more accessible the various initiatives that encourage civic engagement in the HRM. GNGN encourages “people who want to make a personal commitment to doing small but significant neighbourly acts that make their neighbourhoods great places to live, work and play” (http://myhrm.ca/ about). One of the initiatives that enables this kind of action is the Block Party Permit. The GNGN program positions the Block Party Permit as an opportunity for citizens to “invite their neighbours and families to get together for a party on their street [that has been] closed off to vehicle traffic” (http://myhrm.ca). In this way, GNGN engages in enabling and encouraging a type of ‘action’. Citizens of the HRM are able to transform the sociospatial nature of their street in a playful and temporary way. In so doing, citizens are actively producing a space in which their desires for a different kind of city, a different kind of neighbourhood, and a different kind of street can be experienced.

While the Block Party Permit is a tool to encourage action, it is also a tool of regulation. It contains restraints and requirements that shape the contexts and conditions in which block parties can occur. There are a few restrictions that categorically preclude certain streets from holding block parties: namely, major arterial roads and streets that are used as Metro Transit and Emergency Service Vehicle routes are not permitted to be closed. Outside of this restriction though, the main requirement is agreement amongst all residents who are potentially affected. To gain a permit, an organizer must submit the signature of a resident from each unit located in the portion of the street to be closed. This requirement applies only to first-time block parties, block parties that have had a hiatus of year or more, or block parties that have generated complaints. While these are the essential elements of the permit, a fuller sense of its details may be found in Appendix A. On account of their ability to be understood in the context of ‘actions’, and, as an example of planners providing a framework that capacitates citizens to engage and act in such a manner, block parties in the HRM form the focus of this study.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

A Block Party in the HRM 7

1.0 Introduction 1.3

Research Question & Goals

Research Question This study explores block parties in the Halifax Regional Municipality which occur through the use of the Block Party Permit as a way to achieve understandings of two main issues. The first concerns the block party as a specific subset of ‘actions’. Block parties provide insights into the ways citizens produce these types of spaces, and, into the outcomes that occur as a result of their production - that is to say, their meanings. The second concerns the place of planning in this context. The Block Party Permit provides insight as to the ability of planners to encourage and enable ‘actions’ in general and block parties in specific as an approach to community- and city-building - that is to say, their possibilities. To achieve understandings of these issues, the following research question is posed:

What are the patterns of usage, meaning, and possibility that emerge from the Halifax Regional Municipality’s ‘Block Party Permit’?

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

1.4 Usage - Patterns of usage refers to understanding

Research Goals

the spatial and temporal patterns that define the use

This study is guided by the following set of goals:

of the Block Party Permit in the HRM. These understandings set the overall context by providing a picture

1. situate block parties within the larger discourse on ‘actions’

of the presence of block parties in the HRM.

Meaning - Patterns of meaning refers to understanding why and how citizens engage in a particular subset of ‘actions’ and understanding the results of

2. delineate the spatiotemporal patterns of Block Party Permit usage in the HRM

Outline

This study addresses its research question in three main parts: a review of pertinent literature (Chapter 2.0), an explanation of the methods employed (Chapter 3.0), and a presentation of the findings concerning usage (Chapter 4.0), meaning (Chapter 5.0), and possibility (Chapter 6.0). It concludes with a review of salient findings and a proposals for further study and action (Chapter 7.0).

3. explain patterns of meaning in terms of the intents, contents, and outcomes

this engagement. The reasons citizens act to organize block parties (intents), the way in which these reasons manifest themselves via block parties (contents), and

4. address the utility of enabling and encouraging citizen action as an approach to planning

the consistencies of change block parties bring about (outcomes) are all considered in this regard.

Possibility - Patterns of possibility refers to understanding the interplay between city and citizen in the context of the Block Party Permit. The effectiveness of the Block Party Permit as a tool to encourage and empower citizens to act as producers of their city, and, the utility of this approach from the perspective of planning are considered in this regard.

This chapter expands on the ideas explored in the introduction in order to provide a sound context and basis for the analysis of block parties in the HRM that follows. To do so, it discusses the commonalities between the block party and theoretical discourse on pertinent aspects of ‘actions’. It posits playfulness, temporary change and possibility, and community creation as the attributes block parties share with many ‘actions’. Through examining these three themes, as well as the relationship between the approach embodied in ‘actions’ and planning, this chapter provides a framework that informs the study of the meanings and possibilities produced by block parties in the HRM. 2.1 - The Block Party & ‘Actions’ 2.2 - Theory & Themes 2.3 - Planning & Practice

2.0 Literature Review

2.0 Literature Review 2.1

The Block Party & ‘Actions’

While the popularity and prominence of block parties across many North American neighbourhoods is substantial, there is a lack of literature that addresses them with any depth or focus. When they are addressed in academic contexts, it is often in the form of a short and pointed comment that remarks on the block party as an indicator of socially cohesive neighbourhoods (Forrest & Kearns, 2001, p. 2134; Putnam, 2000, p. 415). If theorists identify block parties as a factor in the creation and recognition of strong communities, surely they deserve further research. The absence of a cohesive theoretical discourse on block parties requires the development of a framework for their analysis. This literature review serves this purpose and proposes particular aspects of the broad discourse on ‘actions’ as a means of structuring the study of the meanings and possibilities produced by block parties in the HRM. The encompassing nature of ‘actions’ - the varied means and methods ordinary citizens employ to change the city in accordance with desires - tends to lend itself to endless interpretations. It speaks to an infinite range of interventions and possible expressions - from sprinkling seeds on a vacant lot to massive pillow fights in public squares to the transformation of parking lots into playgrounds.

This wide-range of possibilities accounts for the multiple perspectives that comprise the broad discourse that addresses ‘actions’. In recent years, writing on the subject has proliferated. Many authors offer their perspective and attach their preferred nomenclature: ‘temporary urbanism’ (Temel, 2006), ‘participatory urban actions’ (Petrescu, 2007), ‘DIY Urbanism’ (Page, 2008), ‘the right to the city’ (Harvey, 2008), ‘actions’ (Zardini, 2008), ‘insurgent public space’ (Hou, 2010), ‘participatory urbanism’ (Passmore, 2010), ‘tactical urbanism’ (Bartman, et. al, 2011). While the perspectives of these authors are diverse, in their totality they touch on three essential elements of ‘actions’ that can aid in understanding block parties: (1) the use of a playful approach and atmosphere, (2) the temporary appropriation of the city for the exploration of desires and possibilities, and (3) the provision of space for the creation of connections and community. By extracting these common attributes, the connection between ‘actions’ and block parties is clear. While block parties are largely absent in academic literature, their presence throughout many communities and cities makes their general characteristics well-known. Block parties are playful in atmosphere and approach, are

temporary in nature, and explore different sociospatial possibilities that emerge from and engender a strong sense of local community. When a group of neighbours decide to close their street for a block party, they are engaging attributes that comprise the approach shared by many ‘actions’. The block party, while a certain expression of these attributes, also presents a disjunct with the ‘actions’ discourse. Block parties often occur through an institutional instrument - the permit. While regulation is a notion that would seem antithetical to ‘actions’, in the case of the block party it presents a curious case to consider - especially as ‘actions’ gain currency as an approach to changing the city from the perspective of cultural institutions and city agencies (Passmore, 2010). As an ‘action’ that is enabled and encouraged by an institution, the block party presents an interesting opportunity to understand the effect of institutional influence, and, to assert the possibilities and capacities this influence can provide. The following discussion of the thematic attributes shared by ‘actions’ and block parties (Section 2.2) and the discussion of the role of planning in supporting ‘actions’ as an approach (Section 2.3) will provide a framework within which block parties in the Halifax Regional Municipality can be understood and evaluated.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

2.2

Theory & Themes

2.2.1 Playfulness In an essay entitled “The Nature and Significance of Play as a Cultural Phenomenon,” John Huizinga (1955) asserts that “all play means something.” While we may not immediately recognize the meaning inherent in our playful actions, they are at their heart a “route outside everyday experience, if only for a moment” where those involved are able to observe and act out a different set of social and spatial relations (Shepard, 2005, p. 50). For these reasons, playfulness is an attribute that many ‘actions’ adopt as an approach to intervention and temporary change. Unlike, for example, a political organization which develops an agenda and attempts to attract people toward it, the approach embodied by ‘actions’ - in its playfulness - creates a neutral and inviting space which allows the potential, eventual, and casual emergence of agendas (Putnam & Feldstein, 2004). As an approach, playfulness is a strategy to invite inclusive experimentation and to create an atmosphere in which collective attempts at things that are otherwise difficult or dissuasive become easier. By turning spaces of function into spaces of delight, playful spaces become forums for the expression of creativity, the exploration of difference, and the forging of connections and relationships (Saitta, 2009). In this way,

play acts as a community-building strategy and approach to change (Berkowitz, 2003; Shepard, 2005; Herrmann, 2006). Berkowitz (2003) positions playful and celebratory events as different from the traditional issue- and interest-based approaches to change and community-building. While it may be common for people to rally around issues that threaten them or interests that connect them, play and celebration “reach and touch the human spirit as few conventional organizing activities can” (p. 52). The unconventional and unassuming nature of play is inviting and inclusive; these characteristics provide ‘actions’ with the strategic capacity to allow communities to “have fun while getting serious” (Merrifield, 2006, p. 56).

that other approaches to change do not. ‘Actions’ utilize Bunschoten’s (2003) concept of ‘metaspace’. In seeing the city as a “plastic environment that undergoes constant change,” Bunschoten promotes the engagement of this condition through the ‘metaspace’ - “a fluid form of public space that evolves in time, generating different definitions of space and different ways of participating in it” (p. 60). This approach to changing the city enables the expression and the experience of alternative possibilities, charging spaces within meanings they did not previously hold (Haydn & Temel, 2006). Lupo & Postiglione (2010) offer the following comment on the place of temporary transformation in expressing desires and alternative possibilities:

2.2.2 Temporary Change & Possibility The desire for difference drives all ‘actions’. The transformation of space is the way many ‘actions’ make their desire for change a reality, if only temporarily. Like playfulness, there is a utility that underlies this approach to change. ‘Actions’ are undertaken by ordinary citizens with limited resources. In this context, employing simple, inexpensive, and easily implementable methods is a realistic and apt approach. Temporary transformation is not simply a last alternative used out of necessity, however. It offers a way of experiencing and addressing alternative possibilities with an immediacy

“These ... actions [are] capable of giving visibility and responses to the needs and forgotten desires of an ‘insurgent’ city looking for structures, which is not understood in an exclusively subversive or protesting sense, but as a collective intentionality ... connecting people, culture, and places in a common ‘discourse’ about the social construction of the city, its identity and memory” (p. 2). There is infinite variability when considering the contents of ‘actions’ and the temporary changes they produce. Lupo & Postiglione’s reminder that these possi-

2.0 Literature Review

bilities need not be radical or subversive is important to consider. There is a tendency in the literature to imbue the discourse with a tinge of militarism - the ‘insurgency’ of Hou (2010) and Holston (1998) and the ‘tactics’ of Saitta (2009) - and to frame all ‘actions’ as responses to the failings of modernist planning and globalized capitalism (Corijn & Groth, 2005; Harvey, 2008; Hou, 2010). While these interpretations are relevant, if their dominance overwhelms the conversation, the larger, though simpler, picture is obscured. That simpler picture is this: the city can be different, and we can create spaces to experience this desired difference, if only temporarily. ‘Actions’ offer an incredibly varied range of possibilities that enable citizens to rethink their role and ability in shaping and producing change in and to the city. By temporarily injecting spaces with new functions and meanings (Hou, 2010), ‘actions’ enable the experience of what the city could possibly be - dislodging the idea that things cannot change (Borasi, 2008).

2.2.3 Community Creation ‘Actions’ are seldom individual endeavours; interaction is implicit in their very nature. The effort involved in organizing and acting to address a desire requires inward

collaboration (acting together to create change) and outward expression (engaging others in the experience of said change). ‘Actions’ become a “social engine,” creating community and connections simply by virtue of occurring (Lupo & Postiglione, 2010). ‘Actions’ are simultaneously social and spatial interventions. In acting to express a desire for difference in this context, ‘actions’, while an expression of the imagination and creativity of citizens, also contain implicit criticisms of the city’s currently existing sociospatial consistencies (Chen, 2010). In these implicit criticisms, there emerges a connection to the discourse widely termed the ‘decline of community thesis’ (Herrmann, 2006). Works such as Sennett’s The Fall of Public Man (1976), Oldenburg’s The Great Good Place (1989), and Putnam’s Bowling Alone (2000), all discuss the causes for the decline of community in contemporary society while offering advice for its remedy. The subjects their theories speak to - the decline of the public realm, the decline in the role and ability of the citizen, and the decline in connections between people - are often present in the desires that drive many ‘actions’. While ‘actions’ are inherently interactive, many often house a more directly stated desire to foster and further a sense of local community. Community and connection are often identified in the outcomes ‘actions’ produce. In this sense their effects

can be understood through Putnam’s (2000) notion of social capital. Social capital refers to “the networks of relationships that weave individuals into groups and communities” that can therefore “reach goals that would have been far beyond the grasp of individuals in isolation” (Putnam & Feldstein, 2003, p. 2). The creation of social capital is often an outcome of ‘actions’ and it imbues them with an influence that remains in the connections it forges between people in the process of occurring. While the majority of ‘actions’ are temporary and ephemeral, their impacts on community are not. As Lupo & Postiglione (2010) assert, temporary change can produce - in addition to its immediate effects - enduring effects on community: “although ... actions are mainly temporary conversions ... they are capable of generating consequences that are not ephemeral but permanent and consistent, investing not so much [in] the physical and materials realms but intangible aspects of community building (identity and sense of belonging)” (p. 2). ‘Actions’ leave behind “enduring traces” and “networks of action” that have the potential to prolong their initial and immediate effects; the strengthening of community and the opportunities that this engenders for further and future collective endeavours are key to the utility of ‘actions’ (Temel, 2006, p. 60).

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

2.3

Planning & Practice

“Healthy cities do not exist, rather they must be created” (Semenza, 2006, p. 459). Susan Fainstein (2005) contends that a central objective of planning theory is to formulate ideas of what the ‘better city’ might be, and, to propose the frameworks that can create the conditions whereby conscious human activity can actively produce this ‘better city’. She is not alone in this contention. In the same vein, Holston (1998) proclaims the need for planning to develop a new ‘activist social imagination’. Douglass and Friedmann (1998) assert that planning can “make room for active citizen participation ... [and] allow for difference in the construction of the built environment” (p. 1). Hosykns (2005) proposes the potential planning has to “develop the role of people as citizens, instead of users” (p. 123). The desire to shift theory away from positioning planning as an ‘instrument of control’ to one of ‘innovation’ and ‘action’ which promotes the participation of citizens and communities in shaping their city is shared my many (Friedmann, 2003). How can these propositions for approaches to planning translate into practice? Enabling and encouraging the ethic embodied in ‘actions’ is one possibility.

This approach is predicated upon situating citizens as indisputable ‘producers’ of the city; moving away from strategies that simply ‘involve’ to strategies that ‘empower’ (Page, 2008). Petrescu (2005) asserts that meaningful change cannot come solely from centralized structures and governmental bodies. Instead, planning should seek to include and embolden the ‘microscopic attempts’ to express individual and collective desires that seek to change the city. In their occurrence, ‘actions’ make the desires of citizens visible, plant the seeds for their existence as possibilities, and foster the connections which have the potential to lead to their existence as future lived realities. In this way, as Temel (2006) proposes, ‘actions’ can “contribute to a city’s development as ‘bottom-up’ planning instruments, as oppositional instruments to counter traditional planning from above” (p. 58). Morales (2010) echoes the utility of ‘actions‘ as an instrument to achieve planning-related goals. His perspective promotes ‘self-governance’ - that is, leaving rule-making to those “on the ground” - as a way to shift cities toward facilitating services rather than being their sole provider (p. 194). Morales goes further, asserting:

Some planners are indeed asking themselves this question and positing some possibilities for accommodating this alternative approach. Page (2008) offers a three-pronged strategy: (1) emphasize and develop creative ideas that can be achieved at the community level through citizen-based ‘actions’, (2) remove the barriers that prevent these ‘actions’ from occurring, and (3) construct frameworks that enable and encourage their implementation. With its focus on small-scale initiatives that empower and enable citizens to create change in the city, the HRM’s ‘Good Neighbours, Great Neighbourhoods’ program engages Page’s approach. It emphasizes creative ideas - namely, the block party - that are understood through the lens of ‘actions’ and provides a framework that enables and encourages their enacting. For these reasons, block parties in the Halifax Regional Municipality present a pertinent opportunity for the study of the meanings of ‘actions’, and, their possibilities from the perspective of planning.

“planners should ask themselves what part of their plans or programs might be taken up by citizens, not only for the costs savings but for the multitude of positive benefits of ... participation” (p. 194).

This chapter details the approach and methods employed in producing the findings that constitute this study.

3.1 - Approach 3.2 - Methods 3.3 - Discussion

3.0 Methods

3.0 Methods 3.1

Approach

In researching the patterns of usage, meaning, and possibility that emerge from the HRM’s Block Party Permit, multiple methods of investigation were necessary. To this end, a “mixed methods approach” that combined and associated quantitative and qualitative methods was employed (Creswell, 2009). Chronologically, this entailed: (1) a review and synthesis of relevant literature, (2) a collection and analysis of quantitative data, (3) a collection and analysis of qualitative data informed by the findings of the quantitative analysis, and (4) the subsequent analysis on the basis of the interrelations between the literature and the quantitative and qualitative findings. The details of the methods that make up this overall approach are discussed in greater detail in the following section.

3.2

Methods

3.2.1 Literature Review On account of the lack of literature that directly addresses block parties, the larger discourse on ‘actions’ was used to frame the block party and structure its analysis (Section 2.1). This review produced three common and

overarching attributes shared by ‘actions’ and block parties: playfulness, temporary change and possibility, and community creation (Section 2.2). These attributes served to inform not only the intentions of the qualitative study, but also the basis from which theory and practice were compared and contrasted (Section 5.4). The literature review also informed perspectives on the potential relationship between planning and ‘actions’ in general, and, planning and the block party in specific (Section 2.3; Chapter 6.0).

into a series of descriptive statistics regarding quantity, location, annual distribution, frequency and longevity, and demographics. Additionally, to understand the influence of demographics on the usage, data from the Canadian Census (2006) was collected and mapped against the use the Block Party Permit. These methods produced an encompassed understanding of the presence and significance of block parties in the HRM (Chapter 4.0; Appendices B & C).

3.2.2 Quantitative Research

3.2.3 Qualitative Research

Prior to analyzing the relationship between block parties in theory and the block parties in practice however, understanding their actual extent and the character of their usage was required. That is, it first had to be established that block parties were an active and significant phenomenon in the HRM. This was achieved through the collection and analysis - both spatial and statistical - of quantitative data.

With established understandings of the theoretical discourse surrounding block parties and their presence as an active occurrence in the HRM, qualitative methods were employed to delve deeper into the meanings and possibilities the block parties in the HRM present. The main methods employed in this capacity were the collection of data through qualitative interviews with block party organizers and representatives of the HRM, and, the subsequent study of this data through content analysis.

The Halifax Regional Municipality’s Traffic and Rightof-Way Services - the department responsible for accepting and approving Block Party Permit applications - has kept a detailed database of the permit’s usage from 2004-2010. The information provided through this database was digitized, mapped, and transformed

The qualitative interviews, guided by Patton’s (2002) “general interview guide approach” (p. 342), were semistructured and conversational in nature. In the interviews administered to representatives from the HRM

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

3.3 - one planner and two councillors - interviewees were asked to elaborate on the their sense of what the Block Party Permit provides both to the citizens and to the municipality. The responses were used to inform the discussion of the possibilities from the perspective of planning (Chapter 6.0). In the interviews administered to block party organizers, interviewees were asked to provide their perspectives concerning intents (why they organize block parties), contents (what happens at block parties), and outcomes (what effects block parties engender). These questions offered an encompassed comprehension of block parties and allowed for an understanding of the place of playfulness, temporary change and possibility, and community creation in organizers’ perspectives to emerge implicitly. Organizers were also asked for to evaluate the process involved in obtaining a Block Party Permit from the HRM. The interview was administered to a sample of eight block party organizers. This sample was constructed first by placing a geographic limitation on the streets considered (those on Peninsular Halifax, on the basis of quantitative findings indicating this area as the location of the highest, most frequent, and most sustained permit usage), and second through a combination of convenience and snowball sampling techniques (this

sample is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.2). Once this qualitative data was collected and transcribed, content analysis was employed to identify the common patterns and themes that emerged from organizers’ responses (Boyce & Neale, 2006). A description of their collective perspectives concerning intents, contents and outcomes (Section 5.3) was followed by an analysis of these perspectives against the larger discourse on ‘actions’ and the attributes of playfulness, temporary change and possibility, and community creation embodied by the block party (Section 5.4). On the basis of these patterns of meaning, and using the same set of methods, the research moved to a study of the patterns of possibilities. The perspectives of organizers, planners, and councillors regarding both the permit’s practicalities and possibilities were subjected to content analysis and subsequently compared and contrasted with the theoretical discourse on the relationship between planning and ‘actions’ (Section 2.3). This comparison produced an argument for the block party in specific and ‘actions’ in general as instructive in generating and informing an approach to planning and city-building (Chapter 6.0).

Discussion

While the methods employed in this study are sound and the results they produced substantial, they present only a starting point for the study of block parties in general and the Block Party Permit in the HRM in specific. Indeed, viewing this study as an initial attempt at their analysis is apt. The limitations posed were many: data representing only a snapshot of a much larger and lengthier phenomenon, the inability to construct a sample by means other than convenience and snowball sampling, and the absence of a concrete theoretical discourse to work within, to name a few. These limitations were recognized and appropriate decisions were made to mitigate their impact. Having said that, the potential for future study on this topic is substantial. The specifics of this statement, and the way in which this study may influence and inform this further research, will be spoken to in the concluding Chapter 7.0.

Together, these methods enabled the research question and goals to be answered and attained.

This chapter presents the patterns in the Block Party Permitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s usage throughout the Halifax Regional Municipality. It offers analyses concerning quantity, location, seasonality, frequency, and demography. In sum, these analyses provide a clear and complete picture of block parties in the HRM from 2004-2010.

4.1 - Overview 4.2 - Quantity 4.3 - Location 4.4 - Annual Distribution & Last Activity 4.5 - Frequency 4.6 - Demographics 4.7 - Discussion

4.0 Usage

4.0 Usage 4.1

Overview

The previous chapters framed the block party through the lens of the ‘actions’ and proposed playfulness, temporary change and possibility, and community creation as their commonly shared attributes. In the HRM, it is the Block Party Permit that enables the expression of these attributes. To delve deeper into their meanings and possibilities, it is first necessary to understand the extent of the Block Party Permit’s usage and the characteristics that define this usage. This chapter provides this basis. While the origins of the Block Party Permit in the HRM are unclear, there is consensus among the city’s Traffic & Right-of-Ways Services - the department in charge of accepting and approving permits - that it has existed for decades. While the Block Party Permit’s past is cloudy, its present usage has been documented with precision. The HRM’s Traffic & Right-of-Way Services has kept detailed records of the Block Party Permit’s usage over the last seven years. This chapter presents key analyses of this data to provide an understanding of the Block Party Permit’s overall patterns of usage.

4.2

Quantity

Over the past seven years, the Block Party Permit has been used 381 times by 137 streets in the Halifax Regional Municipality. While there is no standard from which to draw cross-city comparisons concerning the levels of usage, the fact that citizens of the HRM hold an average of 54 block parties per year is certainly substantial. This significance extends when one considers that the data for the past seven years represents only the most recent activity. Many organizers identify their street’s block party as active for up to 25 years, indicating that block parties in the HRM are nothing new. Their past and present presence among neighbourhoods and communities in the HRM is indicative of a sustained persistence worthy of further study. For a deeper level of analysis concerning quantity by year, please refer to Appendix B: Block Party Permit Usage By Year.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Total # of Block Party Permits, 2004-2010 58

62 46

2004

2005

2006

HRM, 2004 - 2010 HRM, 2004 HRM, 2005 HRM, 2006 HRM, 2007 HRM, 2008 HRM, 2009 HRM, 2010

2007

2008

TOTAL # OF PERMITS

TOTAL # OF STREETS

381 58 57 60 46 53 62 45

137 57 54 58 44 48 58 45

2009

2010

4.0 - Usage 4.3

Halifax

Dartmouth

Bedford

Sackville

260 2 1

Fall River Timberlea Eastern Passage Upper Tantallon

Beaver Bank Cole Harbour Hammonds Plains Lucasville

Location

Geographical trends in the usage of the Block Party Permit are clear. The most observable is the concentration of usage on Peninsular Halifax. Over the last seven years 68% of permits have been issued to streets on the Peninsula. Over the same period of time, this places 32% of permits across the HRMâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s numerous suburban and rural communities. Of this 32%, 29% of permits were issued to streets in Dartmouth (18%), Bedford (7%), and Sackville (4%), while the remaining 3% of permits were issued to a total of eight smaller communities. Evidently, there is a tendency toward higher use in urban contexts. While this tendency is likely a function of population, density, and form, there are other indicators that show different patterns of usage across these different geographies. For example, Peninsular Halifax exhibits the highest levels of recent permit usage (see section 4.4) and the highest levels of frequency and longevity in permit usage (see section 4.5). For a deeper level of analysis concerning the differences that result from geography, please refer to Appendix C: Block Party Permit Usage By Geography.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

Block Party Permits 2004-2010 0

km 1:135,000

4.0 Usage 4.4

Annual Distribution & Last Activity

There are clear trends in regards to the annual distribution of Block Party Permit usage in the HRM. While some occur as far out as March and December, the bulk of permit usage falls between the start of June and the end of September. There are two peaks: the first at the beginning of July on Canada Day weekend, the second on or around Labour Day weekend in September. This pattern has been uniform across the past seven years.

Annual Distributions of Block Party Permit Usage, 2004-2010

12 10 8 # 6 of Permits 4 2 0

Month 2004 26

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

Last Year Active 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0

km 1:135,000

4.0 Usage 4.5 Frequency by # of Block Parties, 2004-2010 67

24 11 1

18 6 4

5 5

# of Block Parties Held By Street, 2004-2010

6 6

Longevity By # of Years Active, 2004-2010 67

46 37

31 18

1 28

# of Years Active By Street

Frequency & Longevity

The frequency and longevity of Block Party Permit usage - that is, how often a specific street uses the permit, and, how continuously a specific street uses the permit - present interesting patterns. In the HRM as a whole, 49% of streets do not repeat their use of the permit. Conversely, 51% of streets use the permit multiple times. The rate of longevity decreases with time: only 18, or 13%, of streets have used the permit every year since 2004. Of these 18 streets, 16 are located on the Halifax Peninsula, indicating a geographic difference in frequency and longevity. Placing value on high rates of frequency and longevity in the use of the permit however, can obscure the more nuanced patterns of usage. It is common for some streets to go many years without having a party, or, to have a party at a fixed interval. So, while only 13% of streets have been consistently active from 2004-2010, 58% of streets active in 2010 were also active in 2004. The geographic differences in frequency and longevity, however, still apply: of the streets active in 2010 and 2004, 85% were located on the Peninsula. While the patterns of frequency and longevity are difficult to discern due to the complexities that can accompany the permitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s use, the geographical differences are clear: the highest levels of frequency and longevity are found on Peninsular Halifax.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

Frequency 1 0

4 4

7 8

km 1:135,000

4.0 Usage Block Parties & Demographics, 2004-2010

Home Ownership

Dwelling Value

# of Streets

Average Family Income ($)

# of Streets

Dwelling Value ($)

0-20%

10 (7.2%)

050,000

14 (10.2%)

0100,000

4 (7.2%)

21-40%

22 (16.1%)

50,001100,000

86 (62.8%)

100,001200,000

42 (30.7%)

35 (25.6%)

100,001150,000

42 (30.7%)

200,001300,000

65 (47.4%)

41-60%

300,001400,000

26 (19.0%)

61-80%

41 (29.9%)

150,001200,000

14 (10.2%)

400,001500,000

19 (13.9%)

81-100%

58 (42.3%)

200,001+

6 (4.4%)

500,000+

14 (10.2%)

Home Ownership (%)

Average Family Income

# of Streets

4.6

Demographics

The influence of demographic differences on Block Party Permit usage are explored here through mapping Canadian Census data from 2006 on ‘home ownership levels’ (p. 31), ‘average family income’ (p. 32), and ‘average dwelling value’ (p. 33), against permit usage. While block parties occur throughout all of these demographic conditions, their distribution is uneven; there is tendency toward specific variables in all three cases. For example, use of the Block Party Permit clearly increases with higher levels of home ownership. When ‘average family income’ and ‘dwelling value’ are considered, permit usage is highest among the middle variables: usage is most common in areas with family incomes between $50,000-150,000 and in areas with dwelling values between $100,000-300,000. This analysis only compares the demographic elements to the spatial patterns of Block Party Permit usage. The relationship between these demographic elements and the social patterns of Block Party Permit usage - that is, the demographic characteristics of organizers and participants of block parties - is not achieved here. Having said that, this analysis shows that while the Block Party Permit is used across the spectrum of these demographic conditions, its usage is most common in areas with high levels of home ownership and middle levels of income and dwelling value.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

Home Ownership 0-20% 0

21-40%

41-60%

61-80%

81-100% 8

km 1:135,000 Block Parties, 2004-2010

4.0 Usage

HRM

Average Family Income ($) 0

050,000

50,001100,000

100,001150,000

150001200,000

km 1:135,000 Block Parties, 2004-2010

200,001+

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

Dwelling Value ($) 0

0100,001- 200,001- 300,001- 400,001100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 500,001+

km 1:135,000 Block Parties, 2004-2010

4.0 Usage 4.7

Discussion

These findings concerning quantity, location, annual distribution, frequency and longevity, and demography afford an overall understanding of the patterns in Block Party Permit usage from 2004-2010 across the HRM. This overall understanding, however, may serve an unintended function in provoking more questions than it provides answers to. Indeed, one is inclined to wonder, for example, about the influence of different spatial factors - both regional geographies and local urban forms - on permit usage, or, about the unknown patterns of usage which extend decades into the past. While these queries may be of great interest, they are outside of the not only the studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s practical scope, but also its stated set of goals. In addition to attaining understandings of the Block Party Permitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s patterns of usage, this study is tasked with understanding its patterns of meaning and possibility.

The findings of this chapter are instructive in structuring the further study of these patterns. This analysis of usage makes clear that Peninsular Halifax is the location of not only the most block parties, but also the the location where permit usage is most frequent and most sustained (these characteristics can be seen in the map on the opposite page). For these reasons, Peninsular Halifax forms the focus of the in-depth study of the meanings and possibilities that follows in Chapter 5.0 and Chapter 6.0 respectively.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Halifax

Frequency 1

2 0

4 1

7 2

km 1:50,000

This chapter discusses the patterns of meaning that are produced through the use of the Block Party Permit. The findings are based on a focussed investigation of a sample of streets on the Halifax Peninsula. The chapter begins with an explanation of the characteristics of the eight streets studied, followed by a descriptive analysis of the intents, contents, and outcomes of block parties as expressed by their organizers, and, a thematic analysis regarding the relationship between the block parties and the theoretical themes of playfulness, temporary change and possibility, and community creation.

5.1 - Overview 5.2 - Street Profiles 5.3 - Descriptive Analysis 5.4 - Thematic Analysis

5.0 Meaning

5.0 Meaning 5.1

Overview

This chapter shifts the focus of the study of the Block Party Permit from the objective elements of its usage to the subjective conceptions of what this usage means. It offers descriptions of the intents, contents, outcomes of block parties, and, analyzes these meanings against the larger theoretical discourse on ‘actions’ and the attributes of playfulness, temporary change and possibility, and community creation. Ultimately, the perspectives of organizers reveal the ability of the block parties to produce meaningful change, situating citizens as active ‘producers’ of the city.

5.2

Street Profiles

The findings this chapter presents are the result of qualitative interviews with a sample of eight block party organizers whose streets are located on the Halifax Peninsula. These eight streets are not proposed to be indicative of the 137 across the HRM or even the 83 throughout the Halifax Peninsula that have used the Block Party Permit over the last seven years. Having said that, in embodying characteristics that are simultaneously distinct and universal, the eight streets provide a sound basis for a broad understanding. Of the distinct: the eight streets vary in their levels of home ownership (from 0-20% through to 60-80%), their first year active (from as early as 1984 to as late as 2009), their last year active (from as early as 2001 to as late as 2010), their frequency of permit usage (from once to yearly), and their urban form as a function of the size of their street (from 95 metres to 319 metres). Of the universal: all eight streets are located within the Halifax Peninsula’s north- and west-ends, all have similar levels of average family income (between

$0-100,000) and average dwelling values (between $200,000-300,000), and all have at some point held a block party through the use the Block Party Permit. The uniformity of the responses organizers offered during the qualitative interviews administered transcend these distinct and universal elements. That is to say, block party organizers from these eight streets were consistent in their expression of the reasons for organizing block parties, the contents of the block parties, and, the effects of the block parties. For these reasons, the eight streets provide a relevant starting point from which to understand the patterns of meaning that produce and are produced by the Block Party Permit. To communicate the characteristics of the eight streets studied, this section maps their location and presents their physical characteristics, their history of Block Party Permit usage, and their demographic conditions. In so doing, it provides context for the descriptive and thematic analyses which follow.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

Streets Studied 0

km 1:50,000

5.0 Meaning

Duncan Street

Compton Avenue

319m 1:4000

218m 1:3000

First Year Active: Last Year Active: # of Parties: Frequency: Demographics:

First Year Active: ca. 1999 Last Year Active: 2010 # of Parties: 11 Frequency: Yearly Demographics:

1984 2006 5 Every 5 Years

Home Ownership:

41-60%

Home Ownership:

21-40%

Avg. Dwelling Value:

$200,001-300,000

Avg. Dwelling Value:

$200,001-300,000

Avg. Family Income:

$50,001-100,000

Avg. Family Income:

$50,001-100,000

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Edinburgh Street

John Street

177m 1:3000

222m 1:3000

First Year Active: Last Year Active: # of Parties: Frequency: Demographics:

ca. 2003 2010 8 Yearly

Home Ownership:

61-80%

2006 2010 4 Yearly

Home Ownership:

41-60%

Avg. Dwelling Value:

$200,001-300,000

Avg. Dwelling Value:

$100,001-200,000

Avg. Family Income:

$50,001-100,000

Avg. Family Income:

$50,001-100,000 41

5.0 Meaning

Sarah Street

Moran Street

95m 1:2000

124m 1:2000

First Year Active: Last Year Active: # of Parties: Frequency: Demographics:

2009 2009 1 Once

Home Ownership:

0-20%

ca. 1993 ca. 2001 8 Yearly

Home Ownership:

0-20%

Avg. Dwelling Value:

$200,001-300,000

Avg. Dwelling Value:

$200,001-300,000

Avg. Family Income:

$0-50,000

Avg. Family Income:

$0-50,000

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Black Street

Needham Street

78m 1:2000

113m 1:2000

First Year Active: Last Year Active: # of Parties: Frequency: Demographics:

2007 2010 3 Yearly

Home Ownership:

41-60%

ca. 1996 2010 14 Yearly

Home Ownership:

60-80%

Avg. Dwelling Value:

$200,001-300,000

Avg. Dwelling Value:

$200,001-300,000

Avg. Family Income:

$50,001-100,000

Avg. Family Income:

$50,001-100,000 43

5.0 Meaning 5.3

Descriptive Analysis

Prior to subjecting the meanings block parties produce to theoretical and thematic analysis, it is important to first understand what these meanings actually are. To provide this basis, this section presents descriptions of block party organizers’ intents, and, the contents and outcomes that result on the basis of these intents. Note: all streets have been randomly assigned a letter from A-H to enable their identification throughout the study while maintaining the confidentiality of organizers. Where applicable, personal names have been changed to fictional representations.

5.3.1 Intents Block party organizers are aligned in the expressions of their intentions. There is a consensus that the block party is initiated with the goal of creating a space that provides more opportunities for interaction and connection amongst neighbours. Organizers emphasize “getting together,” “getting to know neighbours,” and “building community,” as the key intentions that drive the desire to produce block parties. When asked about their intentions, organizers provide the following responses that indicate the strength of this sentiment:

“Essentially it is a street-focused, neighbourhoodfocused Block Party.... The whole point is just for us to all get together as a street.”

some organizers speak of their block party as a way to address tensions between short-term and long-term residents:

- Block Party Organizer, Street F

“The intention was to get everybody together in a place where we [could] share our views and different thoughts and exchange household things and ... update on current events.” - Block Party Organizer, Street B

“I think I probably had suggested it because ... I thought, ‘what a great way of getting together with your neighbours’. [The block party] is a great way to have that feel and build the community.” - Block Party Organizer, Street D

The desire to create a space for social connection among neighbours speaks to an implicit problem: the lack of these spaces and opportunities in the first place. While this implicit intention is common in the responses from all organizers, some go further by framing the block party more explicitly as an opportunity to address a specific problem. For example,

“The second block party we had was ... to try, instead of being mad, which we all were, to find a way to ... make students inclusive in the neighbourhood; to try to make them responsible neighbours.” - Block Party Organizer, Street H

“A few years ago we had some problems with really loud music and students having a good time in the wee morning of the night. The reason why they do it sometimes is they don’t know the neighbours, they just simply go at it. But if they really care about the neighbours, they know them, I think the reaction will be a lot better. So that’s another reason why we did it.” - Block Party Organizer, Street B

While organizers speak of the need to create a space that provides more opportunities for social connection or works to solve problems in the community, it is always qualified with an assertion of the centrality of

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

fun and festive celebration. Organizers frequently cite the celebratory aspect of the block party as a central intention:

“I love to party and I love my community!” - Block Party Organizer, Street G

“...and also we just like to have a party!”

5.3.2 Contents While the intentions of block party organizers may be aligned, the expression of these intentions - that is, the contents of each block party - are diverse. This diversity results from many things. Differences in demographics (most notably the presence of families with young children), the personalities and prerogatives of organizers, neighbourhood traditions, seasonality, and a street’s physical characteristics can all work to produce parties that are distinct in nature.

- Block Party Organizer, Street B

“There was a strong desire to dance on the street.” - Block Party Organizer, Street E

The intentions organizers identify as influential are mostly uniform. All address in some way the desire for a greater ‘sense of community’ - seeing the block party as a way to create a space which addresses the implicit need for community connections is common. While some organizers speak to specific problems the block party acts to address, the emphasis on this perspective is less pronounced than the general desire to create a playful and celebratory space for communication and connection among neighbours.

The block party has no set formula. Where one street may focus on pet parades, garden tours, skill-sharing tables, and yard sales (Street H), another may place prominence on communal cooking, live music, and dancing (Street C, Street E). Where one street may concentrate on relaxed conversation (Street B), another may prioritize activities aimed at children (Street D, Street G). While the contents of block parties can manifest themselves in many different ways, there are commonalities which span and encompass these distinctive elements. Simply put, each party is the creation of a space populated by people engaged in communal activities that are playful, simple, and temporary in nature.

The conditions created by these playful, simple, and temporary qualities offer a sense of difference and distance from the spaces and situations of day-to-day life. The following descriptions from organizers indicate the variety of activities that can occur throughout the course of a block party. They shed light on how the street is transformed, the atmosphere it engenders, and the possibilities it provides and provokes. These descriptions are followed by a list of commonlyreported activities, and, a series of photographs which visualize the variety of spatial and social contents block parties produce.

“What we would do [is] have people bring out their barbecues onto the street, and play games, and put up tents and people would bring out their instruments, and hang around and play. So it would be a day long thing where people are just kind wandering, hanging out visiting, and there’s a great chance to meet your neighbours, if you haven’t already.” Block Party Organizer, Street A

5.0 Meaning

“There was some arts and crafts, we constructed party hats, that’s sort of how things started. We took basically anything and everything from the inside of our houses and put them on the outside, like tables chairs, rugs, badminton rackets. I had things set up on strings out my window, inflatable dolphin, paintings from inside were outside, mirrors, just generally trying to bring the living room vibe out into the street. There was hula hooping, I had this bike chariot thing that I found in the garbage that was a bicycle with two elementary school chairs somehow attached. And we were riding that up and down for a while. There were some roller skates, massive amounts of sidewalk chalk which resulted in the entire block being covered. Kids with skateboards. Casual drinking. Then we had two bands play. One was sort of like a bluegrass old-timey set, and then, the main event, well, to me it was the main event, and then the dancing really took off, was when DJ Cosmo dj’ed, playing such hits as ‘Dancing in the Street’. It was, it was a dream come true.” - Block Party Organizer, Street E

“Well, let me see. First of all, the first year I had it, at the very end of the street there was street hockey, at the top, middle all these kids playing hopscotch in the middle [of the street], and then chalk, you know drawing stuff on the street, flowers, just having fun letting the kids draw on the street with chalk. And then there was hula-hooping, lots of hula-hooping. And double-dutch skipping, there was lots of double-dutch skipping. The people that do that were almost professionals. Really fun. And then of course there is music going on all day long. From folk to more reggae to full on music bands and old songs and classic rock. And then also later on in the evening there is fire-spinning, a lot of fire-spinning.... And then ... sort near the end of close, everybody held hands, so it became this huge circle and it went all the way up the street and all the way back down again, and it was sort of just giving thanks for ... having a street party. It was just remarkable. It actually blew me away.” - Block Party Organizer, Street C

Commonly Reported Activities This list indicates the occurrence of activities reported by block party organizers. The number in brackets corresponds to the number of organizers out of the total eight interviewed who identified the activity as occurring at the block party on their street. - closing of the street (8) - communal cooking & eating (8) - conversation (8) - tables & seating on the street (8) - relaxing (8) - intergenerational connections (8) - games (hockey, hopscotch, hula hooping) (7) - child-oriented activity (6) - artistic creation (6) - live music (5) - dancing (4) - yard sales (3) - DIY construction (stage, tents, playscape) (3) - local history & story telling (3) - skill-sharing sign-ups (2) - garden tours (2) - outdoor movie screenings (2) - pet parades (1) - local police, fire, politician visits (1)

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Child Playing in the Street, Sarah Street

Cooking & Conversing, Black Street

Teepee & Street Hockey, Black Street

Barricades, Black Street

Street Named, Needham Street

Eating & Speaking, Needham Street

5.0 Meaning

On The Street, John Street

Barricades, Sarah Street

DJs & Dancers, Sarah Street

Young & Old, Sarah Street

Food, Black Street

Hula Hooping, Black Street

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Street Hockey, John Street

Temporary DIY Playground, Black Street

Crowds & Conversation, Black Street

Sidewalk Chalk Art, Sarah Street

Performance, Black Street

Music, Sarah Street

5.0 Meaning

5.3.3 Outcomes The responses block party organizers offer regarding their perception of the effects block parties produce are aligned. The perceived impacts, stated simply, are communal connection, cohesiveness, and capacity. Almost every organizer is quick to assert the increased connections among neighbours that occur, and, the increased cohesiveness that results on account of the block party:

“I think that emotionally and as a community you feel more connected and stronger when you do have these opportunities to get together.” - Block Party Organizer, Street D

“If you need some help who are you going to call? You’re going to call your neighbour. So [the block party] is [good] in terms of networking your community.” - Block Party Organizer, Street B

“[The street] is much more community-oriented, much more friendly. All you need is that one icebreaker to introduce one another, and it is just wonderful.” - Block Party Organizer, Street C

“A day like this can sprout many possibilities for working together. For example parents started to share childcare ... and business contacts were exchanged.” - Block Party Organizer, Street G

“More connections were made - there is definitely a stronger cohesiveness with the neighbours.” - Block Party Organizer, Street E

“Oh, absolutely everyone ended up knowing everyone to some degree.” - Block Party Organizer, Street A

There is a sense among organizers that the connections made through the block party enable the ability for more forms of collective action and a higher level of communal capacity. Organizers address a range of actions that express this capacity: from the proverbial borrowed-bowl-of-sugar to actions and abilities in times of emergency.

“Well it gets you to know your neighbours, and sometimes it is good to know your neighbours especially in times of emergencies like Hurricane Juan.” - Block Party Organizer, Street H

“When this hurricane came down and all the trees were down the road and the power was out ... well now that people know one another ... they can help each other out a lot more.” - Block Party Organizer, Street C

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

In addition to these tangible outcomes, some organizers speak to the more ephemeral effects of the block parties. Here, organizers identify some of the block party’s effects that are more casual than causal. The block party acts as but a part of a larger whole that enables possibilities for future change and collaboration.

“I think there is something about those connections, and it is not necessarily just the block party, it could be multiple events bringing people together whether it is working on the school or working on this or whatever, where you have more connections with people when you have conversations like ‘what’s the best way to deal with this?’ you know, that kind of thing.” - Block Party Organizer, Street D

The outcomes of the block parties are largely uniform from the perspective of organizers. Increased connection among neighbours and the increased capacity that this potentially provides in day-to-day life encapsulates the common conception of the block party’s effect.

“I don’t know how connected this is but [the neighbouring street], they got their street shut down on one side to vehicle traffic. And I’m sure that was their own lobbying and doing, but that was interesting to see, like within a year a change in infrastructure on the street that limits vehicles from passing through. And so, I wouldn’t directly connect that to like that event in particular, but maybe something in a series of events of like this is what the street is for, so maybe a redefinition in some sort of sense.” - Block Party Organizer, Street E

5.0 Meaning 5.4

Thematic Analysis

With a clear conception of intents, contents, and outcomes, this section shifts from a focus on descriptive analysis to a focus on thematic analysis. It draws comparisons between theory and practice to establish how block parties fit within the discourse on ‘actions’ and the common attributes of playfulness, temporary change and possibility, and community creation.

5.4.1 Playfulness In his work on celebratory events as a communitybuilding strategy, Berkowitz (2003) describes block parties as a well-known example of the festive event. His evaluation, however, focusses on what he perceives to be their limitations:

“While block parties ... are pleasant social events, they tend to be conventional and restrained. They stay within the bounds of the ordinary; they aren’t memorable. They are less effective in instilling a communal neighbourhood consciousness, or, to extend that point, a sense of unity among residents and a transcendence of self” (p. 38). The block parties in this study are not Berkowitz’s block parties. Indeed, turning Berkowitz’s evaluation on its head achieves a description that closely resembles that which the organizers of the block

parties in this study provide. While some block parties may teeter toward what Berkowitz deems conventional and restrained, others are undoubtable expressions and experiences outside of the ordinary. Further, all organizers estimate an increase in communal consciousness and the embedding of the block party and its possibilities within the community’s collective memory. While Berkowitz’s concept of celebratory events is useful and instructive, his exclusion of block parties from the concept is puzzling.

Using play as an approach to create a place outside of the everyday experience is evident in all of the block parties in this study - play is undoubtedly the modus operandi. For organizers, playfulness is a means of initiating change that is useful on account of the inclusive and non-threatening atmospheres it engenders. As one organizer put it:

“We don’t push any issue and there is no agenda other than getting out and dancing.” - Block Party Organizer, Street C

Despite this organizer’s assertion, Huizinga’s (1955) dictum “all play means something” certainly applies. While organizers may not recognize play as anything other than an end in and of itself, it holds within it many incidental effects.

Play often involves the reconsideration of intractable problems (Shepard, 2005). While setting up lawn chairs and sitting and eating in the middle of the street is a way of creating an atmosphere inviting on account of its playfully unconventional and curious nature, it implicitly addresses the lack of and need for spaces of communal interaction and leisure. Likewise, playfulness can turn productive through the generation of connections and communal capacities (Harper, 2010). While singing and dancing in the middle of the street is a fun and celebratory activity, it also generates connections amongst neighbours that may not have occurred otherwise.

The centrality of playfulness and celebration as both an end and an unacknowledged means is easily evident in the block parties that comprise this study.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

5.4.2 Temporary Change & Possibility While playing a central role in the theoretical discussions explored in Chapter 2.0, notions of the temporary and the possibilities it provides were not as prominent in the perspectives of organizers. That is not to say, however, that they were absent. Some organizers were cognizant of these notions, and, each block party, if not explicitly, implicitly engaged in the exploration of possibilities enabled through temporary change. The desire for difference drives all ‘actions’. With the Block Party Permit, the most commonly expressed desire was for a space where neighbours could come together and interact:

“I wanted to do something to bring lots of different people in my life, in the life of this community, together.” - Block Party Organizer, Street G The pervasiveness of this desire for communal connection provokes the question asked by Chen (2010): are the actions that emerge from these desires a tribute to the flexibility and creativity of residents, or, an implicit critique of the city’s current sociospatial consistencies? In the case of block parties,

both of these conditions are identifiable. Certainly, the critique offered by many organizers is implicit. Most block parties are more proactive than reactive in terms of addressing their desires. A few organizers, though, were more explicit, positioning the block party as an avenue to express and experience a desire that is otherwise unfulfilled. Some organizers spoke extensively about the void their block party worked to fill - the need for intergenerational connections, the desire to overcome seclusion and disconnection, the need for relationships in times of emergency, the craving for celebration, and most importantly, the lack of space where these social activities can occur:

Seeing the block party as an expression of possible alternatives was not common amongst all organizers. In this regard, there seems to be a disjunct between the ‘actions’ in theory and the block party in practice. This may, however, be a case of two voices saying the same thing differently. From an objective standpoint, the block party is a temporary transformation that expresses alternate possibilities. Indeed, a few organizers did frame their parties in this sense:

“I feel as though I have become cynical and discouraged because of regulations, because of venues closing, now this is more so, art galleries and theatre spaces with more heavily enforced liquor laws, and just really a lack of fun, or a lack of logic and a lack of fun. It’s almost as if we were, I don’t want to say we were forced onto the street, that’s sort of dramatic, but ... we’ve got nowhere to really do this that’s accessible. Yea, maybe just a lack of communal space ... or pseudo public space? A lack of places to host people.”

“it is [about] redefining spaces, and, in an era of seclusion and alienation just being on the street for a different purpose and celebrating a neigbourhood in the neighbourhood.”

- Block Party Organizer, Street E

- Block Party Organizer, Street D

- Block Party Organizer, Street E

“I think there is something about [being on the street] - it is a different use of city property ... and it feels communal. So it is using that common ground, and it is also bringing together, so you have that shared sense of hosting.”

5.0 Meaning

The relationship between theory and practice that comes out of use of the Block Party Permit is muddled in this case. While some organizers are direct in their estimations of the role of the party in exploring possibilities, others do not recognize this as its express purpose. An analysis of organizers’ intents and the contents and outcomes of the block parties, however, shows the action of using temporary spatial change to explore and experience desires as common.

5.4.3 Community Creation The notion of ‘community’ is by far the most common concept that appears in discussions with block party organizers. It holds a central place in their perceptions of their intentions for organizing block parties (“It is just to get to know everybody, to let everybody know everybody else” - Block Party Organizer, Street C) and in their estimations of the effects of block parties (“It really builds a sense of community, even within your little street in town, if not the greater community.” - Block Party Organizer, Street A). While the prominence organizers place on the notion of ‘community’ is clear, the meanings and implications of this prominence require a deeper exploration. This discussion considers the block party as (1) an expression of the desires situated in

the ‘decline of community’ discourse, and, as (2) a site of community creation in both immediate and enduring manners.

Desire & The ‘Decline of Community’ Discourse Block party organizers often frame their intentions in ways that align with the broadly defined “decline of community” discourse (Herrmann, 2006, p. 181). In this discussion, theorists assert that the overall decrease in associative networks - or “social capital” - is responsible for many of the problems that plague modern society. Organizers situate their intentions within the context of this discourse and present the block party as a means of remedying the desire for greater connections amongst neighbours.

like that! Right, they’re creating a whole generation where there is no face-to-face talk.” Block Party Organizer, Street H Another organizer addressed this same notion in a simpler, though more encompassing, statement. Whether it is a factor of our hectic work schedules and increasing commute times, the lack of public space that enables social connections on a day-to-day basis, or one in the multitude of many other factors, “we are in our little bubbles much of the time” (Block Party Organizer, Street G). This condition was confirmed by another organizer who, upon moving into their new neighbourhood, was astonished that people living on the same street for decades did not know each others’ names:

The relation to this discourse makes itself evident in many ways. One organizer was adamant in their assertion of the decline of community that has proliferated on account of the increase in personal and mobile technologies:

I’ve talked to people on this street, and a couple of them hadn’t known each other, like they’d been living there for 20 years and Jack on the end didn’t know Jill, like three doors up, didn’t know her, saw her, didn’t know her name, didn’t know anything about her - three doors up, for 20 years!

“That was the beginning of young people getting detached, you know with their electronics they get detached. There’s no more human contact. They’d rather stay on their little computers. You can’t live

Block Party Organizer, Street C This common sentiment of disconnection as a problem was expressed by organizers in other ways

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

as well. They addressed, among other things, the lack of space and situations for inter-generational association, the disconnect that occurs from a parent’s perspective when their children no longer attend school, the isolation of social groups on the basis of class and race, and the lack of veritable public spaces in general. This context of disconnection produces a desire for difference. As one organizer put it: “People want to connect and want activity and want more socialization, more socializing” (Block Party Organizer, Street A). The connection between the perspectives and actions of block parties organizers and the larger discourse on social decline and social capital is clear. This begs the question: what are the manifestations of this connection? That is, are block parties effective in fulfilling the desires for greater social connection and cohesiveness? According to organizers, the answer is simple: yes. Organizers all share this affirmative answer. They cite communal connection, cohesiveness, and capacity as the chief outcomes of their block parties. These outcomes are achieved in two ways: the immediate and the enduring. The immediate speaks to the block party as a space of community creation in and

of itself; the enduring speaks to the lasting traces and effects the block party deposits.

Community Creation: The Immediate Many parallels can be drawn between Herrmann’s (2006) work on the neighbourhood garage sale as a site of immediate community building and the findings presented here regarding block parties. Herrmann notes that the garage sale “provides a natural ‘gathering place’ or a temporary ‘third place’” (p. 182) where neighbours come together to not only buy and sell goods, but to exchange news, gather advice, and in some cases meet each other for the first time. The neighbourhood garage sale “provides more face-to-face contact among neighbours than otherwise occurs in their daily lives” (p. 185). The same can be said of block parties; they allow organizers and participants to create and engage in opportunities that they do not experience on a day-to-day basis. The simple act of transforming and sharing the street creates opportunities that foster the immediate connections necessary in creating community ties. These connections sprout from organized activities where interaction is a deliberate purpose, such as garden tours, skill-sharing tables, games, and local history sharing. Connec-

tions also come about more organically and incidentally through playing, dancing, cooking, eating and the conversations that abound in an atmosphere of celebration and experimentation. As the organizer below attests, the creation of connections occurs in both these deliberate and incidental ways:

“[People] got to catch up on each others’ news and see who moved in next door. They got exposed to things that may never have experienced before: music, naked bikers, multigenerational fun, Bollywood style street music dancing, foods, espresso” - (Block Party Organizer, Street G).

As an event, the block party becomes a space where experimentation and exposure to all kinds of difference becomes useful in immediately realizing the desire for stronger communal ties and connections. Although, the question remains: what happens afterwards?

5.0 Meaning

Community Creation: The Enduring The immediate effects of the block party that create community ties are supplemented by the traces that linger from these initial connections. As Hershkovitz (1993) asserts, temporary change can produce enduring effects:

“No matter how temporary the appropriation, or how permanently its traces are eradicated, the very fact of its existence, the memories it evokes, permanently changes the face of the place in which it occurred” (p. 416).

It is not just the block party as an event that remains as a possibility in people’s minds; the ethic the block party embodies and the desires it addresses extend beyond its actual occurrence as well. The connections made between neighbours do not dissolve when the street reverts back to its normal state. As these block party organizers attest, the ties remain and offer further opportunities for conversation and connection:

Block Party Organizer, Street D

These direct outcomes however, are less emphasized than the generalized descriptions of an increase in community connections and cohesiveness. The common claim that “there is a definitely a stronger cohesiveness with neighbours” (Block Party Organizer, Street E) often goes no further in its explication. So while there is not always a direct effect to point to, organizers assert that the connections endure and enable a broad array of possibilities. One organizer epitomizes this notion, speaking to the change in the nature of the connections within the neighbourhood and the opportunities this change offers:

Organizers list some of these “spin-offs” directly: community childcare, the sharing of skills and resources (one organizer spoke of exchanging skills in carpentry for services in information technology,

“You know now I walk down the street and it is ‘Oh, hi Jack,’ ‘Hi John,’ ‘Hi Joe,’ and this kind of stuff. So it has really opened up the door in the sense of community in a big way.”

“I think that ... [the block party] definitely opens things up for more conversation.” Block Party Organizer, Street F

The notion that ‘actions’, despite being temporary in nature, leave permanent and enduring traces on the places they occur is one shared by many authors (Temel, 2006, p. 60; Bunschoten, 2003). It is also one shared by block party organizers:

“I think, [the block party] was lodged in people’s psyches as a possibility, and I think that was the most powerful [thing], that sharing of knowledge” - Block Party Organizer, Street E

another spoke of sharing gardening equipment and tools such as chainsaws), the ability to work together in times of emergency such as those brought about by perilous weather, and the organization of other community-based social events (such as caroling in the winter and ‘strawberry socials’ in the spring).

“The spin-off of having those connections [created by the block party] allows you to get together in a different way at different times.”

- Block Party Organizer, Street C

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

This may be the most powerful effect of the block party: its ability to influence what it means to live in the city, and, its confirmation of the ability of the actions of ordinary citizens to shape this meaning. While the fact that a neighbour can now say hello to another neighbour as they pass on the street may sound somewhat innocuous, when one considers that this atmosphere was absent prior to citizens acting to produce it, it becomes quite powerful. It is powerful in the sense that it is a product of citizen action - it clearly evinces the effects of citizens acting as ‘producers’, as making a veritable change in the city’s sociospatial consistencies. It is also powerful in the potentials it creates - the ability to connect opens infinite possibilities for future forms of collective and community-based actions. The block party then, makes clear the utility of the playful atmosphere and the temporary exploration of possibilities that ‘actions’ embody. It is this approach which engenders the immediate and enduring effects that situate citizens as genuine ‘producers’ of the city.

This chapter discusses the possibilities ‘actions’ in general and the Block Party Permit in specific provide from the perspective of planning. It begins by presenting findings concerning the relation between the role of block parties from the perspective of the Halifax Regional Municipality and what they achieve in actuality. It then addresses the perspectives of organizers concerning the practicality of the permit and its process. Finally, it makes the case that the approach embodied in ‘actions’ - as exemplified in one way by the Block Party Permit - presents possibilities for informing an approach to planning and changing the city.

6.1 - Overview 6.2 - The Permit: Planners’ & Organizers’ Perspectives 6.3 - Possibility: An ‘Actions’ Approach

6.0 Possibility

6.0 Possibility 6.1

The Block Party Permit is the mechanism that mediates between the city and the citizen, between the desire to act and initiate change and the ability to do so within existing legal frameworks (refer to Section 1.2 and Appendix A to revisit the permit’s context and specifics). The two preceding chapters have discussed the patterns of usage and meaning that result from the the use of the Block Party Permit. There are two key findings that come out of these patterns. First, block parties have a substantial and active presence in the HRM: the number of block parties each year is consistently around the average of 54, over half of citizens who use the Block Party Permit continue to do so, and, each year sees a new set of streets engaging in the process of producing block parties. Second, through their approach to changing the city, block parties produce meaningful outcomes in the form of the creation of community ties that produce possibilities for immediate and further forms of action. On the basis of these findings alone, the Block Party Permit can be seen as successful in mediating the relationship between the city and the citizen and the ability to engage this approach to change. However, while the results of the process have been addressed, the process itself has not. Since the process is evaluated as a successful one, it should be under-

Permit: 6.2 Organizers’ &ThePlanners’ Perspectives

Overview

stood in greater detail so as to understand the qualities that make it successful. The lessons the Block Party Permit provides enable the consideration of the usefulness of enabling and encouraging ‘actions’ as an approach to changing the city that supplements planning’s traditional tools. This chapter shifts the perspective from one focussing on what the block parties produce to one focussing on the process that structures how the block parties come about in the first place. Understanding how the Block Party Permit is effective is necessary before postulating the possibilities it could provide from the perspective of planning as an approach to communityand city-building.

While block parties in the HRM embody many of the attributes of ‘actions’, the way in which these attributes are achieved differs significantly: most ‘actions’ occur outside institutional realms of influence - as a product of the HRM, block parties emerge directly from such a realm. One might assume that this institutional appropriation and regulation of ‘actions’ that the Block Party Permit typifies could deter or discourage the act of organizing a block party and experiencing the possibilities it produces. As Merker (2010) asserts, there is a danger that when successful forms of ‘actions’ are absorbed and appropriated by institutions “their critical dimension [may] diminish as they join familiar, acceptable, and potentially commercial categories of festival and spectacle” (p. 51). While this may be the case in other situations, there is no evidence of this effect on block parties in the HRM. The ‘Good Neighbours, Great Neighbourhoods’ program - of which the Block Party Permit is a part - asserts an influence that is in line with the approach posited by Page (2008) (see Section 2.3). This approach involves: identifying actions that citizens can undertake, removing the barriers that prevent these actions from occurring (while still ensuring the place of an overall public interest), and providing a framework which enables and encourages

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

their implementation. For the HRM, GNGN is about:

“promoting the whole philosophy that people can just do neighbourly things with one another, they don’t necessarily have to rely on external governments ... to fix a problem, [they] can just [do] something simple.” - HRM Planner This perspective places citizens squarely in the role of producer; this is the strength of the approach. While the HRM provides a framework, it is a fluid one within which citizens have the ability to explore their desires for difference with relative freedom and control. The HRM’s perspective speaks to the notion of citizens not needing to rely on government in all situations especially those that are small and simple in scale. In providing a framework that directs but does not define what can occur within it, the HRM’s approach echoes and confirms Morales’ (2010) assertion of the utility of ‘self-governance’ among citizens in these types of contexts.

The HRM recognizes the benefits in providing the opportunity for citizens to act and engage in this type of approach to community- and city-building. As this councillor attests, block parties produce the ‘sense of community’ that cannot be created directly by planners despite being present in the goals and objectives of many of their policies. Community ties serve not only to support everyday life in a neighbourhood, but also to bolster the more traditional approaches employed by planners and municipalities:

“I think that having block parties is a really good way for people to connect with their neighbours and to get to know one another. And it provides a really important, I’m not quite sure how to term it, but sort of that soft-networking that is really really important in communities. And so the city as a bureaucracy or as an institution can provide the hard-networking, I mean we can call meetings, do things you know whatever. But ultimately it is the connections as neighbours among neighbours that really helps with other things.” - HRM Councillor

While residents need not rely on external governments to change their street and city, there is a degree to which governments may, in a way, rely on or benefit from the connections that result from citizens’ actions.

From the HRM’s perspective, the benefits of enabling this approach are clear: in encouraging this subset of ‘actions’, citizens are able to change their street in a

manner that produces connections that have lasting and beneficial effects. While the perspectives of the HRM are valuable in evaluating the success of the approach, it is important to also understand the perspectives of block party organizers in this regard; their insights are useful in further evaluating the efficacy of the approach and understanding how it could be improved. Overall, organizers are positive in their evaluation of the Block Party Permit and the process that accompanies it. This response typifies the perspective of organizers:

“I personally found the process fairly easy, and I wouldn’t change one thing” Block Party Organizer, Street B Some organizers take this positive evaluation a step further. They speak to their surprise at the level of assistance and encouragement provided by the HRM:

“It seemed as though my understanding of how the city works maybe became a little less harsh in seeing how easily this happened and how helpful [city staff] was. It was oddly easy.” Block Party Organizer, Street E

6.0 Possibility

“The city [should], let the people know that it is an option and that the city will be helpful. And a lot of people don’t know that the city will be helpful. I didn’t know that they would provide blockades and deliver them and you know, things like that.” - Block Party Organizer, Street A The relative ease organizers attribute to the permit process and the assistance provided by the HRM is accompanied by a sense that it also provides for a certain level of consensus that they would not be comfortable acting outside of. That is, getting the permission and acceptance of neighbours is something organizers want to do. The permit in specific and the GNGN program in general provide the initiative and the framework to begin this process:

lined. The permit process is structured strategically to ease and encourage sustained usage. Once the block party has established roots on the street, barring any problems or complaints, the permit becomes somewhat of a formality in that the organizer does not have to meet the most cumbersome requirement of attaining the written permission of all of those potentially affected.

The concern that this requirement may inhibit the ability of citizens to act in producing block parties is legitimate and can be seen as a possible deterrence. Indeed, if even one neighbour is opposed to the idea, the ability to act is placed in jeopardy. This sentiment produced the one suggestion most organizers made: reduce the requirement of necessary signatures from a complete consensus to an overall majority.

It is important to note, however, that while the organizers are positive in their evaluation of the HRM’s assistance, they do voice some criticisms regarding facets of the process they see as potential impediments to others. The most common of these concerns is the need to attain the signature of a resident from each and every unit located in the portion of the street to be closed:

In addition to the patterns of usage and meaning that reflect positively on the ‘Good Neighbours, Great Neighbourhoods’ program and its Block Party Permit, the perspectives of both the city and the citizen further contribute to the evaluation of the process as an apt approach to enabling and encouraging ‘actions’ and the changes they create. On the basis of the success seen here, how can this approach to changing the city and the means of encouraging and enabling this type of action influence planning practice?

“There’s a couple good things [about the permit]. The first thing is, you have to go and knock on everybody’s door and tell them what’s going on and see if its okay. Everybody has to agree.”

“There was a concern about a lack of fairness around being a democratic process where one out of twenty households could shut it down.”

- Block Party Organizer, Street C

- Block Party Organizer, Street D

Many of the block party organizers were speaking from distant memory in regards to the intricacies of the permit, however; on streets where block parties occur with consistency, the process is somewhat stream-

“That would really piss me off that if we wanted to have a block party and one person didn’t want it”

- Block Party Organizer, Street H

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

6.3

Possibility: An ‘Actions’ Approach

This study began with the premise that cities are shaped by the small-scale actions of ordinary citizens. The findings presented certainly corroborate this notion. They also indicate that planners can play an active role in supporting the approach to changing the city embodied in ‘actions’. As citizens continue to produce meaningful change on their streets, in their communities, and throughout their cities through ‘actions’ and the approach and ethic they embody, the potential planners have in engaging and capacitating this process should be seriously considered. The creation of frameworks which enable and encourage citizens to act not simply as consumers of the city, but as active producers of it can play an important and supportive role alongside the approaches to city-building that currently dominate planning practice. On the basis of block parties, the approach embodied in ‘actions’ has been shown to result in many things planners deem paramount: citizen participation, community-based change, and increases in the sense of belonging, connection, and cohesion amongst neighbours and throughout communities. While these potentials are increasingly achieved through the small-scale actions of ordinary citizens, most

planning continues to focus solely on the profession’s traditional large-scale approaches which are long-term, rational, and regulatory. This is not to say that this type of planning is invalid or unnecessary indeed, it plays a vital and essential role in structuring and shaping our cities. However, when one approach to any problem dominates, its limitations are exacerbated. Citizens are taking it upon themselves to act in opposition to these current methods of planning on account of one of its chief limitations: desired changes occur at a pace so slow they becomes essentially irrelevant if they even occur at all. In that citizens are producing change in the city that is immediate and - despite the inherent ephemerality - lasting in its impact and effects, one may question the necessity for planning to involve itself in something that is occurring of its own volition. The answer: there is a need - both of planners and of citizens. Planning needs an invigoration, an action-oriented approach to supplement its long-term plans and see their immediate implementation in ways that are small, meaningful, and immediately achievable - the

‘actions’ approach can both enable, influence, and involve citizens in the process of planning and citybuilding. Citizens need support, and this support can come in many forms. To those who are able to engage with ‘actions’ on their own accord, support from institutions can take the form of implicit validation through turning a blind-eye. To those who lack the familiarity with the approach or the tools to engage in ‘actions’, support from planners can take the form of providing a framework - be it programming, grants, events, or the provision of space for experimentation - which enables and encourages citizens to be active in the production and experience of changing the city by imagining what it could be. Indeed, as Petrescu (2005) posits:

“planning is not only for transforming places but also for transforming the imagination of those who live in these places” (p. 60).

If planning can help in enlivening our imaginations and our abilities to act, our cities and our communities will undoubtedly be all the better for it.

7.1 - Conclusions

7.0 Conclusions

7.0 Conclusions 7.1

Conclusions

This study of block parties in the Halifax Regional Municipality has produced many pertinent findings regarding a particular subset of ‘actions’ and the way in which planners can encourage and enable citizens to engage this approach to changing the city. Block parties maintain an active and sustained presence in the HRM, their immediate and enduring impacts on community capacities are significant, and the Block Party Permit process is evaluated positively from the perspective of both planners and organizers. These findings substantiate the notion that the smallscale ‘actions’ of ordinary citizens can have meaningful impacts, and, that planners can play a role in providing a framework which directs but does not define how citizens’ desires for a different city are explored and expressed through the approach and ethic embodied in ‘actions’.

While these findings are certainly substantial, they are only a starting point. This study considered a miniscule subset of what is an infinite array of possible ‘actions’. The barriers of scope and scale which coloured the specific study of block parties in the Halifax Regional Municipality augments the study’s limitations further. Widening the scale of the study to include a larger sample of streets with greater regional diversity and history of permit usage would prove beneficial in expanding understandings. Finding ways to include the perspectives of those who are deterred from using the Block Party Permit altogether, or, have no knowledge of its existence in the first place was also a difficulty this study faced that could be reconciled in future work. Further research outside of that on block parties in specific could delve deeper into the wide array of ‘actions’ that present possibilities for planners.

However, in that this study is unequivocally about action, the most appropriate further research should come in the form of experimenting and implementing the approach and ethic embodied in ‘actions’. In this way, citizens and planners alike can build and bolster the ‘actions’ approach and continue to produce meaningful change on their streets, in their communities, and across their cities.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

References

References Literature

Bartman, D., Khawaezad, A., Lydon, M., & Woudstra, R. (2011). Tactical Urbanism: Short Term Action, Long Term Change. Retrieved from http://patterncities. com/archives/175 Berkowitz, B. (2003). Neighbourhood Games as a Community-Building Strategy. Journal of Community Practice, 11 (3), 35-53. Borasi, G. (2008). “A New Urban Takeover.” In Borasi, G. & Zardini, M. (Eds.), Actions: What You Can Do With The City. Montreal: Canadian Centre For Architecture. Boyce, C. & Neale, P. (2006). Conducting In-Depth Interviews: A Guide for Designing and Conducting In-Depth Interviews for Evaluation Input. Monitoring and Evaluation 2 (3-12). Bunschoten, R. (2003). Stirring Still: The City Soul and Its Metaspaces. Perspecta 34, 55-65. Chen, (2010). Dancing in the Streets of Beijing: Improvised Uses within the Urban System. In Hou, J (ed.), Insurgent Public Space: Guerilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities (pp. 20-33) New York: Taylor & Francis.

Corijn, E. & Groth, J. (2005). Reclaiming Urbanity: Intermediate Spaces, Informal Actors and Urban Agenda Setting. Urban Studies, 42 (3), 503-526. Creswell, J.W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Harvey, D. (2008). The Right to the City. New Left Review, 53, 23-40. Haydyn, F. & Temel, R. (2006). Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces. Boston: Birkhäuser.

Douglass, M. & Friedmann, J. (1998). Cities For Citizens: Planning and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age. New York: Wiley.

Haydyn, F. (2006). A Material That Never Comes to Rest. In Haydn, F., Temel, T. (Eds.), Temporary Urban Spaces: Concepts for the Use of City Spaces (pp. 67-74). Boston: Birkhäuser.

Fainstein, S. (2005). Planning Theory and the City. Journal of Planning Eduction and Research, 25, 121-130.

Herrmann, G. (2006). Garage Sales Make Good Neighbours: Building Community Through Neighbourhood Sales. Human Organization, 65 (2), 181-191.

Forrest, R. & Kearns, A. (2001). Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38 (12), 2125-2143.

Hershkowitz, L. (1993). Tiananmen Square and the Politics of Place. Political Geography, 12 (5), 395-420.

Friedmann, J. (2003). Why Do Planning Theory? Planning Theory 2, 7-10. Harper, T. (2010). The Smooth Spaces of Play: Deleuze and the Emancipative Potential of Games. Symploke 17 (1-2), 129-142.

Holston, J. (1998). Spaces of Insurgent Citizenship. In Sandercock, L. (Ed.), Making the Invisible Visible (pp. 37-56). Berkeley: University of California Press. Hoskyns, T. (2005). City/Democracy: Retrieving Citizenship. In Blundell Jones, P, Petrescu, D., and Till, J. (Eds.), Architecture and Participation (pp. 117-123). London: Spon Press.

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Hou, J. (2010). Insurgent Public Space: Guerilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities. New York: Taylor & Francis. Huizinga, J. (1955). Homo Ludens; A Study of the PlayElement in Culture. Boston: Beacon Press. Keffer, R. (2010). DIY Urbanism: Testing the Grounds for Social Change. Urbanist (September 2010). Lupo, E. & Postiglione, G. (2010). Temporary ActiveActions as Urban Re-appropriation Strategies. In Meade, T. Occupation. Edinburgh University Press. Merker, B. (2010). Taking place: Rebar’s absurd tactics in generous urbanism. In Hou, J (ed.), Insurgent Public Space: Guerilla Urbanism and the Remaking of Contemporary Cities (pp. 45-58) New York: Taylor & Francis.

Oldenburg, (1989). The Great Good Place. New York: Paragon House.

Page, S. (2008, March 31). DIY Urbanism. Retrieved from http://www.planetizen.com/node/30577 Passmore, M. (2010). Participatory Urbanism: Taking Action By Taking Space. Urbanist (February, 2010). Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Petrescu, D. (2005). Losing Control, Keeping Desire. In Blundell Jones, P, Petrescu, D., and Till, J. (Eds.), Architecture and Participation (pp. 43-64). London: Spon Press.

Merrifield, A. (2006). Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction. New York: Routledge.

Petrescu, D. (2007). How To Make A Community As Well as the Space For It. In Re-public: reimagining democracy (http://www.re-public.gr/en/).

Morales, A. (2010). Planning and the Self-Organization of Marketplaces. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 30, 182-197.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, R. & Feldstein, L. (2003). Better Together: Restoring the American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Saitta, E. (2009). Playing with the Built City. monochrome 26-34, 1-14. Semenza, J. (2005). Building Healthy Cities: A Focus on Interventions. Handbook of Urban Health 3, 459-478. Sennett, R. (1976). The Fall of Public Man. New York: Knopf. Shepard, B. (2005). Play Creativity, and the New Community Organizing. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 16 (2), 47-69. Temel, R. (2006). The Temporary in the City. In Haydn, F. & Temel, R. (Eds.), Temporary Urban Spaces (pp, 55-62). Basel: Birkhäuser. Zardini, M. (2008). “A New Urban Takeover.” In Borasi, G. & Zardini, M. (Eds.), Actions: What You Can Do With The City. Montreal: Canadian Centre For Architecture.

Appendices Datasets

Existing Datasets

Created Datasets

Halifax Regional Municipality, Traffic & Right-of-Way Services BlockParties2004-2010.xlsx Block Party Permit Usage, 2004-2010 Obtained 2011

Using ArcGIS 10 and process of ‘heads up digitization’, the following datasets were created with the information included in the HRM’s Traffic and Right of Way Services’ ‘Block Party Permit Usage, 2004-2010’ dataset:

Census Canada (2006). Census Data.

SP SP_YEAR SP_2004, SP_2005, SP_2006, SP_2007, SP_2008, SP_2009, SP_2010 SP_FREQ SP_FREQ_1, SP_FREQ_2, SP_FREQ_3, SP_FREQ_4, SP_FREQ_5, SP_FREQ_6, SP_FREQ_7

Halifax Regional Municipality HRM_GIS_DATA.gdb Obtained 2010 hrm_park lake landscape building street Datum: D_North_American_1983_CSRS Projection: Transverse_Mercator Projected Coordinate System: NAD_1983_CSRS_ UTM_ZONE_20N

Datum: D_North_American_1983_CSRS Projection: Transverse_Mercator Projected Coordinate System: NAD_1983_CSRS_ UTM_ZONE_20N

The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Block Party Permitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Photographs

The photographs in Section 5.2 were taken by the author on Friday April 8, 2011. All other photographs contained in this document, unless otherwise noted, are courtesy of the block party organizers interviewed. While they cannot be credited due to confidentiality, their contributions are recognized and appreciated.

Appendices

Appendices A

HRM Block Party Permit Information How Do I Get a Permit for a Neighbourhood Block Party? What are Neighbourhood Block Parties? People can invite their neighbours and families to get together for a party on their street. Parties can be held on a weekend or holiday only. The street can be closed off to vehicle traffic for you to enjoy your event safely. How do I get a permit to hold a Neighbourhood Block Party? Simply send a request to HRM with the following information to receive a permit, at no charge, for your party: 1. The name of the street where the closure is to take place. Include the starting point and ending point of the affected area. Closures are to start and stop at intersections wherever possible. 2. The date, time and the rain date for the event. 3. The contact name, address, e-mail and phone/fax for the event. 4. A written agreement to the closure from all affected residents. This is for first-time events, events that have had a break of a year or more, an event where complaints have been received, or the case where new residents have moved in. Include all the civic numbers and residents’ signatures. If an apartment building is included within the proposed closure area, a signature from each unit is required. 5. If you have created a flyer for your event, please provide a copy. HRM needs at least one (1) week of notice from the date you submit your application to the date you want to have your event in order to fulfill your request. More time is appreciated if possible. Once your request is approved, an authorization letter will be sent out to you providing more details. Barricades can be borrowed from HRM. You are responsible for the pick-up and drop-off of the barricades and any signage that is required according to the approved plan. How do I apply? You can apply by calling 490-6245 or 490-6845 or you can fax your information to 490-4858. Information can also be dropped off at any of the following HRM customer service centres: West End Mall, Halifax Alderney Gate, Dartmouth Sackville Office, Acadia School, 636 Sackville Drive What do I need to know? Please note: Street closures will not be permitted for fundraising or profit-making events Road closures must still allow for people to walk through Emergency vehicles must have access to the area All provincial and municipal By-laws and statutes still apply including, but not limited to, noise control, no open liquor, and no dogs off leash Loud music is not allowed after 11 p.m. (By-law N-200) Residents are asked to follow By-law 0-103 respecting Open Air Burning Open fire pits are not permitted in the city core area. In rural areas campfires are permitted as long as guidelines from By-law 0-103 are respected and that there is not a fire ban (Open Air Burning requires a permit 490-5546) To find out if there is a fire ban in your area call 490-5546 or visit www.halifax.ca/fire Any tents over 10’ by 10’ which will have members of the public in them must be inspected by HRM Fire Services. You can call 490-5546 or e-mail hrmfire@halifax.ca to request an inspector. Tents cannot be anchored into the street.

myHRM.ca

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Organize a clean up that includes all three streams of waste recycling (organics, recyclables and garbage) Metro Transit routes cannot be closed. Insurance Resources that offer useful information: General Liability Insurance is offered to members of Recreation Nova Scotia. This program is suitable for volunteer recreation groups. Please note that organizations looking for “Special Events Insurance” are encouraged to contact their local insurance company as this coverage is no longer offered. For more information call (902) 425-1128 or visit www.recreationns.ns.ca/insurance. Volunteer Canada offers an insurance program for volunteers: http://new.volunteer.ca/en/membership/benefits/generalliability or call 1-800-670-0401 Insurance Bureau of Canada offers information on how to manage risk. For more information call (902) 429-2730 or visit http://www.ibc.ca Volunteer Protection Act: http://www.gov.ns.ca/legislature/legc/bills/58th_2nd/3rd_read/b098.htm

Information provided in the Good Neighbours Great Neighbourhoods Tool Kit is accurate as of the date of printing. For the most current information on these and many other HRM programs, please visit www.myhrm.ca or www.halifax.ca HRM provides a number of links to external websites. HRM is not responsible for the accuracy, reliability, currency or content of the information provided through external sources. Users wishing to rely upon this information should consult directly with the source of the information.

Appendices B

Block Party Permit Usage By Year Total # Of Streets

Total # Of Permits

# Of Repeat Streets

57 N/A

58 12

0 JAN

HRM 2004

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

DEC

NOV

Thursday 13

Dartmouth

5 Halifax

Location, Of 58

3 3 1 1

Bedford Sackville

Saturday 30

Day of the Week, Of 58

13 Sunday 2

Hammonds Plains Upper Tantallon Eastern Passage

Friday Monday

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

2004 0

km 1:135,000

Appendices

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

# Of Repeat Streets

0 JAN

HRM 2005

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

DEC

NOV

Sunday

13 14

Halifax 33

Dartmouth

Location, out of 57

Saturday 34 5 1

Day of the Week, out of 57

Friday

Bedford 1

Eastern Passage Hammonds Plains Upper Tantallon Beaver Bank Sackville

Monday Wednesday

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

2005 0

km 1:135,000

Appendices

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

# Of Repeat Streets

0 JAN

HRM 2006

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

AUG

Location, out of 60

Saturday 5

SEP

OCT

DEC

NOV

Dartmouth

Halifax 42

JUL

Day of the Week, out of 60

15 3

Sackville 1

Bedford

Sunday

Friday

Wednesday Monday

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

2006 0

km 1:135,000

Appendices

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

# Of Repeat Streets

0 JAN

HRM 2007

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

Halifax 33

JUL

AUG

Sunday

OCT

DEC

NOV

Dartmouth

Location, out of 46 3

SEP

Day of the Week, out of 46

Bedford

Sackville

Saturday

Monday Thursday Friday

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

2007 0

km 1:135,000

Appendices

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

# Of Repeat Streets

0 JAN

HRM 2008

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

DEC

NOV

Sunday 10

Halifax 41

Dartmouth

Location, out of 53

Saturday 29 3 2

Bedford

Sackville

Day of the Week, out of 53

1 1

Tuesday

Thursday

Friday Monday Wednesday

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

2008 0

km 1:135,000

Appendices

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

# Of Repeat Streets

0 JAN

HRM 2009

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

Halifax 42

Sunday

Dartmouth

Location, out of 62

DEC

NOV

Bedford

1 Fall River 1 Timberlea 1 1 Lucasville

Cole Harbour

Saturday 37

Wednesday

Friday

Day of the Week, out of 62 1 1

Monday Thursday

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

2009 0

km 1:135,000

Appendices

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

# Of Repeat Streets

0 JAN

HRM 2010

FEB

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

DEC

NOV

Sunday 9

Halifax 35

Location, out of 45

3 2

Dartmouth Bedford

Sackville 1 1 Fall River Timberlea

Saturday 24

Thursday

Wednesday

Day of the Week, out of 45

Monday Friday

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

HRM

2010 0

km 1:135,000

Appendices C

Block Party Permit Usage By Geography

Frequency by # of Years Active, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

6 Years

7+ Years

Total # of Block Party Permits, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 2004

HAMMONDS PLAINS 92

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

2010

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Hammonds Plains 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0

0.6

1.2

km 1:20,000

Appendices Frequency by # of Years Active, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

6 Years

7+ Years

Total # of Block Party Permits, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 2004

UPPER TANTALLON 94

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

2010

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Upper Tantallon 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0

0.6

1.2

km 1:20,000

Appendices Frequency by # of Years Active, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

6 Years

7+ Years

Total # of Block Party Permits, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 2004

TIMBERLEA 96

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

2010

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Timberlea 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0

0.6

1.2

km 1:20,000

Appendices Frequency by # of Years Active, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

6 Years

7+ Years

Total # of Block Party Permits, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 2004

EASTERN PASSAGE 98

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

2010

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Eastern Passage 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0

0.6

1.2

km 1:20,000

Appendices Frequency by # of Years Active, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

6 Years

7+ Years

Total # of Block Party Permits, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 2004

SACKVILLE

(and beaver bank, fall river, lucasville)

100

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

2010

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Sackville 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0

km 1:40,000

101

Appendices Frequency by # of Years Active, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

6 Years

7+ Years

Total # of Block Party Permits, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 2004

BEDFORD 102

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

2010

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Bedford 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0

0.6

1.2

km 1:20,000

103

Appendices Frequency by # of Years Active, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

6 Years

7+ Years

Total # of Block Party Permits, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 2004

DARTMOUTH (and cole harbour) 104

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

2010

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Dartmouth 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0

km 1:35,000

105

Appendices Frequency by # of Years Active, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Year

2 Years

3 Years

4 Years

5 Years

6 Years

7+ Years

Total # of Block Party Permits, 2004-2010

50 40 30 20 10 0 2004

HALIFAX 106

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total # Of Permits

Total # Of Streets

260

2010

The ‘Block Party Permit’ In The HRM: Usage, Meaning, & Possibility

Halifax 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0

km 1:50,000

107