SPACES FOR PARKOUR

Although   the   athletic   nature   of   parkour   means   that   it   is   often   categorised   as   a   sport,   it   contrasts  with  this  notion  considerably  as  it  does  not  work  within  a  system  of  rules,  and  it  is   not   directed   towards   a   predefined   aim.   Rather   than   being   a   fixed   and   equal   setting   for   athletic  performance  to  measure  against,  which  is  the  case  with  football  grounds  or  athletic   tracks  for  example,  the  terrain  for  traceurs  is  ever  changing,  which  establishes  the  need  for   constant   awareness   of   how   to   adapt   to   surroundings.   Unlike   conventional   sports   spaces,   parkour  is  not  concerned  with  orientating  the  rules  of  a  game  within  an  abstract  space,  but   rather  it  is  an  activity  that  concerns  itself  with  identifying  with  particular  characteristics  of  a   specific   place.   In   appropriating   places,   practitioners   engage   with   not   only   the   physical   qualities  of  a  space,  but  they  also  negotiate  the  social  codes  that  define  its  intended  use.   Thus,  understanding  the  notion  of  environments  for  parkour  is  not  simply  concerned  with   material  objects  that  afford  certain  functions,  but  rather  it  is  related  to  the  social  construct   of  territory.    

 Because   parkour   has   developed   in   response   to   built   environments   that   were   already  in  existence,  practitioners  rely  upon  found  spaces  rather  than  ones  that  have  been   purposely  created.  This  largely  contrasts  with  sports  facilities  that  are  built  in  accordance   with   the   restrictions   that   correspond   to   the   rules   of   the   sport.   This   again   highlights   the   emphasis   that   is   placed   upon   freely   exploring   human   movement   from   an   internal   perspective,  rather  than  one  that  is  closely  linked  to  social  codes  and  expectations.  Due  to   the  unregulated  nature  of  the  spaces  used  for  parkour,  in  comparison  to  spaces  used  for   traditional   sports   there   is   a   greater   sense   of   risk   and   uncertainty,   thus   practitioners   negotiate   spaces   with   a   heightened   sensory   awareness   of   the   threats   that   exist   around   them.   By   placing   their   bodies   into   positions   of   danger,   practitioners   fully   immerse   themselves   within   their   surroundings   in   a   way   that   parallels   extreme   sports   such   as   free   climbing,   or   base-­‐jumping.   However,   unlike   those   involved   with   such   activities,   practitioners  do  not  necessarily  seek  out  spatial  features  of  substantial  heights  and  physical   complexity,   or   detach   themselves   from   their   conventional   surroundings   to   explore   the   vastness   of   the   wilderness.   Rather,   practitioners   often   situate   their   interest   within   public   and  residual  spaces  that  are  intended  for  passive  engagement,  or  non–places  that  could  be   overlooked  altogether.    

Spaces  used  for  parkour  also  differ  greatly  to  those  that  have  been  prescribed  for   sporting  functions,  as  they  are  not  created  to  accommodate  a  crowd.  Because  traditional   sporting  events  such  as  football,  or  tennis  matches  are  held  at  specific  times  and  specific   places,  the  role  of  the  crowd  operates  with  an  awareness  of  these  constraints  and  tends  to   behave   in   a   predictable   pattern.   The   spontaneity   of   parkour   however,   means   that   the   audience   too   is   fluid   and   irregular   in   its   nature.   By   appropriating   spaces   that   have   been   designated   for   other   functions,   practitioners   are   aware   that   their   actions   may   attract   criticism  due  to  fears  that  they  have  an  interest  in  vandalism  or  trespassing  upon  private   property.  The  response  within  the  parkour  community  has  been  to  promote  a  policy  that   encourages  each  other  to  leave  no  trace  (Edwardes  2009,  p.  24).  The  emphasis  within  the   parkour  community   to   interact   with   an   environment   and   depart   without   there   being   physical   evidence   of   their   time   spent   there   is   a   key   aspect   of   understanding   how   the   movement   contributes   to   the   creation   of   a   place.   Although   traceur’s  fleeting   presence   reveals   the   potential   for   individual   movement   within   it,   the   actions   of   practitioners   have   been   known   to   be   misunderstood   as   being   intimidating,   as   their   motives   are   not   clearly   recognisable  (Corkery  2010,  pp.  84–96).  This  interpretation  of  parkour  has  meant  that  the   movement   has   remained   as   a   fringe   activity   in   certain   places,   and   for   the   demand   for   spaces  where  it  can  exist  within  a  contained  environment.  Subsequently,  despite  traceurs   interest  in  mastering  existing  built  spaces,  in  recent  years  there  has  been  a  growing  trend  in   the  development  of  parkour  specific  facilities.  The  intention  for  these  facilities  is  that  they   will  offer  a  relatively  safe  environment,  where  practitioners  have  access  to  obstacles  that   they  can  overcome  without  being  a  concern  to  others.    

This  development  of  parkour  specific  facilities  clearly  parallels  that  of  the  purpose   built   skate–parks   that   were   constructed   in   the   late   seventies   to   serve   the   millions   of   skateboarders  that  were  located  around  the  world  (Borden  2001,  p.  57).  The  intention  of   many  of  the  early  designers  of  these  parks  had  been  to  mimic  and  enhance  the  pre–existing   spatial   forms   that   skateboarders   had   sought   to   appropriate.   Prior   to   the   creation   of   Skateboard   parks,   the   terrain   par   excellence   for   skateboarding   had   been   the   outside   swimming  pools  found  throughout  California.  As  accessing  these  structures  often  required   illegal   access   to   private   property,   a   number   of   spatial   tactics   were   implemented   by   skateboarders  to  avoid  being  caught  be  the  police  or  property  owners,  which  helped  make   the   pursuit   of   these   spaces   more   enticing   (Borden   2001,   p.   48).   The   elaborate   forms   of   these   pools   offered   an   extensive   amount   of   opportunities   for   the   early   thrill–seeking   skateboard  community,  and  did  a  great  deal  to  establish  the  excitement  of  the  movement  

to   an   international   audience.   The   creation   of   skateboard   parks   were   therefore   largely   governed  by  two  major  factors;  the  need  to  provide  spaces  for  skateboarding  which  did  not   require  trespassing  onto  private  property,  and  the  replication  of  complex  built  forms  that   would  otherwise  be  unavailable.    

Although   skateboard   parks   have   been   financially   successful   since   there   initial   development  in  the  late  70s,  a  large  part  of  skateboarding  culture  still  orientates  around   the   process   of   finding   possibilities   in   conventional   urban   architecture.   This   practice   highlights  the  complexity  of  the  culture,  as  the  introduction  of  skateboarding  facilities  only   caters   for   a   section   of   it,   whilst   others   maintain   the   importance   of   engaging   with   uncontrolled  conditions  in  order  to  maintain  an  authentic  pursuit  of  the  activity.  The  thrill   of   finding   spaces   and   appropriating   them   for   an   unintended   function   is   equally   an   issue   found  within  parkour  and  despite  growing  interest  in  purpose  built  facilities,  skateboarding   has   demonstrated   how   these   can   operate   in   parallel   with   the   spontaneous   use   of   found   spaces.    

  What  parkour  and  skateboarding  both  help  to  emphasise  is  the  potential  that  exists   for  designers  of  spaces  to  engage  with  the  multi–sensory  aspects  of  the  human  body.  By   considering   an   active   and   athletic   rather   than   passive   engagement   with   the   built   environment,  traceurs  and  skateboarders  demonstrate  an  alternative  form  of  interpreting   space  at  different  scales  as  micro  spaces  are  interrogated  just  as  much  as  those  on  an  urban   scale.  As  Iain  Borden  points  out,    

Skateboarding  is  a  destructive–absorptive–reproductive  process  of  both  body  and   architecture.  Consequently  its  mode  of  spatial  composition  is  very  different  to  that   of  architecture,  replacing  architecture’s  ‘classicist’  mode  with  one  of  ‘romanticism’   (...)   In   the   organized   cosmos   of   architecture–classicism’s   cohesion,   internalized   hierarchies,   imitation   and   balance,   there   are   waves,   vibrations   and   oscillations   of   skateboarding’s  ludic  procedures,  suggesting  conflict  and  contradiction,  chaos  and   confusion,  internalization  of  the  external  world,  emotion  and  spontaneity  (Borden   2001,  p.  112).  

The  notion  of  rhythms  is  equally  pertinent  to  parkour  as  it  is  an  activity  that  demonstrates   personal  interpretations  of  built  spaces  as  a  form  of  individual  expression.  This  ‘romantic’   rather   than   ‘classicist’   perspective   of   architecture   builds   upon   Henri   Lefebvre’s   phenomenological  concepts  of  spatial–temporal  rhythmanalysis,  and  the  internalisation  of   one’s   surroundings.   Rather   than   perceiving   architectural   space   as   a   predominately   visual   and  linear  experience,  parkour  in  a  similar  fashion  to  skateboarding  manifests  an  enhanced   multisensory   familiarity   with   environments,   which   promotes   slowness   and   intimacy.   Parkour  however,  unlike  skateboarding  requires  no  object  to  mediate  between  architecture  

and   bodily   experience.   Traceurs   activities   thus   directly   examine   the   haptic   nature   of   materials  as  much  as  their  visual  characteristics,  and  are  therefore  attracted  to  spaces  due   to   their   non–visual   qualities.   This   haptic   perception   of   space   is   used   to   read   the   urban   terrain   as   a   source   of   limitless   opportunity   for   athletic   demonstrations   of   personal   expression,  in  doing  so;  the  eye  is  engaged  in  what  has  been  described  as  parkour  vision   (Lamb   2011,   p.   130).   Although   this   form   of   reading   is   largely   associated   with   continuous   movement  and  a  series  of  urban  spaces,  it  also  influences  engagements  with  constrained   areas.  As  Saville  points  out;  

Parkour  is  not  always  the  super–mobile  practice  one  might  imagine.  Hours  spent  in   a   relatively   small   area   slowly   ‘getting   to   know’   the   space   is   the   norm.   Embodied   knowledge  and  familiarity  of  place  is  gained  as  place  is  tried.  Here  the  body,  while   repeating  similar  movements  many  times,  is  slowly  building  embodied  knowledge   of  itself  and  its  relation  to  spatial  forms  (Saville  2008,  p.  892).  

Through  this  process,  relationships  between  specific  locations  and  practitioners  are  formed,   leading   to   the   notion   of   parkour   hotspots   that   are   favoured   by   members   of   the   parkour   community.  In  these  settings  material  qualities  and  spatial  forms  are  intimately  known  by  a   collective  and  are  used  as  a  stage  for  sharing  bodily  experiences  that  inform  a  repository  of   tactile  memories.    

Facilities  that  are  purposely  built  for  parkour  therefore  reference  to  this  collective   knowledge  as  a  source  of  inspiration  and  a  means  of  connecting  to  the  narrative  of  parkour   culture.  Parkour  facilities  contrast  significantly  with  found  spaces  as  practitioners  no  longer   engage   in   the   process   of   subverting   the   intended   meaning   of   architecture   but   instead   operate   within   it,   in   a   similar   manner   to   events   practiced   within   conventional   sporting   facilities.   However,   the   example   of   skateboard   parks,   demonstrates   how   the   embodied   knowledge  gained  within  such  spaces  has  the  potential  to  continue  to  influence  the  reading   of  public  urban  spaces.  Additionally  due  to  the  interruptions  caused  by  weather  conditions   to  traceurs  training  within  the  urban  context,  parkour  facilities  could  also  be  seen  as  much   as  an  environmental  response  as  it  is  a  political  response  to  the  conditions  of  city  space.    

The  concern  though  however,  is  that  by  having  purpose-­‐built  facilities  for  parkour,   traceurs  will  simply  belong  to  particular  spaces  and  create  their  own  form  of  ghettoisation.   By  having  the  activities  of  parkour  isolated  within  certain  areas,  traceurs  will  be  displaced   from  the  act  of  appropriating  the  mundane,  everyday  spaces  that  they  have  a  reputation   for  animating  through  their  performative  acts  of  deconstruction.  Having  a  designated  place   for   parkour   will   create   events   that   are   divorced   from   questioning   of   the   conditions   of   contemporary   culture,   effectively   creating   a   smoothed   space   in   Deluzian   sense,   demonstrating  a  path  of  least  resistance.  The  free  nature  of  parkour  as  a  discipline  that  is  

unfixed  to  specific  locations  means  that  it  is  difficult  to  distinguish  between  the  importance   of  place  for  the  spectator  and  for  the  benefit  of  the  observed,  as  the  relationship  between   the   two   are   inextricably   linked.   This   tension   between   how   parkour  is   perceived   and   the   perspective  that  it  creates  for  practitioners  is  at  the  centre  of  understanding  the  reasoning   for   spaces   for   parkour.   Whether   spaces   are   created   to   serve   the   function   of   accommodating   parkour  or   not,   it   is   apparent   that   the   method   of   spatial   reading   that   parkour  engenders   creates   opportunities   to   investigate   the   role   place   plays   in   helping   to   shape  collective  identities.    

Figure  1  –  Image  from  My  Playground:  A  film  about  movement  in  Urban  Space  (Schröder  2010)   that  features  a  purpose  built  facility  for  parkour.  

This  text  box  is  where  the  unabridged  version  of  the  thesis  contained  the  following  third  party   copyrighted  material:  

Image  from  SCHRÖDER,  K.A.,  2010.  My  Playground:  A  film  about  movement  in  urban  space.  First  edn.   Copenhagen,  Denmark:  KSPR.