My original questions with my topic were simply a question of intent and purpose in creating the turf fields, and how they were to be operated. While this was partially simply a question of curiosity on my own part, since I am an active participant on the fields, it also can define exactly what the definition of public space could be. I mentioned in one of my earlier entries that I wanted to compare it to the volleyball fields in Mitchell’s The End of Public Space, and see whether it was more of a volleyball field or a public space. While some of the above questions have essentially remained the same, others I now recognize cannot truly be answered without some sort of subjective adaptation, which is what I am intent to avoid in this paper. There is an amount of relativity that would figure into any of the above questions, which, after research, I see makes none of them truly advantageous. Especially after directly asking in all my surveys and interviews what people thought the intent of the turf fields was, I got all different answers and, though there was some correlation, I recognized that I would need a point of view to answer the question, while I need to remain omniscient.
As I mentioned before, my primary analysis revealed that I cannot answer the question of purpose of the turf field without an established point of view. While each respondent had a different level of involvement in events of the turf fields, they revealed the main discrepancy between the town and its citizens in the turf field. Although the fields are posted as being a “park” and therefore really conceived as a truly public space, my interview with the Supervisor of Parks was very telling, in that he said that the main purpose of the fields was to support East Brunswick Youth Programs, while pickup usage took a backseat. This was consistent throughout the Parks Supervisor’s answers, through questions about turning off the lights after those playing league-sanctioned games were finished, and in the case of posting of the times that leagues had practices and which fields they occupied during that time. While this is clearly not something that the township shouldn’t be doing (supporting its own leagues with its own money and resources), it is something that isn’t communicated well within the confines of the park and isn’t communicated otherwise. This brought me to my point of the location of the turf fields, and why they’re not visible from any streets, and don’t have any kind of website or available resource to find information on them. The Parks Supervisor answered that the distance was because of where they could fit, between farms and County land, and on the flat farmland that existed before, and that the lights can’t be seen from resident’s homes, which is an advantage by any means. However, they cannot answer as to why the park is essentially invisible to town residents who don’t know about them. This is in part to avoid advertisement of facilities to out-of-towners, it also completely avoids advertising to in-towners. These many questions can hopefully be answered by secondary research that can propose how to use indirect non-visual clues to hint at the park’s creation and availability, and how to find a balance between league-sanctioned events and those unorganized pickup games.
In my research I am able to find plenty of information regarding public parks and their upkeep and their maintenance, purpose and usage. I’m also able to find a good amount of data on youth sports leagues, their effects on children and teenagers, their advantages and disadvantages. I’m also able to find information on youth fields and ballparks being built and how they are maintained and why they were built. However, the problem is that I have been able to find each aspect of the turf fields, but no examples that really begin to explore all of them, or try to bridge the gap in between them. The discrepancy between the town residents and the division of parks is also a clear gap in research that cannot be prevented through any kind of research, it’s a lack of communication that can only be fixed in change in policy, which can only be enacted if both sides acknowledge the lack of communication, which could be difficult.
When speaking of my original ideas, my main concern will be trying to bridge these gaps with analysis of current comparable situations and use the concerns of both sides of the town vs. residents to enact a proper compromise between the two. The concerns of conservation of money and of restricting the park to town residents are real and very legitimate, so this is not an easy topic to solve with simply one change in policy. It requires a change in mindset in one or two of the sides of the issue. This has to be proven not through simple primary analysis, but through the research of situations that do or do not encompass all of the park, league and usage elements that the turf fields do. I would love to try to define what kind of space the fields are, and where their boundaries really lie in their ability to be a “public space”. Though they are far from a “private space,” the binary is clearly not, as we discussed in Unit 1, black and white. This can help to establish how they should be used by both the township and its residents, and what is the correct balance of restriction and freedom in their upkeep.
I feel that my thesis needs to be kept somewhat removed from the specific topic of the turf fields. Instead, I need to keep the focus on the broader concept of multiuse public spaces and their implications on youth and other residents of the town. My argument will be developed by analysis of my primary and secondary research, but it is essentially comprised of the crucial role of correct usage of communication between a town and its residents. Whether it is through a website, through posting of signs, or through local advertisement, a balance for parks must be found, and then made clear in this communication. This seems to be the main place where my township has fallen through, because their reasoning for decisions is sound, but it is not communicated well, and therefore my primary research has resulted in inconsistencies.
Possible thesis:
In the creation and upkeep of multiuse public spaces, a crucial bond of communication must be maintained between administrators and the general public to ensure the proper maintenance of the space.
I really like this situation that you have chosen and I think it is the closest to mine. I think that reading this has given me a few ideas as to how to approach my topic which I have been struggling with. I think that your thesis is a good idea, but I may think about changing the last part to something about those that are excluded by the lack of communication. You can also look at whether it is on purpose or not, which it seems like it kind of is. Overall, great work and I am looking forward to see what you find as your final info. Hope this helps some.
Hi Michael. I am glad to see that you are using your primary research with the turf fields to make a broader argument about the importance of clear communication between administration and public in relation to multi-use spaces. Your site of analysis in this instance thereby becomes a means to discuss a more global issue. You will notice that Mitchell uses this same strategy!
Your argument may not seem “profound” but very often, it is the simple, and seemingly obvious, arguments that administrators need to hear. In fact, much of my work points out the obvious to those who seem to miss the obvious. I wrote my entire Master’s thesis, for instance, arguing that one main reason why Montana students are not learning how to write well is because pre-service teachers are not being taught how to teach writing. This thesis seemed a bit obvious and simple, but my thesis ended up helping change the way pre-service English teachers are educated at The U of M today.
All of this is to point out that you are on the right track with your essay. I do think Christopher’s suggestions is a good one though. You might think about creating just a bit more tension in your thesis to persuade your readers to want to read on by revising end of the sentence. Or you can create a bit of tension before your thesis and then use the one you have here. I do think though that what is at stake is not only proper maintenance but also less public confusion or resentment or misunderstanding….
Hope this feedback helps. Laurie
You sound like you are on the right track with your research. Filling in the gaps will probably be the hardest part for you, and you may need to locate additional secondary sources to help with this. Using Mitchell’s work like you suggested is of course a great start. It is interesting that the volleyball courts and public spaces Mitchell discusses are widely visible to the public, yet still have many of the same issues of exclusion and confusion in terms of use. Examples like this, while not very different from your own, still may be able to add a different viewpoint and help to guide you in filling your gaps. You may also want to see if anyone has donated money to the park, and if so, what viewpoint they have on the fields. Do they want the fields to be ‘private’ or are they more open-minded. While it may be difficult, you may also investigate who designates the tax money to the fields and what their feelings are. This could play into the communication gap that you are examining as the public may not have much of a say. I agree with Laurie’s suggestion to add a bit more tension to either your opening paragraphs or the thesis itself. You have made the thesis vague enough and by adding tension, you will make it slightly more clear and really engage the audience.