Empowering with Nina Ballantyne

What makes parkour jam spaces unique, and how do they shape the experience of movement, community, and accessibility?

A church, a jam space, and a parkour gym—what do they have in common, and why does it matter?

"The empowerment, and the kind of liberation to not care what other people think, does have a limit for some folk, I guess. I love it. I think for me, it's been great and really powerful. I really like not caring anymore about being bad at stuff in particular— that's so freeing." ~ Nina Ballantyne (14:00)

The conversation explores the concept of parkour jam spaces, emphasizing how they lack defined boundaries, making them more accessible in theory but sometimes intimidating in practice. The discussion touches on the contrast between structured athletic environments and the open, fluid nature of parkour, where new participants must navigate unspoken social norms rather than physical barriers. The conversation also highlights the paradox of accessibility—while jam spaces remove formal entry requirements, social and cultural factors can still create obstacles, especially for marginalized individuals.

The discussion transitions into broader themes of public space, inclusivity, and the intersection of parkour with community projects. A significant portion focuses on an initiative to purchase a historic church in Edinburgh and transform it into a community space. The conversation reflects on how physical spaces carry different meanings based on personal and cultural perspectives. The comparison between parkour jam spaces and community-driven spaces like the church highlights the broader theme of reclaiming and redefining public areas for collective benefit.

Takeaways

Jam spaces and accessibility — The absence of a physical boundary in a jam space doesn’t mean it’s truly open to everyone, as social and psychological barriers still exist.

The role of unstructured environments — Unlike traditional sports with defined spaces and rules, parkour operates in public spaces, leading to unique challenges in inclusivity and belonging.

Marginalized groups in public spaces — Individuals who are already scrutinized in society, whether due to gender, race, or body type, may experience additional barriers when engaging in parkour.

The impact of early experiences — Many practitioners come into parkour without formal athletic backgrounds, which shapes their approach to movement and learning.

Cultural norms within parkour — Different communities have their own customs, such as specific greetings or approaches to training, which can be both welcoming and exclusionary.

Reclaiming public space — Parkour’s ability to redefine urban spaces extends beyond movement, influencing broader discussions about who has access to and control over public areas.

Indoor vs. outdoor training — While some practitioners prefer the spontaneity of outdoor training, indoor spaces provide a structured environment that can be more accessible to beginners or marginalized groups.

The intersection of parkour and community work — The discussion about repurposing a church into a community space parallels parkour’s ethos of adapting and reclaiming environments.

The perception of churches as public spaces — Depending on cultural background, a church can be seen as either a welcoming community hub or an exclusive, imposing institution.

The role of storytelling in community building — Sharing experiences and narratives within parkour fosters a sense of shared culture and belonging.

The importance of understanding different motivations — Some practitioners seek challenge, while others prioritize playfulness, relaxation, or self-expression.

The limits of parkour’s inclusivity — While parkour prides itself on being an open and adaptable discipline, social realities can still make participation