| Landscapes for Skateboarding |
| Copyright 2004-05 The information on this page was written and developed by Anthony Bracali and Joshua Nims and may not be reproduced in any format or fashion without written permission from the authors. |
| Thinking |
| BACK |
AN ARCHITECT’s PERSPECTIVE on SKATEBOARDING
As an architect who has contributed to the design of many public
places, I often had to consider skateboarding as an issue. I wondered
how LOVE Park could be glorified on a Japanese skateboarding
magazine’s cover, while also being considered a quintessential
example of a failed urban design and social agenda.
The skateboarding culture made LOVE Park a focal point of
Philadelphia's image for over a decade. The park’s most famous
users strengthened its international reputation and success.
Professional skateboarders like Ricky Oyola, Josh Kalis, Stevie
Williams, and Anthony Pappalardo made their names in the
multibillion-dollar skateboarding industry by being identified with their
frequent use of LOVE's famous ledges and stair sets.
My own survey of the most notable skateboarding locations in cities
around the world helped me realize one striking thing: These were all
places whose designers had never imagined skateboarding would
develop as the preferred activity. Many of these spaces had been
shaped by an altogether different social vision, but the design choices
propagated as part of that vision generated a new type of physical
environment which, in turn, resulted in a completely new dialogue
between people and space.
Understanding the significance of these types of skateboarding
locations, it became clear to me that there was a wide gap between
what traditional skatepark design was offering and what participants in
skateboarding wanted.
As an architect who has contributed to the design of many public
places, I often had to consider skateboarding as an issue. I wondered
how LOVE Park could be glorified on a Japanese skateboarding
magazine’s cover, while also being considered a quintessential
example of a failed urban design and social agenda.
The skateboarding culture made LOVE Park a focal point of
Philadelphia's image for over a decade. The park’s most famous
users strengthened its international reputation and success.
Professional skateboarders like Ricky Oyola, Josh Kalis, Stevie
Williams, and Anthony Pappalardo made their names in the
multibillion-dollar skateboarding industry by being identified with their
frequent use of LOVE's famous ledges and stair sets.
My own survey of the most notable skateboarding locations in cities
around the world helped me realize one striking thing: These were all
places whose designers had never imagined skateboarding would
develop as the preferred activity. Many of these spaces had been
shaped by an altogether different social vision, but the design choices
propagated as part of that vision generated a new type of physical
environment which, in turn, resulted in a completely new dialogue
between people and space.
Understanding the significance of these types of skateboarding
locations, it became clear to me that there was a wide gap between
what traditional skatepark design was offering and what participants in
skateboarding wanted.
| Barcelona skatepark by Richard Meier |
| Benches at the Embarcadero |
SKATEBOARDING: SPORT or ART?
Skateboarding is a social and cultural activity, not just a sport. Nearly
every photo of people skateboarding shows more skaters sitting,
talking and hanging out than actually skateboarding. Despite the
perception fowarded by events like the X-Games, most skateboarders
do not consider themselves athletes. Skateboarding with its
exhuberant motion and "wheeled" dance maneuvers is tied more
closely to the artistic community and values its role as a distinct
subculture.
These ideas are not new and have been documented in a wide variety
of well written treatises on skateboarding culture and public space
including works by Ocean Howell, Iain Borden, and others. Richard
Florida has also written eloquently about the relationship of the
“Creative Class” to activities such as skateboarding.
With these trends and scholarship in mind, there are major flaws in
the approach taken by many skateboarding design companies:
1) Designs have ignored the natural landscape
2) Standard design elements (or “kit of parts”) have been repeated
again and again from one park to the next
3) Selection of isolated sites which are removed from their
surroundings - set at the rear of public parks, or in the least desirable
places of the city.
4) Designs centered only on skateboarding terrain
5) Skateboarding terrain which is too difficult or designed incorrectly
6) Use of only simple, cheap materials and monotonous materials
These approaches do not address the culture of skateboarding – they
only allow for the mass production of skateparks like suburban
housing. They also allow designers to make more money with less
effort per project. Just as you cannot purchase a unique, contextual
and successful piece of architecture from a catalog, you cannot design
a skatepark with a standard “kit of parts.”
Skatepark design for the majority of companies amounts to little more
than the design of a playground.... and it has the possibility and
opportunity to be much more.
Skateboarding is a social and cultural activity, not just a sport. Nearly
every photo of people skateboarding shows more skaters sitting,
talking and hanging out than actually skateboarding. Despite the
perception fowarded by events like the X-Games, most skateboarders
do not consider themselves athletes. Skateboarding with its
exhuberant motion and "wheeled" dance maneuvers is tied more
closely to the artistic community and values its role as a distinct
subculture.
These ideas are not new and have been documented in a wide variety
of well written treatises on skateboarding culture and public space
including works by Ocean Howell, Iain Borden, and others. Richard
Florida has also written eloquently about the relationship of the
“Creative Class” to activities such as skateboarding.
With these trends and scholarship in mind, there are major flaws in
the approach taken by many skateboarding design companies:
1) Designs have ignored the natural landscape
2) Standard design elements (or “kit of parts”) have been repeated
again and again from one park to the next
3) Selection of isolated sites which are removed from their
surroundings - set at the rear of public parks, or in the least desirable
places of the city.
4) Designs centered only on skateboarding terrain
5) Skateboarding terrain which is too difficult or designed incorrectly
6) Use of only simple, cheap materials and monotonous materials
These approaches do not address the culture of skateboarding – they
only allow for the mass production of skateparks like suburban
housing. They also allow designers to make more money with less
effort per project. Just as you cannot purchase a unique, contextual
and successful piece of architecture from a catalog, you cannot design
a skatepark with a standard “kit of parts.”
Skatepark design for the majority of companies amounts to little more
than the design of a playground.... and it has the possibility and
opportunity to be much more.
STREET as SKATEPARK
Many skatepark design companies recognize these trends, but they
have not changed their usual approach to design. Several have begun
to promote design projects which copy the exact dimensions and
characteristics of famous skateboarding spots around the world
including LOVE Park. This approach does not recognize the true
creative nature of skateboarding to create new possibilities with the
landscape or the desire of skateboarders to be part of a diverse social
setting and community experience.
The key in any type of sophisticated design exercise is not in
replicating the characteristics of any place that has already been
created. It is in creating new spaces which recognize the unique
nature of their individual sites, contexts and user communities.
SKATEPARK is the WRONG WORD
By January 2003, through the leadership of Josh Nims, director of
Franklin’s Paine Skatepark Fund and the advocacy of SkateNerd
president Brian Nugent, the City of Philadelphia had offered several
sites that could be suitable for a new skatepark. Working together with
our team, these sites were studied and ultimately our team developed
a conceptual design for the Schuylkill River Site.
We agreed that collaboration should be the key element in this
process. This design needed to serve many users, and, therefore, it
needed to be designed by more than just skateboarders. The City, the
community and the site required a philosophy that addressed the
failings of the current skatepark design model.
What we proposed in our concept study was a new model of
skatepark design that results in places that cannot be called
“skateparks” at all. Our team creates “landscapes for skateboarding”.
Many skatepark design companies recognize these trends, but they
have not changed their usual approach to design. Several have begun
to promote design projects which copy the exact dimensions and
characteristics of famous skateboarding spots around the world
including LOVE Park. This approach does not recognize the true
creative nature of skateboarding to create new possibilities with the
landscape or the desire of skateboarders to be part of a diverse social
setting and community experience.
The key in any type of sophisticated design exercise is not in
replicating the characteristics of any place that has already been
created. It is in creating new spaces which recognize the unique
nature of their individual sites, contexts and user communities.
SKATEPARK is the WRONG WORD
By January 2003, through the leadership of Josh Nims, director of
Franklin’s Paine Skatepark Fund and the advocacy of SkateNerd
president Brian Nugent, the City of Philadelphia had offered several
sites that could be suitable for a new skatepark. Working together with
our team, these sites were studied and ultimately our team developed
a conceptual design for the Schuylkill River Site.
We agreed that collaboration should be the key element in this
process. This design needed to serve many users, and, therefore, it
needed to be designed by more than just skateboarders. The City, the
community and the site required a philosophy that addressed the
failings of the current skatepark design model.
What we proposed in our concept study was a new model of
skatepark design that results in places that cannot be called
“skateparks” at all. Our team creates “landscapes for skateboarding”.
THE DESIGN APPROACH
Our design approach recognizes:
1) Successful spaces must accommodate both active and passive
recreation
2) The public will more readily lend their support to spaces open to
many users
3) Location is essential in creating a successful public space
4) Public spaces are more secure when there are many users and
many activities
5) Wider funding opportunities are available for spaces designed with
these considerations in mind
LANDSCAPES for skateboarding create:
1) Designs which respect the social, creative and artistic nature of
skateboarders and their need to be part of the larger community
2) Contextual designs which address their surroundings
3) Designs which engage the landscape and site and explore different
materials and textures
4) Designs which accommodate many activities, including
skateboarding
5) Designs which are more widely accepted by non-skateboarders
because they address the multiplicity of the above concerns
Our design approach recognizes:
1) Successful spaces must accommodate both active and passive
recreation
2) The public will more readily lend their support to spaces open to
many users
3) Location is essential in creating a successful public space
4) Public spaces are more secure when there are many users and
many activities
5) Wider funding opportunities are available for spaces designed with
these considerations in mind
LANDSCAPES for skateboarding create:
1) Designs which respect the social, creative and artistic nature of
skateboarders and their need to be part of the larger community
2) Contextual designs which address their surroundings
3) Designs which engage the landscape and site and explore different
materials and textures
4) Designs which accommodate many activities, including
skateboarding
5) Designs which are more widely accepted by non-skateboarders
because they address the multiplicity of the above concerns
OUR TEAM
Our vision for public space design and skateboarding is made
possible through a unique collaboration of individuals with varying
skills and experience. Once our team has developed an overall
design masterplan, we have the ability to work with any number of
traditional skatepark design companies to maintain our larger,
integrated design approach.
Our vision for public space design and skateboarding is made
possible through a unique collaboration of individuals with varying
skills and experience. Once our team has developed an overall
design masterplan, we have the ability to work with any number of
traditional skatepark design companies to maintain our larger,
integrated design approach.
| An empty skate park in the located in the middle of an open field |
| Back to start... |
| Green space can be a good thing |
| LOVE's famous ledges |