Reversing the Isolation and Inadequacies of Skateparks: Designing To
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REVERSING THE ISOLATION AND INADEQUACIES OF SKATEPARKS: DESIGNING TO SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATE SKATEBOARDING INTO DOWNTOWN LURAY, VIRGINIA by DANIEL BENJAMIN PENDER (Under the Direction of Bruce K. Ferguson) ABSTRACT Skateboarding has become the fastest rising social sport in America. Historically, this sport tends to attract a stereotyped grungy, nomadic, “pack-oriented” crowd that thrives off of the buzz of performing tricks in urban spaces. Unfortunately, this self- expressive crowd, as well as the destructive nature of the sport, has caused much of the general public to form negative opinions of skateboarding. Because of this, in combination with recent trends to “green up” cities and to accommodate for the sport’s increasing popularity, skateboarding (both physically and socially) is being forced to the outskirts of communities where poorly-built, less accessible, and environmentally insensitive skateparks are taking the place of socially rich urban skating environments. This thesis investigates the social/environmental issues associated with isolated and inadequate skateparks and the implications they may have on the future of the sport. Insight gained is applied to a skatepark design for my hometown of Luray, Virginia. INDEX WORDS: skateparks, skate plaza, skateable art, concrete obstacles, prefab obstacles, Luray, Virginia REVERSING THE ISOLATION AND INADEQUACIES OF SKATEPARKS: DESIGNING TO SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATE SKATEBOARDING INTO DOWNTOWN LURAY, VIRGINIA by DANIEL BENJAMIN PENDER B.S., North Carolina State University, 2007 A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ATHENS, GEORGIA 2010 © 2010 Daniel Benjamin Pender All Rights Reserved REVERSING THE ISOLATION AND INADEQUACIES OF SKATEPARKS: DESIGNING TO SUCCESSFULLY INTEGRATE SKATEBOARDING INTO DOWNTOWN LURAY, VIRGINIA by DANIEL BENJAMIN PENDER Major Professor: Bruce K. Ferguson Committee: Brian LaHaie Mark Reinberger Chet Thomas Electronic Version Approved: Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia May 2010 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank everyone who had a part in making this project possible. I am particularly grateful to my fiancée, Erin, for her understanding and patience throughout the last three years. My gratitude and thanks also go to my parents, especially to my father for his countless hours of long distance advice and criticism. I would also like to thank my classmates for making the last three years memorable and enriching. Lastly, I am especially thankful for the guidance provided by my advisor, Mr. Bruce Ferguson, who helped make this project successful. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS........................................................................................................................................iv LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................................... vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................1 2 SKATEBOARDING & ITS SUBCULTURE......................................................................................4 A Brief History of Skateboarding ............................................................................................4 Street Skateboarding versus Vert Skateboarding.........................................................11 Subculture......................................................................................................................................14 3 DEFINING THE PROBLEM.............................................................................................................20 Social Stereotype.........................................................................................................................20 Physical Damage..........................................................................................................................25 “Greening Up” of Urban Infrastructure .............................................................................29 The Skatepark Dilemma: Inadequate Solutions ............................................................31 Overall Implications...................................................................................................................34 4 SKATEPARKS ......................................................................................................................................38 Skatepark Evolution: The Concrete Wave........................................................................38 Skatepark Evolution: Wood....................................................................................................43 Skatepark Evolution: Burnside Skatepark, Portland, Oregon .................................47 Constructing a Skatepark: Modern Materials and Components.............................50 v Prefab Vs. Concrete ....................................................................................................................58 What Makes a Good Skatepark..............................................................................................66 Skatepark Innovators................................................................................................................73 5 LURAY SKATEPARK DESIGN APPLICATION.........................................................................91 Intent................................................................................................................................................91 Current Skatepark Conditions...............................................................................................92 Proposed Site Conditions: Downtown Luray & Hawksbill Greenway .................99 Integrating Skateboarding into Downtown Luray .................................................... 114 6 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................... 145 WORKS CITED...................................................................................................................................................... 149 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...….151 A Glossary of Skateboarding Terminology…….……...……………….………………………….151 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1: 1950’s Original Skateboard Scooter..........................................................................................5 Figure 2.2: Rudimentary Tricks of Early Skateboarding .........................................................................5 Figure 2.3: Original Clay Wheels ........................................................................................................................8 Figure 2.4: Polyurethane “Cadillac Wheels”..................................................................................................8 Figure 2.5: Original Zephyr Skateboard Team (“Z-Boys”) of Venice, CA ..........................................8 Figure 2.6: Military Use of Skateboards.......................................................................................................11 Figure 2.7: Half-pipe Vert Ramp and Profile..............................................................................................12 Figure 2.8: Stair & Handrail Skateboarding ...............................................................................................14 Figure 2.9: “Z-Boys” of California in the 1970’s Set the Standard for Skateboarding Image 16 Figure 2.10: Marketing Logo & Prevalent Image of Skateboarders in the 1980’s.....................17 Figure 2.11: Common Image of a Current Skateboarder......................................................................18 Figure 3.1: Loitering Skateboarders Confronted in a City Plaza .......................................................22 Figure 3.2: Common Dynamic, Expressive Skateboarder ....................................................................24 Figure 3.3: Structural Damage Caused by Skateboarding....................................................................27 Figure 3.4: Anti-skateboarding Devices to Prevent Grinding.............................................................28 Figure 3.5: Skateboarders at Love Park, PA ...............................................................................................31 Figure 3.6: “Sterile” Skatepark—John H. Hale Skatepark, Live Oak, FL .........................................33 Figure 3.7: Skatepark With No Vegetation/Stormwater Management—John Lomas Skatepark, Orange, Australia ............................................................................................................................34 vii Figure 4.1: Carlsbad Skatepark, San Diego, CA, 1976.............................................................................39 Figure 4.2: Individual, Linear Runs at Concrete Wave Skatepark, Anaheim, CA, 1977...........40 Figure 4.3: Pipeline Skatepark Combi-pool, Upland, CA.......................................................................41 Figure 4.4: An Early Wooden Half-pipe Without Flat Bottom............................................................44 Figure 4.5: Half-pipe With Flat Bottom ........................................................................................................44 Figure 4.6: Steel Tubing Coping on a Wooden Ramp .............................................................................45