UBC Graduate Research

Skateparks vs. The City Ross, Nathan 2021-05-04

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
42591-Ross_Nathan_Skateparks_city_LARC_598_2021.pdf [ 71.84MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 42591-1.0397272.json
JSON-LD: 42591-1.0397272-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 42591-1.0397272-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 42591-1.0397272-rdf.json
Turtle: 42591-1.0397272-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 42591-1.0397272-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 42591-1.0397272-source.json
Full Text
42591-1.0397272-fulltext.txt
Citation
42591-1.0397272.ris

Full Text

ISKATEPARKS VS. THE CITYNathan RossMaster of Landscape ArchitectureGraduate Project ReportSupervised by Patrick CondonPhoto: xkidx, Wikimedia CommonsIIRelease Form Landscape ArchitectureSchool of Architecture and Landscape ArchitectureUniversity of British ColumbiaName: Nathan RossUBC Student number: Graduate Project Title: Skateparks vs. The CityIn presenting this report in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Landscape Architecture, University of British Columbia, I agree that UBC may make this work freely available for reference or study. I give permission for copying the report for educational purposes in accordance with copyright laws.Nathan Ross          Name    Signature      DateIII Public space plays a fundamental role in creating the high quality of life enjoyed in cities. However as cities grow, so too do our demands of this limited shared resource. Ideas of what is permissible in public space is a highly contentious topic, with fringe activities typically pushed out in favour of less obtrusive uses.  Skateboarding is a prime example of an activity that has a wide range of benefits for the city but continues to be actively excluded in the design of public space through the use of defensive architectures. As designers of the public realm, landscape architects have an obligation to design more inclusive public space and approach tensions of cohabitation as an opportunity rather than a threat. This project redefines the city of Vancouver as a skate-city and integrates skate-friendly public space design into multiple locations across the downtown core. In doing so, this project hopes to expand conventional notions of acceptable use in pursuit of a more inclusive design ethic. Abstract  IVTable Of ContentsSkateparks vs. The City ...................................................................................................................... IRelease Form  ............................................................................................................................ IIAbstract   ............................................................................................................................ IIITable Of Contents ................................................................................................................. IVList of Figures ............................................................................................................................VAcknowledgments .................................................................................................................VIIFraming .......................................................................................................................................................1I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................2II. High Modernism and the Legible City ...............................................................4III. Transgressions in the Public Sphere ......................................................................6IV. Why Skateboarding ......................................................................................................8V. Tactical Urbanism ........................................................................................................ 10VI. The DIY Spot .................................................................................................................. 12Principles .................................................................................................................................................. 14Statement of Design Principles ....................................................................................... 15Precedents ............................................................................................................................................... 16Precedent 1:  Skate Stopper Typeface ....................................................................... 18Precedent 2:  “Play!”  .............................................................................................................. 19Precedent 3.  Leon Cladel Skatepark  ...................................................................... 20Precedent 4.  Rabalderparken  .......................................................................................21Project Timeline ...................................................................................................................................22The Site ................................................................................................................................................... 24Vancouver, British Columbia............................................................................................25Key Spots ............................................................................................................................................... 27Design Proposal. .................................................................................................................................28A Project Embedded In The City................................................................................. 30Materials   ...........................................................................................................................34Site 1: The Lot Spot ..............................................................................................................35Site 1: The Lot Spot ..............................................................................................................36Site 2: The Tank Spot ..........................................................................................................44Site 3: The Creek Spot ........................................................................................................54Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................66Reference List .......................................................................................................................... 67VList of FiguresFigure 1. Kickflip ..........................................................................................................................1Figure 2. A Street Scene on Granville Street Downtown Vancouver ...........3Figure 3. Howard’s “Group of Slumless Smokeless Cities” ..................................5Figure 4. Three-flip ...................................................................................................................7Figure 5. No Skating Sign ...................................................................................................7Figure 6.  Onlookers  ..............................................................................................................9Figure 7. Parklet Design ....................................................................................................... 11Figure 8. DIY Spot ................................................................................................................. 13Figure 9. FS Gap .................................................................................................................... 14Figure 10. Transgressive Design Intervention Diagram ..................................... 15Figure 11. BS 50-50 ................................................................................................................ 16Figure 12. Abandoned Mini Ramp ............................................................................... 24Figure 13. Key Spot Map ................................................................................................... 27Figure 14. Skate City Route Diagram .........................................................................29Figure 15. Skate City Route Map ................................................................................. 30Figure 16. Obstacle Design Scales ................................................................................31Figure 17. Generic Street Features ................................................................................32Figure 18. Subverted Street Features ..........................................................................33Figure 19. Bodega Antion by Jesús Marino Pascual ...........................................34Figure 20. Material Selection Diagram ....................................................................34Figure 21. Lot Spot Location Map ...............................................................................35Figure 22. Site 1 Sketch Iterations  ...............................................................................36Figure 23. Site 1 Spot, Line, Feature Diagram ...................................................... 37Figure 24. Site 1 Plan ........................................................................................................... 37Figure 25. Pole Jam ..............................................................................................................38Figure 26. Pole Jam ..............................................................................................................39Figure 27. Parklet ...................................................................................................................39Figure 28. The Lot Spot Aerial .......................................................................................41Figure 29. Pocket Plaza ......................................................................................................42VIFigure 30. Blurred Uses ......................................................................................................42Figure 31. Three Flip .............................................................................................................43Figure 32. Tank Spot Location Map ...........................................................................44Figure 33. Site 2 Sketch Iterations  ..............................................................................45Figure 34. Site 2 Spot, Line, Feature Diagram .....................................................46Figure 35. Site 2 Plan ..........................................................................................................46Figure 36. Feature Gap ...................................................................................................... 47Figure 37. The Tank Spot Aerial ...................................................................................49Figure 38. Tank Play Feature .......................................................................................... 50Figure 39. Raised Planters, Lawn and Bank Features ...................................... 50Figure  40. Contrast for Night Skating ......................................................................51Figure  41. Carved Tree Wells .........................................................................................52Figure 42. Small Bank Feature .......................................................................................53Figure 43. Large Bank Feature ......................................................................................53Figure 44. Creek Spot Location Map.........................................................................54Figure 45. Site 3 Sketch Iterations  ..............................................................................55Figure 46. Site 3 Spot, Line, Feature Diagram .....................................................56Figure 47. Site 3 Plan .......................................................................................................... 57Figure 48. Feature Bank Under Skytrain  .................................................................58Figure 49. Mini Ramp on Skytrain Post ....................................................................58Figure  50. Rainy Mini Ramp Skating .......................................................................59Figure 51. The Creek Spot Aerial ...................................................................................61Figure  51. Tiered Water Feature ..................................................................................62Figure 52. Grand Walkway Eastern Entrance .......................................................63Figure 53. Expanded Bike Route ...................................................................................63Figure 54. Skate Oriented Space .................................................................................64Figure 55. Bump to Ledge ................................................................................................64Figure 56. CIBC Inspired Handrails .............................................................................65Figure 57. Skate Kitchen and Quell Meet Up .......................................................66VIIAcknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the overwhelming support I received along the way. To my mother and father, thank you for being so supportive and offering your wealth of knowledge and experience in reviewing my work. To my loving partner Nina, thank you for being so compassionate and inspiring during my time in this program. To my supervisors Patrick and Kees, thanks for keeping my eyes on the prize and being so encouraging in developing this project. Lastly, to my classmates, thanks for the wild ride! We’ll be in touch.11FRAMINGPhoto: Sam, Wikimedia CommonsFigure 1. Kickflip2I. Introduction Public urban spaces are defined first and foremost by their complexity. Intricate layers of ecology, built form and human interaction merge in and out of one another in a dynamic and ever-changing dance. The dynamic complexity of urban space is a direct reflection of the dynamic, complex society that inhabits it - such that one cannot exist without the other. As society evolves and changes over time, so to does the public space it creates and occupies. French philosopher Henri Lefebvre summarizes this dynamic relationship in his book “The Production of Space” where he writes “Every society - and hence every mode of production with its subvariants (ie. all those societies which exemplify the general concept) - produces a space, its own space.” (Lefebvre 1974).  The complex relationship between people and place has posed a significant challenge to the planners, designers and managers of the public realm. In an effort to make urban space manageable, cities have worked vigilantly to parse out the land into categorically disparate zones, each with their own unique role in the overall functioning of the city (Scott, 2009). The ethos of simplification on an urban scale has trickled down to the landscape scale with the widespread adoption of pseudo-scientific methods of site analysis. These methods view a place not as a whole, but as an aggregate of independent parts (Jacobs, 1992). By parsing out various objectified site characteristics such as climatic conditions, circulation, slope, etc. the site is rendered legible and its specific role in the urban system can be neatly assigned.  The extent to which this methodology provides an accurate depiction of the essence of a place is highly contested (Jacobs, 1992; Scott, 2009). If an analytical approach to understanding a place is misrepresentative, what gaps will exist in a subsequent design? The problematic nature of this methodology is confounded by the concentration of power in a select few individuals who hold all decision-making authority. Decisions made by urban designers, landscape architects and land managers inevitably embed biases that exclude the diverse demographics of urban populations in both identity and activity (Cresswell, 1996). A number of novel approaches to city building have emerged that seek to address the gaps present in traditional methodologies of simplification and top-down decision making. ‘Skateurbanism’ centralizes the inherently urban activity of skateboarding and its place in the city as a way of catalyzing dialogue about inclusivity and the public right to public space. It highlights the benefits of skateboarding and challenges the disciplines of planning and design to better incorporate the activity into the city. Similarly, “tactical urbanism” has emerged in recent years as an approach to addressing the gap between 3decision makers and the everyday users of the city (Lydon & Garcia, 2015). This approach to city building puts agency in the everyday urbanite to transform public space through in situ interventions (Lydon & Garcia, 2015).  This project seeks to depart from traditional methodologies of reductive and centralized approaches to landscape design and aims instead to embrace the embedded complexity of public urban spaces as its primary asset and guiding principle. This project will synthesize the emerging fields of skateurbanism and tactical urbanism in an effort to propose novel ways of embedding non-normative programs into the fabric of the city.Photo: GoToVan, Wikimedia CommonsFigure 2. A Street Scene on Granville Street Downtown Vancouver4 The idea of stratifying and simplifying the city can be traced in origin to Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City Movement of the late 19th century. Howard was disgusted by the filth and disorder in the early cities of the United Kingdom and set out to develop a new system of organizing the city (Jacobs, 1992). His primary goal was to embed the ideals of the countryside within the city by creating distinct and discernible units (Howard, 1898). Each Garden City concerned itself with two primary and directly linked variables from which all other planning stemmed: population and jobs (Jacobs, 1992). The plan parceled out the landscape into a radial form with subdivided nodes encased in a greenbelt of land. Each node provided the exact proportion of housing and work for a specific population size such that there would be a perfectly balanced ratio of production and consumption (Howard, 1898). When the population size reached a predetermined limit, a new garden city would simply be constructed and connected in near proximity such that the utopian model may be replicated across the country without limit (Howard, 1898).  The Garden City plan (Figure 2) was intended to be comprehensively predictive of all needs a city would require and sought to defend against all subsequent changes that may sully the structural purity of the system as a whole (Jacobs, 1992). By reducing the city to a primal form, Howard set forth a new paradigm in urban planning that misinterpreted the essence of cities as a problem of organized complexity that can be controlled through simplification and rationalization (Jacobs, 1992). The Garden City’s ideals reached new levels of popularity in the 1930’s and 40’s with the growth of high modernism in architectural and urban planning circles. These ideas were championed most notably by French architect and planner Charles-Eduardo Jeanneret also known professionally as Le Corbusier (Scott, 2009).  Le Corbusier built on Howard’s work in an effort to make it feasible for a larger, denser urban population. His most monumental proposal titled “Ville Radieuse” or “The Radiant City” was heralded by planners and architects of the time and was characterized by a similarly simplified and systematized city (Mansfield, 1990). The proposal carefully delineated zones for all aspects of urban life on numerous scales and maintained a strict policy of separation (Mansfield, 1990; Scott, 2009). Streets were to be for vehicles only, parks for pedestrians, offices for office work, factories for production, etc. The intermingling of these functions was seen not only as inefficient, but as the primary source of all issues in city planning (Scott, 2009). When a city embraces an ethos of rigid segregation, the planner is no longer faced with a multiplicity of trade-offs and instead wields supreme clarity and visionary control over the city. The result has been aptly named “functional separation” (Scott, 2009).II. High Modernism and the Legible City5Figure 3. Howard’s “Group of Slumless Smokeless Cities”Image: Howard, Ebenezer (1902) Garden Cities of To-Morrow Both Le Corbusier and Howard’s approaches to urban planning are so simple in their design and representation that they confer an intuitive, even profound, understanding of the city. The degree to which they describe the actual lived experience of the city however are highly contested (Jacobs, 1992). Nevertheless, they have imparted a great deal of influence on modern urban planning and continue to inform the planning and development of cities around the world, particularly through the idea of functional separation. A contemporary example may be found in nearly any municipal zoning map drawn for North American cities of significant size. The City of Surrey’s City Centre zoning map (Figure 1) for example neatly separates residential, commercial and industrial activities among various other sub-categories into functionally separated parcels of the city. The functional separation delineated in these master plans are also adamantly defended from programmatic change through lengthy, bureaucratic and highly selective rezoning processes. The result is a stifling static city, where the quantification of urban qualities has reduced the city to an object and is unable to adequately accept and facilitate the creation of dynamic new public space (Lefebvre, 1968). Furthermore, the static city runs the risk of becoming antiquated and obsolete in a rapidly evolving society whose needs of public space continue to evolve in lock-step with society itself (Ruddick, 2014).6“The human being has […] specific needs which are not satisfied by those commercial and cultural infrastructures which are somewhat parsimoniously taken into account by planners. This refers to the need for creative activity, for the oeuvre (not only of products and consumable material goods), of the need for information, symbolism, the imaginary and play. Through these specified needs lives and survives a fundamental desire of which play, sexuality, physical activities such as sport, creative activity, art and knowledge are particular expressions and moments, which can more or less overcome the fragmentary division of tasks.”  Henri Lefebvre, 1968III. Transgressions in the Public Sphere The adoption of centralized systems of urban planning and organization has had the unfortunate consequence of excluding from public space those who do not fit neatly into the definitions set in the parameters of such plans (Low, 2014). The implicit bias of public spaces towards normative identities simultaneously works to exclude demographics existing outside the norm through systemic social othering (Ruddick, 1996). The exclusion of demographics from public space can occur on the basis of numerable factors including race, gender identity, class, and age, but can also include those user groups who fall outside the ‘rational’ or ‘appropriate’ users of a space as social and place-identities are constructed in space (Nemeth, 2006; Proshansky, Fabian & Kaminoff, 1983). In most cases, the mere presence of an inappropriate user can “threaten to bring about a meaning for a place that is not favored by those involved in creating the [dominant] discourse” (Cresswell, 1996).  The prescribed uses assigned to public spaces by landscape architects and urban planners also ascribes a social norm to the public sphere. When it is subverted by an activity deemed inappropriate, is often subsequently reinforced implicitly through defensive design, explicitly through iconographic signage (Figure 3) and often socially through active judgment passed by citizens abiding by the social norms prescribed (Chiu, 2009). 7Photo. Wilfredor, Wikimedia CommonsFigure 4. Three-flipPhoto: Mark Buckawicki, Wikimedia CommonsFigure 5. No Skating Sign8 Skateboarders are an apt example of “irrational” or “inappropriate” users of general public space and are regularly ostracized for their interpretation of how public space ought to be used. Several factors make skateboarding a particularly salient area of investigation with regards to transgression of public norms: (1) Despite a steady growth in skateboarding over the past several decades culminating most recently in its adoption into the Olympics, skateboarders remain a relatively small percentage of the urban populous (Glenney, Brian & O’Connor, Paul, 2019; Howell, 2008). (2) Skateboarding has been historically associated with youth delinquency, smoking, graffiti and other illicit activity typically deemed undesirable in public view (Taylor & Marais, 2011). (3) Skateboarding is visibly and audibly conspicuous which results in heightened levels of transgression. Social norms are deeply ingrained in society, however they often remain unnoticed until they are transgressed (Nolan, 2003). The highly conspicuous theatrics of skateboarding therefore lends itself particularly well to being noticed and transgressing social norms. (4) The cultural identity of skateboarding is inseparable from the urban fabric and will always exist in public urban space (Borden, 1998). This is particularly evident in the continuation, if not intensification, of street skating despite efforts made by urban planners to relegate all skating to dedicated skateparks (Borden, 1998).  IV. Why Skateboarding9 In addition to its particular relevance to urban transgression, beliefs of skateboarding as an indicator of various unwanted activities have been slowly superseded by a growing understanding of its benefits to the community (Beal, Atencio, Wright & McClain, 2016). These benefits include its ability to facilitate an active and healthy lifestyle, its appeal to a diverse range of people of all ages and backgrounds, its ability to improve social interaction, as well as its various spin-off benefits in the related fashion, music and arts communities (Beal, Atencio, Wright & McClain, 2016; Borden, 1998; City of Seattle, 2007).  Lastly and perhaps most importantly, skateboarding redefines urban space and challenges our preconceived notions of what is possible in the city (Ong, 2016). The unique perspective through which skaters view the built form demonstrates the possibility for creative, non-normative understandings of the city that deepen the cultural and creative richness of place (Ong, 2016). With this in mind, skateboarding provides an ideal medium to evaluate, challenge and redefine notions of how to engage a city.Photo: Joe Mabel, Wikimedia CommonsFigure 6.  Onlookers 10“The idea that action should only be taken after all of the answers and the resources have been found is a sure recipe for paralysis. The planning of a city is a process that allows for corrections; it is supremely arrogant to believe that planning can be done only after every variable has been controlled.” Jaime Lerner, 2015 Architect, former mayor of Curitiba, BrazilV. Tactical Urbanism The transgressions of skateboarding are usually unintentional, that is, what is typically of primary importance to the skater is just skateboarding, not the subversion of some normative culture. In spite of this, the impact of skaters’ transgressions in public space remains so powerful that it inspires planners, designers, land managers and decision-makers to go to great lengths and spend a great deal of money to defend against it (Howell, 2001; Nolan, 2003). The power of transgression to inspire change has not gone unnoticed and is being utilized in the niche field of ‘tactical urbanism’ to bypass the increasingly impermeable inertia of conventional urban planning and landscape architectural projects. Tactical urbanism is defined as “an approach to neighborhood building and activation using short-term, low-cost, and scalable interventions and policies” (Lydon & Garcia, 2015). It aims to circumnavigate traditional planning bureaucracies by empowering regular citizens to undertake the process of city building in real time through in situ interventions. Tactical urbanism has typically concerned itself with “civic-minded improvements to urban spaces, in forms inspired by official street-scape planning and design elements” (Douglas, 2018) and is exemplified most recognizably in “turning parking spots for automobiles into temporary parks … [and] painting playground style lines directly onto the pavement so that children can play hopscotch, basketball or any other playground activity” (Mould, 2014).  While street skating and tactical urbanism share the fundamental principle of reclaiming public urban space for transgressive uses, they vary widely in many respects. For example, taking over a parking spot or painting lines on pavement challenges social norms of the urban street-11Figure 7. Parklet Designscape but the benign nature of the intervention does so without violating broader accepted values of normative society (Mould, 2014). Put another way, parks and child play are already acceptable behaviours in public urban space, and the specific location is what is being challenged. Street skating on the other hand does not share the benefit of inherently existing within the parameters of “acceptability” within the public realm for reasons including those noted in the previous section. Furthermore, tactical urbanism is typically materially additive in nature, transplanting and/or constructing new elements into urban public space that subvert its normal use (Douglas, 2018). Street skating in contrast, typically engages the physical urban fabric itself, adding only the performative act of skateboarding as a means of transgression (Borden, 1998).Photo: Schwede66, Wikimedia Commons12 An exception within street skateboarding that aligns much closer to standard tactical urbanist approaches is the growing trend of DIY skate spots in under-utilized urban spaces around the world. In their 2019 article, Glenney & O’Connor describe DIY spots as “not skateparks, areas designated for skateboarding activities, which only around 15% of skateboarders frequent, but more ‘skate-reserves’ where cultural elements of risk and play take centre stage.” Not unlike the sense of ownership felt by users of parklets, skaters build a sense of stewardship around DIY spots and take care to maintain them. Glenney & O’Connor continue to write, “DIY spaces are extensions of home-life; […] these are not city spaces – spaces informed by city-planning and design – but rather urban spaces informed by the planning and design of the citizens, and thereby used more readily by them.” In spite of providing a truly unique and socially activated urban space, DIY spots are nevertheless relinquished to the fringes and dark corners of the urban sphere, far from enjoying the central and overt locations typically chosen in tactical urbanist interventions.VI. The DIY Spot13 Skateboarding has historically embraced its counter-cultural image and has celebrated its transgression on normative urban behavior (Borden, 1998). Nevertheless, proactive efforts to better integrate skateboarding into the city are emerging as urban planners, landscape architects and skaters alike recognize the potential value in cooperative action. This cooperation and mutual ambition for better integration of skateboarding into the urban fabric, beyond the confounds of the designated skatepark, has been described as ‘skate urbanism’ (Howell, 2020). Although the legacy of high-modernist ideals, centralized urban planning and functional separatism still define many contemporary attitudes towards urban design and landscape architecture, the growth and successes of tactical urbanism provides just one example of how social transgression may unlock new methodologies of design.Photo: Wil540 art, Wikimedia CommonsFigure 8. DIY Spot14PRINCIPLESPhoto: D.Lee, Wikimedia CommonsFigure 9. FS Gap15Statement of Design PrinciplesThis project sees transgressions in public space not as a problem, but as an opportunity to imagine new ways to engage the urban fabric. It uses the transgressive activity of skateboarding as a medium to engage this topic in the development of new, more inclusive designs.The project acknowledges the fundamental importance of adjacency and cohabitation in urban life, and will propose designs that encourage symbiotic relationships between a diversity of users.The project will propose designs at both the detail scale and the urban scale in order to adequately facilitate the integration of skateboarding into the fabric of the city.The project will endeavour to break down exclusively top-down methodologies and inspire agency in the citizenry to play an active role in the building of their city through the use of adaptive and modular designs.Transgressions provide an opportunity to depart from self-reinforcing normative cycles and foster new imaginations of city building that promote diversity.Figure 10. Transgressive Design Intervention Diagram16PRECEDENTSPhoto: Joe Mabel, Wikimedia CommonsFigure 11. BS 50-5017“All truly wise thoughts have been thought already thousands of times; but to make them truly ours, we must think them over again honestly, until they take root in our personal experience.”- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe An examination of related projects provides context to this project and provides insight into strengths, weaknesses and the relative importance of various design principles. The following is a preliminary analysis of precedents from around the world at various temporal a spatial scales. General criticisms of the projects have been highlighted but pertain only to their relevance to this project and may not adequately represent the intentions or actual experience of the precedent. Nevertheless, they inform the “key takeaways” from each project and help build the foundation for design principles moving forward.18Precedent 1:  Skate Stopper TypefaceDescription:  Small Scale – Temporary Intervention Project Team: Seb PriceDate:   September 2016Location:  Southbank Centre, London, EnglandOverview Seb Price developed the “Skate Stopper Typeface” as a student design project at Kingston University in London, England. The project deployed the custom fabricated folded font across the Southbank Centre’s famous Undercroft skate spot. The project critiques the growing prevalence of “skatestoppers” on ledges, banks and handrails in public space to deter skateboarding and aims to spark a conversation about ownership of public space and the freedoms they do or do not afford. The project dove-tailed on the “Long Live Southbank” campaign in 2015/16 to save the Southbank Undercroft skate spot – a covered plaza space with international notoriety within the skate scene. At the time the Undercroft was slated to be demolished as part of a larger redevelopment scheme for the Southbank Centre to make way for commercial and residential developments. After substantial lobbying from advocates like Price, the project was redesigned to accommodate the preservation of the spot.Criticism This intervention occurs at a very small scale both physically and temporally, leaving substantial uncertainty as to how effective it was at starting a meaningful discussion about public space ownership. The goal of the project was to raise awareness and start a conversation which is commendable, but it does little more to affect change or improve the conditions for either party – in fact, the space was unskateable while the intervention was in place working counter to the overall goal of the project and adjacent “Long Live Southbank” campaign.Takeaways  While the micro scale at which this intervention occurs may have hindered its efficacy in engaging the public in physical space, it has succeeded in its prevalence in digital space particularly in relation to hostile architecture. Furthermore, the micro scale provides a useful precedent for the range of scales that projects relating to public space and skateboarding can occur within. Often the difference between a perfect spot and an unusable spot in the eyes of a skater occur on this detail scale, a scale which can be easily missed by an undiscerning person. This is an important distinction in developing the design of this project as the details of subtle transitions, edge conditions, materiality, surface treatment, etc. may inform methods of designing for cohabitation.19Precedent 2:  “Play!” Description:  Large Scale – Temporary InterventionProject Team: Léo Valls and Nicolas MalinowskiDate:   Summer, 2019Location:   Bordeaux, FranceOverview As part of a city wide festival called “Liberté!”, pro skater and community activist Leo Valls along with designer Nicolas Malinowski commissioned the design and construction of seven skateable sculptures to be on exhibit in public locations along the Garonne River in Bordeaux, France. The temporary project encouraged people to question the act of “playing” in public and encouraged new ways of sharing public space. The most blatant of these sculptures was a platform ledge with several chairs affixed to it, symbolizing the potential for mutual cohabitation between skaters and the general public. The architecture of different cities produce different styles of skateboarding, and this project embeds the uniqueness of the local skate scene within its design. In Bordeaux, there are few large features like long handrails or stair sets that are suitable for skating and so the style of skating that has evolved in the city is characterized by more flat-ground and technical tricks. The design of the sculptures builds on this style of skating and uses a formal language that fits hand-and-glove with the identity of the city.Criticism The temporal nature of the project is the most obvious limitation. While it may have started some discussions in the public about cohabitation between skaters and non skaters, the short installation period may have also worked to tokenize the discussion. Furthermore, this project is limited in its ability to engage with the materiality of the city and discussions about material “destruction” associated with skateboarding which is often cited as a key driver of prohibition. Takeaways  This project was very successful and widely praised in the skateboard community and beyond for its progressive vision put into action. Leo Valls aims this project directly at the crux of the conflict between the general public and skaters and placed the sculptures in key conspicuous locations in the city to maximize their impact. His choice to spread the sculptures out across a route breaks free from the typically narrow ideas of skateboarding being sanctioned only in discrete and confined areas. It also provides a useful precedent in the modularity and scalability of design interventions engaging this research area. Despite being spread out across a large geographic area, this project is able to maintain itself as a “set” through a clearly defined design language of form and colour. The design also achieves a photogenic quality that is a simple way of attracting skateboarders who are inundated with simple but “poppy” form in skate magazines, movies and other media. Finally, this project takes aim at the key issue of adjacency in design and helps dissolve myths about what programs can coexist in public space.20Overview This project led by the French architecture office “Constructo Skateparks” responded to a prompt by the local town hall to provide a skatepark within a narrow, underutilized alley only a stone’s throw from the Paris Stock Exchange. Rather than enclose the skatepark as is customary in most skatepark designs particularly within a busy downtown core, the designers opted to us the narrow confines of the cityscape itself as the boundary. This decision allows the space to continue to function as a pedestrian corridor and public plaza while supplementing the program with the skateable features. A simple block colour in a strong formal gesture across the alley delineates a change between “skateway” and “walkway” without compromising the ability for both to occur simultaneously. The project was simple and cost effective and the striking green colour choice make this a popular spot for tourists and skaters alike. This project frequently pops up as an example in municipalities looking for opportunities to better plan and integrate skateboarding into their cities.Criticism The narrow confines of the site likely echo and amplify the noise created by skateboarding which may cause for conflicts with local residents, however the location within Paris’ central business district suggests many of the adjacent buildings are office spaces rather than residential units. The project also exists as a programmatic island in what is otherwise an area of Paris where skateboarding is highly policed. The infiltration of skateboarders into the central business district of Paris was leading to a heightened sense of transgression among workers and residents which in turn catalyzed the construction of a designated skatepark as a method of containment.Takeaways The project blends seamlessly into the site and uses a simple design language as an organizing feature for circulation between pedestrians and skaters. The green strip also evokes a strong sense of pop art within a very traditional architectural surrounding, accentuating its position despite its relatively small footprint. The attention to spacing between features, variable width in the strip shows an attention and understanding of the requirements of skateboarding that are fundamental to the success of the project. The primary takeaway of this project however is its ability to breath life into an underutilized space in the city. The ability to successfully integrate skateboarding into this space has reactivated it as a functional piece of the public realm and enriched the neighbourhood experience overall. In spite of its relative isolation within the heavily capital-driven central business district of Paris, its omission of a physical barrier between skatepark and sidewalk brings into question what preconceived notions of appropriate adjacencies may be misguided and where skateboarding may be a benefit rather than a nuisance. Precedent 3.  Leon Cladel Skatepark Description:  Small Scale – Permanent InterventionProject Team: Constructo SkateparksDate:   2012 - PresentLocation:  Leon Cladel Street, Paris, France21Precedent 4.  Rabalderparken Description:  Large Scale - Permanent Intervention Project Team: Søren Enevoldsen, SNE ArchitectsDate:   2013 - PresentLocation:  Roskilde, DenmarkOverview This project led by Danish skater and architect Søren Enevoldsen of SNE Architects re-imagines public infrastructure projects as multi-functional public places. The project was first conceived as an engineering problem: separating and containing an increasing volume of rainwater received in the region due to climate change. The idea was expanded by SNE Architects to offer additional benefits and program to the community through the daylighting the drainage system and creating a sinuous skatepark with three separate bowl systems.  Most infrastructure projects are categorically considered a public eyesore because they have never been challenged to do more than their basic primary purpose. The response has been to go to great lengths and expend a great deal of money hiding these systems from the public domain in complex piping networks underground. This project flips that notion on its head and demands that infrastructure do more for society. The park also features public trampolines, fitness equipment, parkour obstacles among more common programs like running and dog walking. The development of the park comes as part of a larger redevelopment of the Musicon district intended as a new creative and cultural centre for the city. The development strategy for the new district won the Danish Urban Planning Award in 2012 largely due to the vision and success of Rabalderparken.Criticism Perhaps unsurprisingly, the design of the park prioritizes stormwater drainage as its primary function under which all other design considerations must follow. While this may be intuitive as the immediate needs of draining unwanted water conventionally supersede most other functions, the extent to which this has been carried into the final design of the park is unfortunately conspicuous. The access requirements for sweeping equipment in particular has limited the flexibility in spacing, surfacing and complexity of the park and diminished its potential for creative interpretation by skaters. Nevertheless, skate culture has become accustomed to making the most of what is available and so the parks appeal to skaters may not hinge directly on its lack of designed features.Takeaways This project dismantles myths about what programs and activities can exist concurrently in public space on a contiguous scale that hasn’t been explored in previous precedents. Infrastructure projects are typically expensive and occupy a large geographic area, so finding ways to embed multi-functionality in their design is a win-win scenario in cost efficacy and the provision of public amenities.It also expands the narrative in cohabitative public spaces beyond the “pedestrian vs. the skater” to include inanimate projects like infrastructure. This allows for discussions around cohabitative public space to include discussions of multi-functional landscapes and synergistic designs that see the complexity of urban spaces as an opportunity rather than a barrier.22PROJECT TIMELINE2324THE SITEPhoto: Gennady Grachev, Wikimedia CommonsFigure 12. Abandoned Mini Ramp25Vancouver, British Columbia This project seeks to expand preconceived notions of what is possible in the design and functionality of the urban fabric.  As such, this project site will be simultaneously examined through macro and micro scales – engaging the city’s identity as a whole while studying the specific details that define it.  The City of Vancouver has been selected as the site for this project because of several key influencing factors: 1.  The development of Vancouver as a city has followed many of the high-modernist planning ideals popular in the first half of the 20th century. Namely, that city building is an exercise in creating concise and efficient city-wide systems rather than fostering cultural richness and community benefit on the human-scale (Liscombe, 2011). 2.  Vancouver has a rich and multi-dimensional culture around skateboarding which embodies many relevant topics to this project. In the early 1990’s the city was recognized as the mecca for Canadian skateboarding, boasting a number of iconic street spots and a thriving skate community. The relatively mild coastal climate of Vancouver also meant the annual window for skateboarding was much longer than in most other parts of the country (Kissinger, 2004). Vancouver’s importance in the national and international skate scene however has faded in the past two decades with the widespread adoption of the now ubiquitous “skate stopper” effectively shutting down many of the world renowned street spots in the city (Kissinger, 2004). 3.  Vancouver’s principle and award-winning downtown skate park, “The Plaza”, is slated for relocation and redesign as part of the larger redevelopment scheme for the North East False Creek area. The Plaza was designed and constructed in 2004 by Newline Skateparks in partnership with the local non-profit group the Vancouver Skateboard Coalition, the Vancouver Police Department and local community stakeholders (Newline Skateparks, n.d.). The Plaza holds particular significance as one of the first street-style public skateparks in the world, integrating many of the specific material and design elements of the street spots that had been shut down around the city (Vancouver Skateboard Coalition, 2016).26Unsanctioned Skate SpotCity Sanctioned SkateparkCoopers’ ParkQuilchena ParkArt GalleryTerry Fox PlazaCIBC RailsGeorgia BanksThe Brick SpotPost OfficeBlack IceNew SpotN27The PlazaStrathconaHastings BowlLeeside DIYHastings ParkBritannia Courts DIYLedge SpotMt. PleasantKensington ParkChina CreekKEY SPOTSPhoto: Google Earth, Image: 2021 © TerraMetricsFigure 13. Key Spot Map28DESIGN PROPOSAL.THE SKATE CITY ROUTE29Figure 14. Skate City Route Diagram30A Project Embedded In The City Recognizing the fundamental role of urban space holds in the identity of skateboarding, landscape architects as the designers of the public realm are uniquely situated to have a profound impact on the inclusion of skateboarding and other transgressive activity in our cities. With this in mind, the goal of this project is to find ways to blend skateboarding back into the design of our city in a way that is intentional and addresses some of the challenges of cohabitation. If we accept this proactive approach, we can understand the current skateboard infrastructure of the city, not as a series of disparate parts but rather the city itself. Similarly the design of a new skate city requires an approach that is not defined by its boundaries, but by an intentional absence of them. Rather than design a skatepark, this project proposes a skate route that is seamlessly integrated into the fabric of the city’s downtown core. Figure 15. Skate City Route MapN31 Of the ten key locations identified along the route, three have been selected for deeper investigation and design intervention: the Lot Spot, the Tank Spot, and the Creek Spot. The process of this design project seeks to be rooted fundamentally in context and as such, multiple sites are necessary in order to explore the variation and unique possibilities that come with each new context. These three specific locations were selected because they offer enough contextual variation to fulfill this goal. The project will borrow language from skateboarding as an organizing hierarchy in designing these locations at multiple scales: (1) “The Feature” which consists of a singular intervention or obstacle; (2) “The Line” which consists of two or more interventions or obstacles in a linear progression and; (3) “The Spot” which consists of a cluster of I interventions or obstacles which provide the most opportunities for diverse and creative interpretations. Defining these three distinct scale categories provides a sliding scale of intervention and allows the overall skate route to be adapted based on contextual constraints and how much space is available.Figure 16. Obstacle Design ScalesIntegration Through Multiple Scales32Figure 17. Generic Street Features The project will also borrow some of the familiar objects of public space as the basis for the designs of the obstacles. Using familiar street objects in this way achieves two things for the project: First, it helps break down the formal edges of what is the “skatepark” vs. “the city” and embeds the design more seamlessly into urban fabric. Second, it can inspire folks (skaters or otherwise) to imagine new ways of engaging the city as they encounter similar objects beyond the relatively narrow confines of this project’s extents33Figure 18. Subverted Street Features Simple subversions of a collection of typical street objects will form the basis of the individual skate features located along the route (Figure 18). While this exploring typologies is a useful starting point, the skate features designed for each stop along the route will be defined first and foremost by what currently exists on site, so as to better integrate itself into the context. These features will also span scales individually which will provide the necessary complexity for creating interesting public spaces. 34Materials   A careful selection of finishing materials will play the key role of creating a consistent and legible design language across all the stops. Pigmented concrete like the Bodega Antion by architect Jesús Marino Pascual (Figure 19) will be used as a surfacing material for it’s ability to hold colour even as weathering and degradation occurs over time. Furthermore, selecting a clearly defined and easily discernible colour palette will provide clear legibility across each site, tying the project together in a unified gesture. The way in which the project employs these materials across the designs will also work to clearly articulate right of ways, suggest usage, and provide structure for the cohabitation of different uses (Figure 20).Figure 20. Material Selection DiagramFigure 19. Bodega Antion by Jesús Marino PascualPhoto: Zarateman, Wikimedia Commons35Site 1: The Lot Spot The first stop included in this project is called “the Lot Spot” which is located just off of Robson Street and Richards Street. It’s located behind a series of restaurants to the north, adjacent to several condominium buildings to the west and south and exits out onto Richards street and the Richards bikeway. The design of each space starts by identifying opportunities for reclaiming underutilized urban spaces. This helps define the flow through the space and where key edge conditions exist. At each of the locations, a spot, line, and feature are all incorporated to illustrate how the various scales all work together to create the overall skate route.Figure 21. Lot Spot Location MapN36Figure 22. Site 1 Sketch Iterations  Several sketch iterations were developed before reaching the proposed design which transforms an alley edge into “a feature”, a parking lane as “a line”, and about a third of the parking lot as “a spot”. The feature subverts an existing line of bollards in an adjacent alley by pulling the bollards off the edge of the building, painting new lines on the pavement and “bending” the feature bollard into a pole jam skate feature.  The line reclaims four car parking spaces along Robson Street and creates an extended parklet with planters, tiered seating and multiple skate features. Small ramp features at each end of the line help facilitate skating back and forth along the line while the tiered seating and planters helps divide the corridor between pedestrians and skaters Turning the corner into the lane, the spot emerges on the backside of the restaurant buildings. The sinuous design was chosen in this context for its ability to physically and metaphorically weave the skate infrastructure with more traditional plaza and park programing. The series of banks and raised planters create nooks for respite, including a small courtyard with designated food truck parking at the spot’s edge. The plantings and trees create semi-permeable walls and a ceiling enclosing the small courtyards as outdoor rooms. Katsura trees (Cercidiphyllum japonicum) make up the majority of the tree species selected, enveloping the spot in a sweet sugary scent in the late summer. The pigmented orange concrete used in both the courtyards and skate spaces begins to blur the delineation between the two programs. Subtle differences in ground treatment however, help maintain enough stratification between users so as to avoid conflict. A textured concrete is used as a buffer surface treatment between the pigmented yellow concrete and cobblestone pavers allowing for a blend of different uses to occur.Site 1: The Lot Spot37Figure 24. Site 1 PlanFigure 23. Site 1 Spot, Line, Feature DiagramNN38Figure 25. Pole Jam39Figure 27. ParkletFigure 26. Pole Jam4041Figure 28. The Lot Spot Aerial42Figure 30. Blurred UsesFigure 29. Pocket Plaza43Figure 31. Three Flip44Site 2: The Tank Spot The second location designed in this project is called “the Tank Spot” and is located two spots away from the Lot Spot on Beatty Street, between the on-ramps to the Dunsmuir and Georgia viaducts. This location is adjacent to a series of condominium buildings, encompasses an under-utilized courtyard next to the Beatty Drill Hall which features two very conspicuous tanks parked out front and backs on to a fairly quiet neighbourhood street to the south. The design was again developed through a series of sketch iterations exploring different possibilities in formal design language as well as suitable locations for the line and feature designs (Figure 33).Figure 32. Tank Spot Location Map The plan (Figure 35) shows layout of the design with “the feature” reclaiming the open corner space at Georgia and Beatty Street, “the spot” occupying the existing courtyard, and “the line” at the backside of the Beatty Drill Hall along Citadel parade.N45Figure 33. Site 2 Sketch Iterations  At the feature, two large concrete slabs are pulled from the ground plane creating a small ramp gap feature. Concrete slabs on either end of the ramp gap are painted in the iconic yellow to help delineate the space and provide some run up and run out for skaters hitting the gap. The redesigned spot utilizes a similar formal strategy to reactivate the space with skaters and non-skaters alike. At the main entrance to the courtyard one of the tanks from the drill hall is relocated and modified into a play structure for kids. A buffer of stone pavers and seating provides space for parents to watch over the kids and relax. Wrapping through the space are a series of banks to tiered planters, one of which is semi-accessible to pedestrians as a lawn space. The two rows of existing trees at either end of the courtyard are retained in this design through carved tree wells in the concrete. Retaining the existing trees will mean they reach full maturity much faster than installing replacements and will aid in dampening sound traveling up to adjacent buildings.  Shifting our attitude towards skaters and providing opportunities to support and grow the local skate scene will help foster local stewardship of these spots. The hope is that as local users build a sense of ownership of the spots, they will also begin to look after them, dealing with things like seasonal leaf litter and debris.  Turning the corner onto Citadel parade to the south, the line emerges as two banks, one large and one small, that wind around the existing allee of trees. While the larger bank may be more exciting for the advanced skaters, the smaller bank provides a more entry-level obstacle for folks just learning to roll.46Figure 35. Site 2 PlanFigure 34. Site 2 Spot, Line, Feature DiagramNN47Figure 36. Feature Gap4849Figure 37. The Tank Spot Aerial50Figure 39. Raised Planters, Lawn and Bank FeaturesFigure 38. Tank Play Feature51Figure  40. Contrast for Night Skating52Figure  41. Carved Tree Wells53Figure 43. Large Bank FeatureFigure 42. Small Bank Feature54Site 3: The Creek Spot The third and final location designed in this project is called the Creek Spot and is located within Creekside Park directly adjacent to Science World. This spot is much larger and very different contextually from the previous two locations but still looks to re-imagine what is currently an underutilized urban space. The adjacent lawn space to the south of the park is very well used and now features a large playground, however the backside of this lawn is typically vacant and underutilized. The same iterative methodology was used to arrive at the proposed design (Figure 47) which in addition to similar formal strategies used in the previous two sites, utilizes the grade changes on site and introduces a tiered Figure 44. Creek Spot Location Mapwater feature to create outside rooms and delineate space for different uses. “The feature” at this site is located in the parking lot beneath the skytrain, “the line” spans the distance between two of the support pillars for the skytrain, and “the spot” occupies the neglected backside of the raised berm and bikeway.N55Figure 45. Site 3 Sketch Iterations  “The feature” here subverts two adjacent parking spaces into a bank obstacle. Locating this obstacle here takes advantage of a dramatically oversized and under-utilized parking lot, as well as the overhead skytrain line which provides shelter in rainy conditions. Just north of the feature is the line, which consists of two mini ramps that climb up two support stanchions for the skytrain and also take advantage of the overhead skytrain, providing a sheltered area to skate during rain events. At the spot, the pigmented yellow concrete again clearly demarcates skate-oriented space, however the same orange colour is used for both the skate features and the plaza features, blurring the edges of prescribed use.As a foil to the wide open lawns to the southwest, 56 new trees are planted to provide shade and structural diversity in the area. The seasonal changes of deciduous trees work in harmony with the bright coloured hardscape materials to offer year-round appeal. In the summer months, the trees leaf out providing shade from the hot summer sun. And in the dark and wet winters, the trees shed their leaves exposing the bright hardscape materials to the overlooking residential towers and passing skytrain users. The generous width of the “grand walkway” which acts as the central pedestrian axis connecting to False Creek acts as a more intentional entrance to the waterfront while also providing opportunities for food truck parking, venders, busking and other small events.56Figure 46. Site 3 Spot, Line, Feature DiagramN North of the grand walkway and separated by a raised planter is the rerouted bike lane connecting to the seawall. This new bike lane expands to 5 metres in width to provide ample room for two way cycling traffic and pedestrians alike. Alcoves in the planters provide a quiet space to relax and a shady spot to retreat to on hot summer days. At the western end of the grand walkway, the grade change is capitalized on to create a three-tiered cascading water feature. The water feature aids in the separation of the spaces, creating two distinct character zones while also limiting conflicting intersections between the skaters on one side and bikers on the other. Furthermore, the white noise caused by the cascading water as it passes through the weirs will help abstract some of the sound from the skate space from traveling across to the lawn.57Figure 47. Site 3 PlanN At the southern end of the spot, the grade change is also capitalized on in the skate oriented space to create a gently winding downhill pump track highlighted in the iconic yellow concrete. The alcove in the elbow of the pump-track is converted into a mini-bowl feature that is scaled down to be more approachable by beginner skaters and kids. The rounded handrails on site are modeled after the iconic but now capped CIBC rails at 400 Burrard Street downtown, paying homage to Vancouver’s historic skate scene and modeling a shift in our collective attitude from a defensive approach to a more inclusive and supportive ethos. While this portion of the Creek Spot prioritizes skateboarding, the planters, curbs and benches at the edges of the area are all designed to be skate-friendly as a way of blurring the borders of designated use and inviting the skaters back into the more general public sphere.58Figure 49. Mini Ramp on Skytrain PostFigure 48. Feature Bank Under Skytrain 59Figure  50. Rainy Mini Ramp Skating6061Figure 51. The Creek Spot Aerial62Figure  51. Tiered Water Feature63Figure 53. Expanded Bike RouteFigure 52. Grand Walkway Eastern Entrance64Figure 55. Bump to LedgeFigure 54. Skate Oriented Space65Figure 56. CIBC Inspired Handrails66 This project brings to the fore the challenges of sharing limited public space and begins to unpack potential strategies for a new approach to cohabitation. If our goal is to create a truly “open and accessible public space for all”, it is critical that we ensure our definition of ‘public’ is inclusive and representative of the diversity of people and uses our city encompasses. While the scope of this project is limited, it nevertheless begins to reposition our discipline in a forward looking, and more proactive perspective. It is also worth noting that while skateboarding was the proxy in this project to examine the issue of inclusivity, trends in hostile attitudes towards non-normative activity in public space can easily be expanded far beyond skateboarding. As both the professional consultants to land managers and the designers and constructors of physical space, landscape architects are uniquely positioned to have a meaningful impact on this issue and have a moral obligation to re-examine our assumptions of what should and should not be done in our shared public realm.ConclusionFigure 57. Skate Kitchen and Quell Meet UpPhoto: Erin Patrice O’Brien, Wikimedia Commons67Beal, B., Atencio, M., Wright, E. M., & McClain, Z. (2017). Skateboarding, community and urban politics: Shifting practices and challenges. International Journal of Sport Policy, 9(1), 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2016.1220406Borden, I. (n.d.). Urban Space and Representation. The 3Cities Project: Conferences.Borden, I. (2019). Skateboarding and the city: A complete history (2nd, illustr ed.). Bloomsbury Academic, 2019.Chiu, C. (2009). Contestation and conformity: street and park skateboarding in New York city public space. Space and Culture, 12(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331208325598Chiu, C., & Giamarino, C. (2019). Creativity, conviviality, and civil society in neoliberalizing public space: changing politics and discourses in skateboarder activism from New York city to Los Angeles. Journal of Sport and Social Issues. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723519842219City of Surrey. (2017). Surrey city centre plan. https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/surrey-city-centre-partners/de Certeau, M. (1984). The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press, Berkeley.Douglas, G. C. C. (2018). The help-yourself city: Legitimacy and inequality in DIY Urbanism. In The Help-Yourself City: Legitimacy and Inequality in DIY Urbanism (Issue November 2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190691332.001.0001Dupont, T. (2014). From Core to consumer: The informal hierarchy of the skateboard scene. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 43(5), 556–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241613513033Glenney, B., & O’Connor, P. (2019). Skateparks as hybrid elements of the city. Journal of Urban Design, 24(6), 840–855. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2019.1568189Harvey, D. (2017). The right to the city. Citizenship Rights, 1968, 464–482. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315260211Holsgens, S. (2019). Skill acquisition and Korean landscape architecture: An ethnographic account of skateboarding in Seoul, South Korea. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193723519832460Howard, E. (2013). Garden cities of To-morrow. In Garden Cities of To-Morrow. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203716779Reference List68Reference List ContinuedHowell, O. (2001). The Poetics of Security: Skateboarding, Urban Design, and the New Public Space. Urbanpolicy.Net, 1–23. http://urbanpolicy.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Howell_2001_Poetics-of-Security_NoPix.pdfHowell, O. (2001). The Poetics of Security: Skateboarding, Urban Design, and the New Public Space. 1–23. http://urbanpolicy.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Howell_2001_Poetics-of-Security_NoPix.pdfHowell, O. (2005). The “creative class” and the gentrifying city: Skateboarding in Philadelphia’s Love Park. Journal of Architectural Education, 59(2), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1531-314X.2005.00014.xHowell, O. (2008). Skatepark as neoliberal playground: Urban governance, recreation space, and the cultivation of personal responsibility. Space and Culture, 11(4), 475–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331208320488Howell, O., & Schwinghammer, S. (2020, January). Interview with Ocean Howell. SOLO Skateboard Magazine.Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. Random House.Jacques, M. (2020). Not in the city, but the city itself. OFFICE.Khairuzzaman, M. Q. (2016). Bartholomew’s Vancouver plan goes digital. http://vancouverplanning.ca/blog/bartholomews-vancouver-plan-goes-digital/#:~:text=A highlight of this year’s,Bartholomew Plan for the city.&text=While the resulting plan was,a whole within the regionLefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. In The production of space. https://doi.org/10.2307/490789Liscombe, R. W. (2011). A study in Modern ( ist ) urbanism: planning Vancouver, 1945 - 1965. Urban History, 38(1), 124–149.Lydon, M., & Garcia, A. (2015). Tactical urbanism: short-term action for long-term change. Island Press.Mansfield, H. (1990). Cosmopolis.Mould, O. (2014). Tactical urbanism: The new vernacular of the creative city. Geography Compass, 8(8), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12146Németh, J. (2006). Conflict, exclusion, relocation: Skateboarding and public space. Journal of Urban Design, 11(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800600888343Németh, J. (2006). Conflict, exclusion, relocation: Skateboarding and public space. Journal of Urban Design, 11(3), 297–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357480060088834369Nolan, N. (2003). The ins and outs of skateboarding and transgression in public space in Newcastle, Australia. Australian Geographer, 34(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/0004918032000152401Nolan, N. (2003). The ins and outs of skateboarding and transgression in public space in Newcastle, Australia. Australian Geographer, 34(3), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/0004918032000152401Ong, A. (2016). The path is place: skateboarding, graffiti and performances of place. Research in Drama Education, 21(2), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569783.2016.1155407Ruddick, S. (2014). The People, place, and space reader.Scott, J. C. (2020). Seeing Like a State. In Seeing Like a State. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvxkn7dsSeattle, C. of. (2007). Citywide skatepark plan.Stratford, E. (2002). On the edge: A tale of skaters and urban governance. Social and Cultural Geography, 3(2), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360220133943Taylor, M. F., & Khan, U. (2011). Skate-park builds, teenaphobia and the adolescent need for hang-out spaces: The social utility and functionality of urban skate parks. Journal of Urban Design, 16(4), 489–510. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2011.586142Taylor, M., & Marais, I. (2011). Not in my back schoolyard: Schools and skate-park builds in Western Australia. Australian Planner, 48(2), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/07293682.2011.561825Webb, D. (2018). Tactical urbanism: Delineating a critical praxis. Planning Theory and Practice, 19(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2017.1406130Woolley, H., Hazelwood, T., & Simkins, I. (2011). Don’t skate here: Exclusion of skateboarders from urban civic spaces in three Northern Cities in England. Journal of Urban Design, 16(4), 471–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2011.585867Yi-Fu Tuan. (1984). In place, out of place. Geoscience & Man, 24, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199466771.003.0001Photo Reference ListCover Photo: “Skateur au Palais de Tokyo à Paris” (2011). Posted by xkidx, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Palais_de_Tokyo_-_Skate_01.jpgFigure 1: “Skateboarder, Lisbon” (2017). Posted by Sam, Wikimedia Commons.  Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skateboarder,_Lisbon_(34486791772).jpgFigure 2: “A Street Scene on Granville street, Downtown, Vancouver during coronavirus pandemic” (2021). Posted by GoToVan, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_Street_Scene_on_Granville_street,_Downtown,_Vancouver_during_coronavirus_pandemic_(49791248816).jpgFigure 3: Howard, E. (1902). “Garden Cities of Tomorrow” Sonnenschein publishing. This file was made as a cutout of http://www.oliviapress.co.uk/save0033.jpg (cover of the book “Robert Beevers: The Garden City Utopia: A Critical Biography of Ebenezer Howard, Olivia Press”. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Garden_City_Concept_by_Howard.jpgFigure 4: “Skateboarding in São Paulo” (2014). Posted by Wilfredor, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skateboarding_in_S%C3%A3o_Paulo_01.jpgFigure 5: “A sign warning people of a skateboard prohibition” (2017). Posted by  MarkBuckawicki, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:No_Skateboarding_Sign.jpgFigure 6: “Skateboarding on the Broadway sidewalk in front of Seattle Central Community College, Capitol Hill, Seattle, Washington, USA.” (2008). Posted by Joe Mabel, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seattle_-_skateboarding_-_May_2008_-_26A.jpgFigure 7: “Whanganui parklet” (2018). Posted by Schwede66, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Whanganui_parklet_802.jpgFigure 8: “Skateboarders skate on the asphalt in the multi-purpose courts at Tompkins Square Park during Save Tompkins Day” (2019). Posted by Wil540 art, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skateboarders_skate_at_Tompkins_Square_Park.jpg71Figure 9: “Skateboarding in San Diego, USA.” (2009). Posted by D. Lee, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Skateboarding_in_San_Diego_-USA-13Mar2009.jpgFigure 11: “Skateboarding on the grounds of Seattle Central Community College, Capitol Hill, Seattle, Washington, USA. This is not an officially sanctioned skateboarding area (in fact, there are signs banning the skaters), but it remains popular.” (2008). Posted by Joe Mabel, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seattle_-_skateboarding_-_May_2008_-_05.jpgFigure 12: “В квартале к северу от Кронштадтского бульвара (показанный дом 1966 года - Смольная улица 9). Moscow in 2016; Москва в 2016” (2016). Posted by Gennady Grachev, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Moscow,_Smolnaya_9,_skateboarding_half-pipe.jpgFigure 13: Google Earth Aerial. (2021). Image by © TerraMetrics. Retrieved from Google Earth Pro in accordance with Google Terms of Service and Google Maps/Google Earth Additional Terms of Service.Figure 19: “Bodegas Antión (Elciego, Álava)” (2017). Posted by Zarateman, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elciego_-_Bodegas_Anti%C3%B3n_05.jpgFigure 57: “Nike Go Play Day - Skate Kitchen and Quell all girls skateboarding meet up hosted by Leo Baker - At Flushing Meadows Skate Park - Maloof Skate Park” (2019). Posted by Erin Patrice O’Brien, Wikimedia Commons. Retrieved from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nike_Go_Play_Day_-_Skate_Kitchen_and_Quell_skateboarding_meet_up_hosted_by_Leo_Baker.jpg

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.42591.1-0397272/manifest

Comment

Related Items