its a horrible idea, architecture should embrace skateboarders, etc. the more people using a structure/building in any way, shape or form the better.

its a horrible idea, architecture should embrace skateboarders, etc. the more people using a structure/building in any way, shape or form the better.

I suppose its not any different than using measures to prevent birds from shitting on your building.

The whole world is a playground IMO. But architects don't decide stuff like that. Owner's do. It's thier stuff.

i agree with strawberry... you should prolly present it to the owner as an option though.

agreed, cause their shit will get messed up.

skateboarding is not a crime.

I agree--skateboarding is not a crime, and I love to watch people skateboard on the street and in parks (I'm too old to do it myself). On the other hand, I know that the university in my area expends a huge amount of money repairing the concrete edges destroyed by skateboarders. Low walls, stairs, railings that get grinded, they all have to be replaced or repaired. I know teenagers probably don't realize how much damage their doing, but I also have to feel for the people working grounds/maintenance because the limestone walls around campus are constantly being thrashed.

agreed, skateboarding can be a little harsh on it's surroundings. I don't know the specifics about the damage it casues, but could benches, low walls, handrails, etc be designed to stand up to skaters?

It seems just as easy to design in something durable enough to take a beating as it is to design in something to prevent skaters from doing their thing.

I think the real question is does the client not want skaters around because they mess up the place, or are they using that as an excuse because they see skaters on "their property" as being dangerous/unsightly.

besides the frickin' mind blowing notion that a skateboarder takes the urban space that architects create and reinterpret them within a wholly different manner. stairs are objects to be leapt over, hand rails and ledges are to be travelled upon, gaps are meant to be crossed...

but then there's always this compelling reason:

http://www.skateboardingbulldog.com/

check it out and embrace skateboarding.

did anyone say skaeboarding was a crime?

One time I was rollerblading with my friend downtown in a medium-sized southern city. We were riding along the street when an officer stopped us and told us we had to take them off - city ordinance. What's interesting is that the downtown area is completely deserted. But, hey, at least the strip clubs were open.

Reinterpret? Brother, you've been reading too much theory. Do I reinterpret an "urban space" by moving through it at varying speeds and jumping off of a few surfaces? Give me a break. The only thing they "reinterpret" is the edge of whatever they're grinding down.

skateboarders look at architecture with a completely different perspective. its not about the destruction. handrails, gaps and ledges are seen and used to their fullest. i'd be complimented if i saw a skateboarder skating a ledge i designed

thanks higgs. skaters have a totally different way of interracting w/ the built environment. they view it in a totally different way. i kinda think interpreting space in a unique way has a lot to do with architecture + design.

too much theory is not a crime.

:-)

skateboarders may have a different way of "interacting with the environment" than people who are walking, but no more so than bicyclists or disabled people in wheelchairs. Just because you're moving through space on a wheeled board, paying attention to what surfaces affect your movement, doesn't make you a dystopian philosopher or a prodigy designer. Get some perspective, already. You don't hear rollerbladers claiming that they're operating in some other dimension of reality, do you? They just have their fun and shut up about it, at least the ones I know.

ross, why are you so obsessed with being called a criminal?

The only problem with skaters is that here in Britain they're predominatly all crap and spend most of their free time falling over whilst trying to impress the local goths.

I don't think I called myself a criminal, simply stated a few things that aren't crimes. the comments about skateboarding and theory were basically tongue in cheek ( tone doesn't always come across as intended when written, sorry)

when i was growing up an older neighbor had a t-shirt that said "skateboarding is not a crime". I always thought it was pretty funny/cool.

I like the idea that skaters use the environment in ways that aren't originally intended. A handrail is meant to provide balance for someone walking up the stairs, but it's more interesting when someone slides down it on a skateboard.

Just because you move through space on a skateboard doesn't mean you have a deeper perspective. Anyone can move through space, but some people do look for a deeper understanding of their space. I had studio with a guy who skated, and just listening to him talk about how he viewed handrails and benches as potential jumping points was interesting.

Part of architecture is based on how people move through a space, but it's taken for granted that those people are walking. When they move through it on a skateboard or try to climb a building, imo it adds an interesting new dimension.

I've heard some rollerbladers who have a deep opinion on "their space" too, but they jump and grind like skaters do.

sorry this got really long
:-)

read your loos dammit! ORNAMENT is crime.

herbst, you sound like the group grandpa or something. first of all, skateboarding has, since its inception, been illegal in as many places as it is not. skateboarders (to answer your dumbass question) always have to watch their backs for police officers, because they will stop them, often take their skateboards, and sometimes even arrest them.

second of all, let's look at a couple of quotes:

"a skateboarder takes the urban space that architects create and reinterpret them within a wholly different manner"

"skateboarders may have a different way of 'interacting with the environment' than people who are walking, but no more so than bicyclists or disabled people in wheelchairs"

what you fail to see is that you are saying the same exact thing. the common manner in which buildings are designed takes into account the ways that people who are walking, biking, and wheelchairing use designed space.

for example:

a bike-rider will ride along a sidewalk, stop near the entrance to a building and chain their bike to a bike rack. they may then proceed to walk up a flight of steps (or, in the case of a handicapped person, roll up a ramp), walk across a small plaza, and enter the building.

a skateboarder will look at the texture of the sidewalk, observing whether it can allow a sufficient amount of speed and stability for an approach to the bike rack, upon which he intends to try a variety of tricks, from grinds to slides across it to jumps and other tricks over it. are the cracks in the sidewalk too wide? this could lead to a serious fall if hit while traveling too fast. (by the way, you don't seen any cops around do you? good, make sure to keep your eyes open. they tend to park over there behind that building). if the sidewalk is a bit too rough to get a decent approach to the bike rack, the skater would then check out the stairs and the handicapped ramp. is the plaza wide enough to gather enough speed to do tricks down the stairs? how about the base of the stairs... no large cracks? is the handrail too high to get up on? is it too shakey? too thin? too thick? well, how about the ledge alongside the handicapped ramp? is that smooth enough? has it been waxed before? is there any landscaping adjacent to it? can i trick over that? can i still see behind the building where the cops usually sit from over here?

enough said, but i'll say a bit more. skateboarders and people of similar mindset are the only people that constantly size up the built environment with regard to how their physical capabilities can potentially react within it. architectural issues of line, surface, volume, scale, context, materiality, texture, along with physical issues of lengths, heights, distances, velocities and sensory issues of sight sound and touch are constantly interacting hyperactively in order to outdo yourself and your friends.

so, as a skateboarder to an ignorant fellow trying to get along in this discussion, i tell you this: the statement that skaters "reinterpret [the built environment] within a wholly different manner" is true. that we are called criminals is true. that there are fools that don't skate yet think that they can understand our views and why we continue to do what we do despite the constant threats of pain, confiscation of property and arrest is true.

as to the question posed in the thread, i obviously agree with those on the 'no puck' side of the issue. though, in the end, i think that skaters will always find interesting ways of dealing with anything architects throw their way.

if you think skateboarders will inhabit the place for their own purposes, then provide a space where they CAN skateboard....like those half-pipe things...dont know what they are called. That way they might leave the rest of the building untouched, will thank you and you can spend the money for adding hardware for something valuable, like a proper rink (thats what its called, no)

well, a lot of cities have actually built public facilities for skaters. and i can tell you for a fact that any skater would rather be at a park built specifically for the purpose of being an awesome, safe place to skate than out wrecking private property.

the 'criminal' stigma, however, has been an obstacle in the creation of more facilities like this, and is a catch 22; in the beginning, the only thing to skate on was private property (privately owned parking lots, ledges and staircases), and skaters became labeled as trespassing liabilities. in the end, taxpayers are unwilling to pony up the dough to build a park for such a group of vandals and hoodlums. so, skaters keep tearing up surfaces on private buildings, and the cycle continues.

so , if I get it right, when using space, some people walk "across a small plaza" to enter a building and the others are criminals.

to restate concisely one of joed's points in his above manifesto, skaters display a heightened sensitivity to the ever-important "body in space" issue that designers need always consider. Whether or not they should be permitted, discouraged etc. from skating is one discussion, but to ignore the validity of their way of seeing the built environment is ignorant (sorry herbst, you should have gracefully retracted). Defamiliarization is one of the most useful tools in the hands of a designer. Show me something that I know and reframe it, cast it in a new light. Skaters do that. Do most architects?

joed, maybe since you're jobless you can take advantage of your free time and take the whole skater soap box thing to the streets...or make a book about it. I hear that protest is a great outlet for frustration...ya know, instead of violent reactions to archinect blog jokes.

all that's good but you have to check out

http://www.skateboardingbulldog.com

I love higgs