|
Page 20 of 22
Larger Park Projects
Skateparks are often sited in new parks or those that are being refurbished rather than an existing park or unused space. When this happens, the larger park project is usually awarded to a landscape architect. The landscape architect then defines the footprint of the skating area, if it’s a central skatepark, and subcontracts a skatepark designer for just that portion of the larger park development.
In most states there are laws and ordinances that require particular processes for awarding capital expenditures. These laws may require that the project be awarded to the lowest qualified bidder. When the landscape architect is awarded a project, they may or may not be required to adhere to the same constraints. So, while the landscape architect may need to be the lowest qualified bidder on the park development, they may subcontract the skatepark to any contractor they feel comfortable with.
This situation presents challenges to the skatepark advocate. The fate of the skatepark, in terms of design and construction, are now out of the public process and in the hands of a landscape architect who may not necessarily be sensitive to the skaters’ needs. In the interest of saving money on the project they’d already bid on, they will understandably be attracted to the most inexpensive option available. This is how so many communities have ended up with a few ramps on an unused tennis court rather than the large custom-concrete skatepark they dreamed of and worked so hard for.
Landscape Architects
Landscape architects are often tasked with delivering some quantity of skateboarding terrain due to outcry from the community. Because public skatepark design is still in its infancy, most landscape architects simply don’t understand what the skaters’ needs are. This problem is compounded by the youth of the average skater whom many parks officials and landscape architects struggle to reach and extract relevant information from. While most skaters can describe what kind of obstacles they prefer to ride, few can actually design a successful skatepark much less express acceptable concrete tolerances. It should be little surprise that so many landscape-architect-led skateparks, which typically are subcontracted to a general contractor, result in mediocre facilities that fail to hold the skaters’ attention after the first year. Many skaters will be unable to express their dissatisfaction and the larger community will struggle with the issue of street skating after the skatepark is built. Though the new skatepark will “look” like a success, for many skaters it will feel flawed.
This scenario can be avoided when the landscape architect relies upon an experienced skatepark designer to design the skate area. The designer must deliver enforceable specifications and if the construction goes out to bid, or is going to be awarded to a general contractor with some amount of skatepark experience, the landscape architect must do the following:
1. Understand the specs
The designer will deliver two bundles. The schematic design contains drawings showing all the parts of the skatepark and where each part goes. The specifications are the second piece and contain all of the details about how those parts are constructed. Together, the park can be built to the designers’ standards.
When the landscape architect does not understand the specifications, they won’t “sniff out” errors as easily and many will go undetected until it’s much too late to fix them.
2. Observe the critical areas
There is no flawless skatepark. They all have some portion that is not conforming to the specifications or can be considered an error. What makes those skateparks still great is that the errors are not in places that are critical to skaters’ needs. When a patch of rough concrete occurs on the back of a vertical extension, it may not matter because the only way to use that portion is with tricks where smoothness is not a concern. (In fact, it may actually be better that it’s a bit rough.) On the other side of the wall it could be of grave importance that the surface is smooth and flat as the skater is traveling at great speeds and very high off the ground. Inconsistent smoothness or flatness could present an unseen tripping hazard that would put many users at risk.
The concerns are too complex and numerous to list completely, but most can be avoided with an awareness of how the skatepark is both “designed” to be used and how it “may” be used.
3. Enforce the standards
Specifications are often treated as guidelines rather than inflexible standards. When errors occur in concrete, the fixes quickly eat up the project’s profits. Firms tasked with constructing skateparks will clearly be unhappy about fixing mistakes, especially if they’re perceived as inconsequential to the skatepark’s overall usability. As mentioned earlier, not every error or deviation from the spec results in an unskateable facility, but many do. It’s the responsibility of the construction manager, the designer, and the landscape architects to negotiate what construction errors are unacceptable.
Dedicated skatepark advocates can play a role in this negotiation by identifying areas of particular concern. For example, the sidewalk linking the parking lot to the skating area can have a brush finish, but if the contractor accidentally misreads the spec or the design and brush-finishes a portion of the deck or flat area in a street course, there should be a quick meeting to discuss the acceptability of this oversight. It may or may not impact the function and safety of the park. If this meeting is held without the presence of someone experienced in skatepark construction or usage, many of these errors will remain.
In street areas, formwork that results in wavy surfaces can present unacceptable challenges. In transition and curved surfaces, subtle inconsistencies (or “kinks”) in the curved surfaces can result in unrideable areas. These are common problems in skateparks built by inexperienced teams.
|
