> Ocean-

> I am very pleased to have your aid, here are the questions. feel free to > answer however you like.

> 1. Why do city officials often seek to eliminate skateboarding from > public areas?

primarily because of minor property damage, but also often because the skaters represent an unwanted social element. this is true whether the space is technically public or private.

> 2. With the scarcity of available skate spots forcing more skateboarders > to stay within the fences of a city built skatepark; what are the > resulting effects from this physical containment of a subculture of > individuals on the city itself? Spatially? Socially?

well the spatial answer is just as you say--the activity is contained within designated areas. also, that obviously means that cities are increasingly creating spaces according to a new typology: the skatepark. socially it differs a lot from place to place. burnside is entirely different than the kettering skate plaza. i think the only way to assess the social effects is to look at the specific space.

> 3. What will it take for cities and society to respect and work with the > concerns and intentions of the skateboard culture? Or is the spontaneous > and semi-desctrucitve nature of skateboarding too contrasting from the > values of American society for this to happen?

it takes political organization. "cities and society" is pretty unspecific, but if you look at skateboarding's relationship to local city governments, there are lots of cases where all it takes is for the local skate community to get organized and start lobbying. the love park story is very important in this respect, even though the skaters didn't get the outcome they were after. skateparks are the best indication that cities can respect and work with skateboarders. if you're talking about cities' local property owners, that relationship is bound to be more strained--the relationship between skateboarders and property owners typically has to be mediated through local gov't, but this isn't always the case. as for whether or not it is antagonistic to "American values," i would say that just the opposite is the case. i think it's actually a good cultural complement to a lot of contemporary social relations "flexible labor," "individualization," and other aspects of neoliberal urbanism. in love park, for example, i've argued that it's actually served as an instrument of gentrification. in the lit on skateparks (in landscape arch publications, local political debates) skaters are often praised for the fact that they never sue for injuries, that they understand their well being is their own problem--this is a value that elites want to instill in young people. if you compare this attitude to that of the progressives, you see a striking difference. i'd recommend you look at book called "muscles and morals" about the original american playground movement. also, skateboarding just provides good imagery for marketing, not only for mountain dew, but also for the marines (also think of that "army of one" campaign), consulting services, etc. the new business ethos is "creative destruction" (there's actually a biz management book of that title--you might want to check that out), and skateboarding's image is made to order. skateboarding provides legitimation, cultural complements, to a lot of contemporary social relations.

> 4. Any other thoughts on the Brooklyn Banks story?

there's a suburb of paris called creteil (not sure if i spelled that right, but you can look it up) where the local gov't actually redid the ledges--after the skaters wore them out--so that the skaters would come back. they understood that the skaters deterred much worse social elements, mostly junkies. the banks seem to me a natural for this kind of strategy.

good luck with this, ocean