http://sac.sagepub.com/
Space and Culture
http://sac.sagepub.com/content/11/4/475
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1206331208320488
2008 11: 475 originally published online 1 August 2008Space and Culture
Ocean Howell
Cultivation of Personal Responsibility
Skatepark as Neoliberal Playground : Urban Governance, Recreation Space, and the
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Space and CultureAdditional services and information for
http://sac.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://sac.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://sac.sagepub.com/content/11/4/475.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Aug 1, 2008OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Nov 6, 2008Version of Record>>
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Skatepark as Neoliberal
Playground
Urban Governance, Recreation
Space, and the Cultivation
of Personal Responsibility
Ocean Howell
1
University of California, Berkeley
More than 2,000 skateboard parks have been built in the United States over the past decade.
Although these parks are a response to community demand, many cities have provided these facilities
on certain neoliberal conditions. As a review of parks management literature reveals, cities
assume no liability for injuries and expect skateboarders to secure private funding; urban managers
also expect skateboarders to display character traits of personal responsibility and entrepreneurialism.
This is in contrast to Progressive Era playgrounds, where cities completely financed playgrounds
and took responsibility for personal safety; urban managers also sought to inculcate values of loyalty,
which they viewed as necessary in an increasingly bureaucratized society. The comparison highlights
how the skatepark can be viewed as an instance in which neoliberal governance practices have reconfigured
the citizen–state relationship from one of entitlement to one of contractualism.
Keywords: skateboard parks; skateboarding; playgrounds; neoliberalism; urban governance;
Progressivism; personal responsibility
At the time of writing, Skateboarder Magazine lists more than 2,100 skateboard
parks in the United States—with parks in every state, as well as in Washington, D.C.,
and Puerto Rico—a list that the authors acknowledge is incomplete (“Skateparks,”
2006). In 1997, there were only about 165 such parks in the United States (Borden,
2001), meaning that the skatepark phenomenon has increased more than tenfold over
the past 10 years. Why has this building boom occurred?
475
space and culture vol. 11 no. 4, november 2008 475-496
DOI: 10.1177/1206331208320488
© 2008 Sage Publications
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
476 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
A first layer of explanation must refer to skateboarding participation rates. The
National Sporting Goods Association (2007) reports that the number of skateboarders
in the United States has grown from 4.5 million in 1995 to 12 million in 2005, an
increase of almost 178%; during the same time frame, participation in football
increased modestly from 8.3 million to 9.9 million, whereas participation in baseball
dropped from 15.7 million to 14.6 million. Other market research firms, like American
Sports Data, suggest that participation rates in skateboarding are even higher (Skate
Plaza Foundation, 2004). Whatever the exact figure, skateboarding is by any measure
one of the most popular sports in the United States. As a result, skateboarding has now
become a $5.5 billion industry (Higgins, 2006), with sufficient resources to have created
nonprofits, foundations, and professional associations that not only lobby municipalities
for skateparks but also provide funding and technical assistance.
Without sanctioned places to practice, skateboarders had been occupying parking
lots, empty swimming pools, drainage ditches, plazas, sidewalks, streets, schoolyards,
building foundations, and just about any other paved space they could get their wheels
on. Municipalities have tended to perceive this occupation as an impediment to traffic
flows and as a potential danger to pedestrians and to the skateboarders themselves,
which translates into a liability threat for cities. Furthermore, skateboarders’ use of
street furniture and hand rails consistently causes minor property damage, which has
spawned a secondary industry in the manufacture of architectural deterrents to skateboarding
and the dissemination of anti-skate design expertise (Borden, 2001; Howell,
2005; Kay, 1998; Ravensforge Skateboard Solutions, 2006). Restrictive legislation is
on the books in municipalities across the United States, but considering participation
levels and property damage, the need for skate facilities has become apparent to
“urban managers” (a term that I will use throughout this article to describe those
individuals—public officials and their staffs, parks and recreation professionals, architects
and landscape architects, and increasingly private businesspeople—who, at the
municipal level, collectively determine what will be built and how it will be regulated).
With significant input from the skateboard industry, and from local skateboarders
themselves, cities have hired skatepark design firms to provide facilities containing a
jumble of design elements simulating the urban spaces that skateboarders have inhabited,
often illegally. The parks average about 10,000 square feet (Gembeck, 2001), approximately
the same size as an athletic field. Skateparks often stand alone, but like the
athletic field, the sandbox, and the swing set, the skatepark has also become one of many
elements that are often sited adjacent to one another on large playgrounds (see Figure 1).
The skatepark revolution is a response to demand, but urban managers’ motivations
for providing these parks are more complex. Through a review of their professional
literature, I show that urban managers in the United States focus less on
skateparks as a means of satisfying community demand and more on specific behaviors
of skateboarders, such as securing majority funding for the construction of parks,
refraining from bringing liability cases for injuries, and informally policing surrounding
neighborhoods. The literature also notes that the parks themselves serve as zones
of economic activity, where stunts are documented and distributed (in magazines and
videos) by the multibillion-dollar skateboard industry. This focus in the professional
literature demonstrates that urban managers view skateparks as a means by which to
reward and encourage specific character traits in young people, principally personal
responsibility, self-sufficiency, and entrepreneurialism.
To understand why this bundle of qualities is endorsed by urban managers, I argue
that it is necessary to consider the adoption of New Public Management (NPM) in
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
municipalities across the country. There has been much debate about what specific
governance practices do and do not qualify as NPM practices, but there is general
agreement that NPM is essentially a set of neoliberal governance reforms that have
encouraged public agencies to function as businesses. In this article, I use the term
NPM to refer not to specific governance practices (the purchaser–provider split,
results-oriented budgeting, etc.) but, rather, to the broader shift toward entrepreneurial
urban governance, and the attendant reconfiguring of the citizen–state relationship
away from entitlement and toward contractualism. Whatever an individual park manager
or city council member might believe about the proper roles of citizen and state,
the NPM reforms have been sufficiently pervasive to have created a neoliberal governance
context in which all urban managers must operate. As Peck and Tickell (2002)
have argued, “The neoliberal vision of a free economy and a minimalist state . . . has
become a commonsense of the times” (p. 381); this, they argue, is true at global,
national, and local scales. Or, as Larner and Walters (2004) put it, neoliberalism does
not describe a completed set of institutions, as much as a set of ideals, an ethos.
Skateparks, I argue, are one mechanism through which to promote these neoliberal
ideals, particularly as they pertain to the desired personal qualities of young citizens.
To put this citizen–state shift into broader perspective, this article undertakes not a
comprehensive history but a historical comparison between the skatepark revolution
and the Progressive Era playground movement. In terms of the broader governance
contexts, there are some clear parallels. Of course, NPM is not entirely new; in fact, the
basic concept of professional, efficient, managerial-style governance, modeled on business
practices, dates back to the Progressive Era. Like skateparks, playgrounds were
urban managers’ rational response to a demand for recreation space. Also like
S k a t e p a r k a s N e o l i b e r a l P l a y g r o u n d 477
Figure 1.
Note: The skatepark in Berkeley, California, is sited next to a soccer field. Photo by author.
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
skateparks, playgrounds were conceived of as places to contain young people who
might otherwise be playing in the streets, while simultaneously cultivating in those
young people social values that advocates deemed desirable. However, as self-described
social engineers, playground advocates were more aggressive in their attempts to inculcate
appropriate personal qualities through extensive activities programming and
through supervision. Furthermore, these socialization efforts extended to a much
broader range of concerns than those addressed by skatepark advocates—from
national identity to work habits, from gender roles to class relations. To address all of
these issues and more, playground advocates put particular emphasis on the cultivation
of loyalty (Gagen, 2000b), which they viewed as a necessary quality for success in
an increasingly corporate economy, bureaucratized government, and fragmented society.
In contrast, skatepark advocates have focused narrowly on the promotion of an
almost opposite value of personal responsibility, a quality that is prized in an increasingly
neoliberalized society. As a review of parks and recreation literature makes clear,
today’s urban managers view skateparks as a type of playground (Dahlgren, 2006); I
argue that the skatepark is, in fact, a neoliberal playground.
I do not assume, in my analysis of either skateparks or playgrounds, that young people
have been completely contained or that they have passively absorbed the qualities
that urban managers have hoped to instill (Gagen, 2000a, 2000b). Rather, I assume that
just the opposite is true—that the relationship between young person and state is
always fraught with contestation. Goodman (1979) offers evidence that during the
Progressive Era, children on the Lower East Side of New York City regularly flouted
playground rules; children on one Bronx playground even went on strike against their
playground supervisor. Today’s urban managers are aware that skateparks are unlikely
to lure all skateboarders away from so-called street spots (Dahlgren, 2006). Owens
(2001) shows that some skateboarders are not interested in using skateparks precisely
because they view the parks as part of a containment strategy.
As Borden (2001) demonstrates, skateboarding is a complex culture, based on the
creative reappropriation of urban forms. However, my subject is explicitly not the
activities and motivations of skateboarders. Existing studies on the relationship
between skateboarding and urban management tend to focus on the lack of provision
for skateboarders, their exclusion from public space, and their marginalization from
the decision-making process. This study takes an obverse approach, examining the
ways that skateboarders have been included in the decision-making process and the
ways that their needs have been addressed. This article, then, will focus not on youth
culture but, rather, on how urban managers conceive of their own strategies for handling
youth culture.
To ascertain those conceptions, I rely on discussions of skateparks in professional
literature from the fields of public management and parks management and, secondarily,
on skatepark advocacy materials. These sources are supplemented with reportage
from national and local news outlets and from skateboard media. For information on
the playground movement, I rely on primary-source publications from the Playground
Association of America (PAA), like the magazine The Playground, and on secondary
sources that use much of the same evidence base. The publication that I refer to most
frequently is Parks & Recreation (PR). This magazine is published by the National
Recreation and Parks Association, an organization that traces its lineage directly to the
PAA. The Playground and PR are both aimed at parks professionals and urban managers
more generally, and both contain a similar mix of articles: part practical management,
and part recreation boosterism. Both publications also contain a similar mix of
478 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
authors, ranging from the leaders of the national organizations, to city employees, to
representatives from stakeholder industries (like real estate and insurance). But before
moving to a discussion of my primary-source findings, I begin with a review of the
pertinent geography literature.
Governance, Young People, and
Skateparks in Geographic Literature
In recent years, the subject of skateboarding has spurred much academic interest in
the fields of geography, architecture, planning, and urban design. Borden (2001)
argues that skateboarding performs a critique of architecture, reasserting use values
where exchange values have come to dominate. Many studies since Borden’s have
focused on practitioners’ marginal status as users of public space, citing exclusions
accomplished through anti-skate architecture, municipal codes, signage, aggressive
policing tactics, and moral panics. These works advance a critique in line with
the influential works of Davis (1992) and Sorkin (1992), arguing, in essence, that these
exclusions should be viewed as instances of the erosion of truly public space (see
Németh, 2006; Stratford, 2002). Although there are considerable differences in specific
locales and methodologies, nearly all of the recent studies on skateboarding include a
call for more participative governance, integrating skateboarders into the design and
planning of public space (Freeman & Riordan, 2002; Németh, 2006; Nolan, 2003;
Owens, 2001; Stratford, 2002). For example, Stratford (2002) looks at the relationship
between skateboarding and urban governance by focusing on the spatial politics of
Franklin Square in Hobart, Tasmania, a case that she uses to demonstrate that skateboarders
currently have a “feral” status (p. 198). Stratford concludes that “recent shifts
in how urban governance is conceived and practised and in the reconstruction of the
citizen (autonomous, responsible) mean that skaters need to be accommodated in the
city. They must be embraced as moral subjects and provided with opportunities to
participate in responsible community life” (p. 202).
In terms of focus, the literature on skateboarding tracks closely with recent geography
literature on children and young people generally. For example, in her consideration
of teenagers, Valentine (2004) argues that moral panics have been used to justify
the restriction of young people’s freedoms in public space, thereby imposing an “adultist”
hegemony, which leads the author to question whether such spaces can be considered
truly public. Valentine concludes with a call to enhance “participatory
governance” by involving children and young people “in the creation of public spaces,”
ensuring that they “can begin to be counted as legitimate members of the polity”
(p. 111). One of the benefits of such an effort,Valentine argues, would be to help young
people“to develop a sense of empowerment and‘ownership’ of the places and communities
within which they live” (p. 108).
The skatepark movement has been understood by urban managers and others as
precisely such an attempt to involve young people in the planning of public space and
to instill in them a sense of ownership, autonomy, and responsibility; however, this step
toward participatory governance has only been taken on certain conditions, which I
elaborate on below. This article attempts to build on the work of Valentine, Stratford,
and others by considering how such an effort to increase participation and ownership
interfaces with the realities of contemporary urban management, particularly considering
the shifts in governance practices related to the broad-based adoption of neoliberal
principles like those articulated in the praxis of NPM.
S k a t e p a r k a s N e o l i b e r a l P l a y g r o u n d 479
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Many studies have considered the effects of neoliberalism on the everyday lives of
young people but have focused on the losses imposed by these governance practices.
Stratford (2002),for example,argues that the neoliberal tendency toward the privatization
of public space has increased “tendencies to surveillance and exclusion” and that “private
public governance does not benefit minors”(p. 199). Katz (2004) similarly focuses on the
“losses and limits”(p. 174) that global economic restructuring has imposed on the everyday
lives and the future prospects of children in the Sudanese village of Howa and in the
NewYork City neighborhood of Harlem.“Up for grabs,”in these restructurings,“are what
constitutes being skilled, what kinds of knowledge are admissible and useful, what work
attitudes are acceptable,and by whose authority these are determined”(p.x).Katz’s analysis
of parks and playgrounds in New York is particularly pertinent to my study. For Katz,
public disinvestment in the provision,maintenance,and staffing of these spaces negatively
affects “working and middle class” children’s prospects for “skills development” (p. 174).
Among the“most valuable”of these skills is“flexibility”(p. 178), a personal quality that is
prized in the current work landscape as well as in neoliberal theory. Katz argues that public
disinvestment in park and playground space severely limits the opportunities for young
people to develop the skills to acquire meaningful work; therefore, such disinvestment
should be regarded as a profound form “of deskilling” (p. 174).
I seek to complement Katz’s study on the effects of disinvestment by analyzing one
area in which urban managers have made careful reinvestments into a new kind of
playground for young people. I will show, however, that these investments have only
been made on certain neoliberal terms—in exchange for a park, skateboarders are typically
required to secure private funding, supervise and police themselves, maintain
order in surrounding neighborhoods, and more. In that sense, skateparks can be
thought of as instruments of selective “reskilling,” attempts by urban managers and
other public officials to cultivate a bundle of personal qualities—flexibility, ownership,
personal responsibility, self-sufficiency, and so on—that are required by neoliberal
social, civic, and economic relations. If Katz and Stratford have highlighted the losses
imposed by neoliberal governance, this study will focus on one of the things that
young people have gained. With this in mind, I move now to a fuller description of
what I mean by a “neoliberal governance context.”
NPM as Neoliberal Municipal Governance
The concept of neoliberalism has been taken up in many fields and has recently
received much scrutiny in the emerging literature on governmentality (Dean, 1999;
Larner & Walters, 2004). Harvey (2005) has argued that neoliberalism is “a theory
of political economic practices that proposes that human well-being can best be
advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional
framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and
free trade. The role of the state,” in this theory, “is to create and preserve an institutional
framework appropriate to such practices”(p. 2). The consequences of these ideas
have been legion in the fields of economic development, international relations, and
monetary policy, as well as in a dozen other areas.
At the scale of municipal governance in Organisation for Economic Co-Operation
and Development (OECD) countries, the neoliberal turn has found expression in the
theory and practice of NPM. The study of NPM has generated dozens of books and
hundreds of articles, issuing mostly from the fields of public administration, public
480 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
management, public policy, and economics. There are some questions about whether
NPM is indeed a universal new governance paradigm in the United States. In 2001,
Moon and de Leon concluded that NPM programs were not taken up universally but
tended to be adopted in larger cities with better economic conditions, whereas smaller,
poorer municipalities were late adopters. In 2005, Page argued that NPM practices have
in fact been broadly adopted in the United States, with some variations, although he disputes
the claim that these practices represent a discontinuous break with existing governmental
practices, arguing instead for an evolutionary interpretation of NPM adoption.
Crucially, however, Page (2005) points out that NPM reforms have been codified in federal
and state law, as well as in voter expectations. So even in those places where the principles
have not been formally adopted, local governments are still forced to deal with the
broader realities of ever-shrinking subsidies from the federal and state governments and
a citizenry increasingly averse to high-tax regimes. Although more research is needed to
determine the full reach of these theories and programs, this article will assume that
municipalities in the United States operate in a neoliberal governance context.
If there are some questions about its reach, there is a consensus in virtually all of
this literature that NPM is founded on a reaction against the perceived inefficiency of
welfare-state bureaucracy, favoring a purportedly “postbureaucratic” form of government
(Page, 2005, p. 713). It is a movement that emphasizes the desirability of marketoriented
approaches to management of public affairs, with an attendant endorsement
of privatization, public–private collaboration, efficiency, citizen initiative, and an
expanded role for the nonprofit sector (e.g., Barzelay, 2001; Denhardt & Denhardt,
2000; Hanlon & Rosenberg, 1998; Hood & Peters, 2004; Kane & Patapan, 2006; Lane,
2000; “Leviathan Re-Engineered,” 1996; Salskov-Iverson, Hansen, & Bislev, 2000;
Tucker, 2004; Walker, 2001; Weikart, 2003).
This article focuses on NPM’s implications for identity formation. Whereas public
managers are increasingly encouraged to identify as entrepreneurs rather than bureaucrats
(Borins, 2000; Osborne & Gaebler, 1993; Osborne & Plastrik, 2001), individual citizens
are encouraged to think of themselves as consumers of public services, thus
replacing language of entitlement with language of contractualism (Carney, 2002; Stark,
2002; Weikart, 2003). Both public servants and citizens are encouraged to take personal
responsibility for their own advancement and welfare (Andrisani, Hakim, & Savas,
2006). As Hindess (2004) notes, the hallmark of neoliberal reforms generally is “the
attempt to introduce not only market and quasi-market arrangements but also empowerment,
self-government and responsibility into areas of social life which had hitherto
been organised in other ways” (p. 35). Hindess further argues that such personal qualities
are not endorsed for their own sake, but “as instruments of regulation” (p. 35).
Larner (2000) cautions that such instruments should not be regarded as entirely effective.
Neoliberalism, she writes, is “more an ethos or an ethical ideal, than a set of completed
or established institutions” (p. 20). However, it is precisely neoliberalism’s status
as “ethos” that lends it a kind of atmospheric authority. In their critiques of neoliberal
social relations, both Harvey (2005) and Bourdieu (1998) are careful to acknowledge that
most people who administer and maintain neoliberal reforms do so passively, as practical
responses to their everyday circumstances. As Harvey (2005) argues, neoliberalism
“has pervasive effects on ways of thought to the point where it has become incorporated
into the common-sense way many of us interpret, live in, and understand the world”
(p. 3). In the following section, I argue that the prevalence of NPM concepts in the discourse
surrounding skateparks provides one measure of how neoliberal reforms, to government
and to personal identity positions, have become common sense.
S k a t e p a r k a s N e o l i b e r a l P l a y g r o u n d 481
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Skateparks as “Concrete Curriculum” for Self-Management
In a 1998 Los Angeles Times article titled “X Games Offer Rush of Risk and Profits”
(Perry, 1998), Frank Farley, a psychologist at Temple University and past president of the
American Psychological Association, said, “I’m one of those who believes that the
extreme sports, the adventure sports, the thrill-seeking sports are more in tune with what
America is all about than the traditional three Bs [of] basketball, baseball and bowling.
The new sports,”Farley continued,“are more individualistic, riskier and allow for greater
creativity than the highly structured and repetitive traditional sports. All great human
activity is based on risk taking” (p. 1). Articles in the national press and in business magazines
typically make this connection between entrepreneurialism and risk. For example,
Entrepreneur Magazine published an article arguing that skateboarders’ “ability to face
fear head on and push themselves to succeed at feats others have never tried are also qualities
found in every successful entrepreneur”(Pierce, 2006). In 2006, a professional skateboarder
and business owner, Jamie Thomas (Higgins, 2006), “was named Ernst &
Young’s entrepreneur of the year . . . for San Diego in its consumer and business products
and services category” (p. A1). The announcement stated that “unstoppable drive
and a fearless approach to anything he does have made Jamie Thomas not only a great
skateboarder, but a winning businessman” (see http://www.infosonics.com/files/awards/
EOY_2006.pdf). A New York Times article on the award (Higgins, 2006) quoted Thomas
as saying, “Skateboarding and my pro career were like boot camp for business. . . .
Trying tricks, envisioning outcomes, persevering—that’s exactly like business” (p. A1).
Among the so-called extreme sports, skateboarding has been singled out as an incubator
of entrepreneurialism.
Skatepark lobbying organizations have mobilized the image of the entrepreneurial
skater in the promotional materials they publish for urban managers. For example, the
Skate Plaza Foundation advocates for skateparks that perfectly replicate existing urban
plazas, like the famed Justin Herman Plaza in San Francisco, to better serve the visual
requirements of the skateboard media by giving professional skateboarders, videographers,
and photographers“a legal place to practice, film, and shoot photos”(Skate Plaza
Foundation, 2004). After referring to the revenue—“upwards of $100 million”—that
skateboard industry activity in JFK Plaza brought to Philadelphia through televised
competitions, the Foundation promises that “the skate plazas will be prominently featured
in all major skate media. . . . Each skate plaza will become travel destinations
[sic] for skaters the world over—from professional skateboarders and skate media to
skateboarders seeking to make a name” (Skate Plaza Foundation, 2004). Skate plazas,
like the one that opened in 2005 in Kettering, Ohio, are advertised to urban managers
not only as recreation spaces but also as zones of economic activity. These facilities not
only serve the traditional recreation-space function of reproducing the labor force, but
they are themselves sites of production for the $5.5 billion skateboard industry.
Although urban managers view skateparks as spaces that foster appropriate attitudes
toward work, their professional literature focuses more attention on how
skateparks encourage desirable civic qualities. In 2002, Parks & Recreation published an
article titled “Skate Park Society Builds Responsibility and Community” (Spohn,
2002), in which the author argued that skateparks teach young people to be “self managing.”
Addressing urban managers’ concerns about the potential for vandalism and
even physical conflict, another article in Parks & Recreation (subtitled “City-Run
Skateparks Are Not a Recipe for Disaster”; Rankin, 1997) argues that skatepark users
“police themselves.” Lobbying groups from the skateboard industry have worked to
482 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
reinforce these perceptions among urban managers. The Skate Plaza Foundation
(2004) literature states that the Kettering plaza will be a “guerilla community center”
(see also Gilligan, 2004). The metaphor of the guerilla is employed in these promotional
materials not to present skateboarders as combative, which would hardly help
the cause of securing permission and funding to construct the plazas; rather, what the
foundation is selling to cities is the promise of self-sufficient young people. Guerillas
do not rely on institutions; they look after themselves.
The discourse surrounding liability at skateparks also illustrates the personal qualities
that urban managers endorse. Changes in liability law mean that most facilities
must be “Skate at your own risk,” because, ironically, supervision increases liability for
municipalities (Gilligan, 2004; Spohn, 2001; Thompson, 1998). Skateboarders are consistently
praised for exhibiting the self-supervision and personal responsibility
required to make this arrangement viable. In considering legislative reforms aimed at
limiting governmental liability for skateboard injuries (which passed handily), the
California Assembly Committee on the Judiciary (1997) quoted a young skater as saying
that “it’s already unwritten code among skateboarders,‘We know we could be hurt
and are willing to take that risk’” (p. 3). Writing in a Portland daily newspaper, one
journalist (Green, 2000) marveled that
they’ve broken their bones, chipped their teeth, sprained their ankles, gouged their heads
bloody and knocked themselves out cold. But—to the surprise of some Oregon and
Southwest Washington cities, counties and recreation districts—one thing almost all
injured skateboarders haven’t done is sue. (p. D01)
Landscape Architecture Magazine reported that as of writing in 1998, there had never
been a successful skateboard liability case (Thompson, 1998; see also Manshester, 2002):
If cities refuse to build skateparks because they view skateboarding as an inherently dangerous
activity and dread the prospect of injury claims, the evidence is that both of these
notions are largely unfounded. According to the Consumer Products Safety Commission,
skateboarding has a smaller percentage of reported injuries per participant than soccer,
baseball, and basketball. . . . Granted, many skateboarding accidents are simply not
reported—but this speaks well of skateboarders, who apparently feel that safety is their
responsibility, as are injuries when they happen. (Thompson, 1998, p. 81)
Skateparks are not only the product of new limited-liability legislation; they can also
be viewed as both incentive and reward for young people who accept that they are
responsible for themselves.
Liability discourse is one of many pieces of evidence that urban managers interpret
this language of self-sufficiency and ownership literally—in terms of demonstrable
results—and not as rhetorical window dressing. Another way to trace the material
expressions of “ownership” is to consider funding schemes: Skateparks are typically paid
for through public–private partnerships. Oregon, for example, has a “60/40” grant
requirement, where the 60 comes from a private source like a foundation or a local lobbying
group. Philadelphia has approved the siting and design for a new skatepark but
requires $4 million from private sources before the park can be constructed (Saffron,
2005; see Figure 2).2
There are a number of national foundations that provide significant
financing and technical assistance in response to these sorts of requirements. The Tony
Hawk Foundation, named after the famous professional skateboarder, advertises that it
has awarded more than $1.5 million for 313 public skateparks since 2002 (see
S k a t e p a r k a s N e o l i b e r a l P l a y g r o u n d 483
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.tonyhawkfoundation.org). The Skate Plaza Foundation, which is the nonprofit
arm of a skateboard shoe manufacturer called DC, has provided funding for parks
in the Midwest and the South and is currently working with Californian municipalities.
Skaters for Public Skateparks is a nonprofit providing advocacy and fundraising
assistance, with representatives in every region of the United States (see http://www
.skatersforpublicskateparks.org/index.html). There are also several instances of cities
accepting donations from skateboard equipment manufacturers in exchange for naming
rights, as with the Etnies Skatepark in Lake Forest, California, whose namesake is a skateboard
shoe manufacturer (Borgatta, 2002). The Etnies/Lake Forest deal was given an
award by Public Management Magazine for outstanding public–private partnership
(“Program Excellence Award,” 2004). But the majority of the private financing comes
from the fundraising efforts of local, single-issue civic groups like the Klamath
Alternative Sports Alliance in Klamath Falls, Oregon; the Temuchin Skatepark Fund in
Ithaca,NewYork; and the Walla Walla Skatepark Association in Walla Walla,Washington.
Financing, however, is only the first stage; once a park is constructed, urban managers
expect that the park will be largely self-supervised, self-maintained, and selfpoliced.
Posted Rule Number 8 at the skate plaza of Kettering states that “the skate
plaza is self policing” (City of Kettering, 2005). An article in Parks & Recreation argues
that a“well-designed skatepark will produce a cadre of built-in supervisors”(Newman,
2003). Another, titled “Pay to Play,” is explicit about the financial benefits of this selfmanagement:
“This free labor can factor into the cost of the skatepark,” the author
argues, “and could relieve the park department from providing staff supervision”
(Gilligan, 2004 p. 63; see also Johnson, 2000). The author refers to skaters’ experience
in a park as a “concrete curriculum . . . a lesson plan encoded in concrete” (Gilligan,
484 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
Figure 2.
Note: Rendering of Anthony Bracali’s design for the Schuylkill River skatepark, showing relationship to the
Philadelphia Museum of Art. Although this project has been approved, $4 million in private funds must be
raised to finance construction. Image courtesy of Anthony Bracali, AIA.
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2004, p. 62). As always, skatepark lobbyists have played to these expectations.
According to one lobbying aid, produced by a skateboard manufacturer, the“work isn’t
done” once a skatepark is built.“POLICE YOURSELVES,” the aid mandates:“The most
important thing is that you make the rules as well as obey them” (Consolidated
Skateboards, n.d.; see also Gragg, 2005).
Many urban managers have recognized that the potential of skateboarders to maintain
order on a volunteer basis does not stop at the gates of the skatepark. Professional
public management literature, local press outlets, and academic studies have all commented
extensively on how the presence of skateboarders can deter vandalism, drug use,
prostitution, and homeless encampments—skateboarders provide “eyes on the street”
(Christ, 2000, 2001; Duin, 2000; Dundas, 2005; Gilligan, 2004; Howell, 2005; Levin, 2006;
Pflaum, 2004; Saffron, 2001; Spicer, 1994, 1995b; Spohn, 2002; Zelinka & Johnston,
2005). Police in Portland reported that the Burnside skatepark, which was built without
the city’s permission by skateboarders, was responsible for a precipitous drop in car theft
and robberies in the surrounding neighborhood (Dawdy, 2000). Leveraging this potential,
the city had at least 75 park users sign agreements that they would maintain the surrounding
areas, in exchange for municipal sanction of the park (Spicer, 1995a). The
secondary effects of skateparks are so well established in the minds of Portland residents
that the parks have even been recognized as a potential force of gentrification; in one
neighborhood that is slated for a skatepark, “The biggest concern for people nearby is
displacement of poor or homeless for whom the area long has been a refuge” (Christ,
2001). Such concerns notwithstanding, urban managers across the country are adding
skateparks to their toolkit for the revitalization of poor and former industrial areas.
The best evidence that urban managers view skateparks as a means of promoting
personal responsibility is the growing trend for cities and other government agencies
to sanction illegal, self-built skateparks after the fact. In cities across the country, skateboarders
with construction experience have built parks on vacant parcels of land
(often beneath overpasses) without permission, using their own materials and labor.
Such parks exist in Seattle, Portland, Philadelphia, San Diego, Los Angeles, and
Oakland at least. In all cases, the skateboarders were censured for working outside of
official channels but also praised for their initiative and voluntarism, and in all cases,
the parks were eventually given government sanction, except in Seattle where those
negotiations are currently under way (Levin, 2006). The most high profile of these
cases is the Bordertown Skatepark in Oakland, which was built beneath a highway on
land owned by Caltrans, the state’s transportation authority (see Figures 3 and 4).
When Caltrans discovered the park in 2005, they announced that it would be bulldozed
immediately. However, the park was saved when local political elites—including
Mayor Jerry Brown and U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer—weighed in on the side of the
skateboarders (Lundstrom, 2005; Zamora, 2005a, 2005b). The president of the city
council, Ignacio de la Fuente (Zamora, 2005a), remarked that
it was amazing to see something so large and complex built totally by youth volunteers,
and paid for out of their own pocket money. . . . Obviously, Caltrans has some concerns
about liability and its land being built on illegally, but you’d have to have your head in the
sand to not see there is something wonderful happening here. (p. B1)
The original DIY skatepark, Burnside in Portland, was sanctioned in 1994. Explaining
the Portland City Council’s decision to the New York Times, a spokesperson said that
“the Council admired the skaters’‘just do it’ attitude”(“Homemade Skate Park,”1994).
S k a t e p a r k a s N e o l i b e r a l P l a y g r o u n d 485
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Such statements of admiration have been common, and they suggest that what is at
stake for urban managers is the promotion not only of a self-sufficient citizenry but
also of their own public images. At writing, Boxer’s official Web site prominently features
a photo of the senator being interviewed in front of one of the transitioned walls
at Bordertown. As part of their 2004 campaigns, two separate mayoral candidates in
Philadelphia skateboarded across JFK plaza to publicly protest a skateboarding ban in
that space (Howell, 2005). The fact that an activity like skateboarding holds promotional
appeal for public officials cannot be understood without reference to the NPM
revolution. In 2000, Public Administration Review published a study titled “Loose cannons
and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence about innovative public
managers” (Borins, 2000). As the title suggests, Borins defends the tenets of NPM,
making the case that the maverick public officials who appear to be taking unwarranted
risks are often the most effective (Borins, 2000; see also Osborne & Gaebler,
1993; Osborne & Plastrik, 2001). Although Boxer states that she is supporting amenities
for her younger constituents, one wonders whether a U.S. senator would also support
an unengineered, illegal structure, built by people who were trespassing on public
land (referring to them as “volunteers”), were it not for the currency of the ideas
advanced by Borins and others (Zamora, 2005b). In a neoliberal governance context,
it is in the interest of public officials to associate themselves with any entrepreneurial
activity that produces measurable social and financial benefits.
To put the skatepark into historical perspective, I turn now to a brief history of the
Progressive Era playground and, finally, to a comparison of the skatepark and the playground.
This comparison highlights the different character traits that have been
486 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
Figure 3.
Note: Bordertown skatepark in Oakland, California. Although it has received municipal sanction, Bordertown
remains closed until the skateboarders’ nonprofit organization can raise $2.5 million for an insurance policy.
Because skateboarders are not present, it has become a graffiti spot. Photo by author.
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
endorsed by urban managers in neoliberal and Progressive governance contexts: selfsufficiency
and loyalty, respectively. I also highlight the different mechanisms by which
urban managers believed those traits should be instilled: autonomous responses to
social conditions on one hand, and socialization through directed play on the other. If
S k a t e p a r k a s N e o l i b e r a l P l a y g r o u n d 487
Figure 4.
Note: The skateboarders who illicitly constructed Bordertown incorporated the pillars of a freeway overpass
into the design. Photo by author.
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
the skatepark is a contemporary variation of the urban form established by the playground
movement, this comparison demonstrates the shift in social function that this
form has undergone.
Socialization for Loyalty on the Progressive Era Playground
Playgrounds began to appear in the United States in the late 1880s and early 1890s
in northern industrial cities. The first playgrounds were attached to settlement
houses; for example, Chicago’s first playground was opened at Jane Addams’s Hull
House in 1893. The idea caught on quickly, and by 1906, the PAA was created under
the leadership of settlement house workers (Jane Addams), tenement house reformers
(Jacob Riis and Lawrence Veiller), philanthropists (Joseph Lee), and leaders of the
Young Men’s Christian Association (Luther Gulick and Theodore Roosevelt). By
1928, the PAA reported that more than $31.7 million had been spent on public recreation
over the previous year and that 872 cities now boasted 12,159 individual playgrounds
(PAA, 1929). These playgrounds were sited disproportionately in working
class neighborhoods, and they contained any combination of three principle elements:
sandboxes, equipment (like seesaws and swings), and athletic fields and
courts. They tended to be divided by gender and by age (Cranz, 1982; Gagen, 2000b).
Statistics published by the PAA show that playgrounds across the country were overwhelmingly
funded through municipal appropriations, taxes, and bonds, whereas
only a tiny fraction were funded (even partially) with private and voluntary subscription
(e.g., PAA, 1909).
In the first instance, the playground was aimed at the problem of “scrub play,” that
is, play initiated by children themselves (Rader, 1990, p. 224). Of particular concern
were games like stickball that occupied the streets in immigrant neighborhoods.
Photographs of such play were featured in Riis’s (1890) famous How the Other Half
Lives and contributed to a moral panic among the middle and upper classes. Cavallo
(1981) and especially Goodman (1979) have demonstrated that the politics of traffic
flow was part of the rationale behind providing playgrounds; urban managers sought
to free up the streets for the efficient flow of workers and goods (see also Gagen,
2000b). But the motivations of the Progressive reformers/urban managers were much
more complicated.
To understand why the movement grew so quickly, it is important to understand
that, from the reformers’ perspective, the city that was emerging in the wake of the
Civil War was not a stable proposition. On one hand, this city was menaced by the
rampant individualism and greed of the laissez-faire capitalist, who was responsible for
creating and profiting from an inhumane environment for the poor, in terms of both
work and living conditions. On the other hand, this city was threatened by the competing
practices and worldviews—anarchism and socialism, Catholicism and
Judaism—of the new immigrant working classes. Taken together, these conditions
seemed to portend a whole complex of threats to the very fabric of civilization; these
threats included labor radicalism, racial strife, social fragmentation, rampant commercialism,
moral and physical degeneration, disintegration of traditional gender roles
and so also of the traditional family, and diminution of national identity (Cavallo,
1981; Gagen, 2000a, 2000b, 2004; Goodman, 1979). Although advocates tended to be
more focused on some problems rather than others (Americanization efforts, for
example, were of primary importance), they believed that the playground was a means
by which to address all of these threats.
488 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
For the purposes of this article, the precise mechanisms through which each of these
social ills was to be addressed are less important than the fact that playground advocates
had faith in the malleability of young people through scientifically conceived
socialization efforts. These efforts were designed with reference to theories of developmental
psychology, with significant influence from evolutionary theory.“Recapitulation
theory,” for example, had much currency within the PAA. The theory posited that children
develop through a series of stages that correspond to the evolutionary development
of “the race” (Cavallo, 1981, pp. 56-60, 76-81).
3
Because children up to age 3 were
“‘infused’ with memories of the species’ primordial amphibious origins, ‘when our
seaborne ancestors first made good their footing on the beach,’” the play style appropriate
to that age was manipulation of sand (p. 77). In the next stage, interactions with
more sophisticated equipment, like swings and, later, jungle gyms, were meant to guide
children through their simian phase, and so on. The final two stages prior to adulthood
were “the ‘Big Injun’ or self-assertive” stage, which ended around the 12th year, and
“adolescence, ‘the age of loyalty,’ [which] extended into the mid twenties” (p. 77).
If there was broad agreement that children proceeded through developmental stages,
there was also broad agreement that their development must be directed, that there was
a “normal course of play” that would not unfold properly without social influence from
trained adults and from peers who were developing normally. Accordingly, playgrounds
were to be supervised at all times; signage was often present informing users that play
was not permitted unless a “play leader” was present (Cavallo, 1981, p. 79). These play
leaders—sometimes described as “play efficiency engineers” or “social engineers”—
were charged with “organizing instincts,” directing young people’s development toward
socially appropriate identities (Cavallo, 1981; Goodman, 1979). This socialization was
to be achieved through extensive programming—occasional parades for all children,
ring games (like ring-around-the-rosy) for children in preadolescent developmental
stages, crafts and folk dances for older girls, team sports and interplayground competitions
for the older boys, and a variety of other directed activities.
Which personal qualities were to be cultivated depended on gender and age. Gagen
(2000b) has examined the strategies through which reformers sought to maintain heterosexist
gender divisions and encourage qualities of domesticity in adolescent girls. But
here I will focus on those personal qualities that playground professionals deemed
desirable and appropriate for adolescent and immediately preadolescent boys. In these
stages, playground professionals sought to draw out and cultivate the instincts for cooperation,
social unity, and especially loyalty (Cavallo, 1981; Gagen, 2000a). This was to be
accomplished through the experience of team games but also through the attendant
development of the musculature, which playgrounders understood to be intimately
related to psychological and moral development (Cavallo, 1981; Gagen, 2004).
In explaining the rationale behind such directed play, Gulick (PAA, 1909, p. 25-67)
stated that“the child does not exist as an independent integer.He is a part of the social whole.
He needs the rest as much as the rest needs him, and these complex forms of control
are genuine, though indefinite and limited” (p. 296). In the playgrounders’ view, adolescence
was a critical stage: Although the adolescent boy had a predisposition to
absorb Gulick’s lesson, left to his own devices in the urban circumstances in which he
found himself, he was likely to remain mired in an earlier developmental stage characterized
by selfish, individualistic, and “savage” behavior. Playground professionals
blamed this “moral anarchy” as much on the “public-be-damned” capitalist as on the
lawless immigrant, but the environmental consequences were the same (Cavallo,
1981). The remedy was to ensure that young people renounced such individualism; as
one playground professional put it, the “mark of all morality is subordination” (p. 78).
S k a t e p a r k a s N e o l i b e r a l P l a y g r o u n d 489
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Playground advocates believed they were doing more than simply deterring crime
by keeping adolescents off the streets; they understood their work in terms of a broader
sociological analysis of economic relations and nationhood. Neither a corporate
industrial economy nor a country of immigrants could function, they believed, without
social unity. Consistent with other Progressive reform movements, many playground
advocates further believed that the proper governmental form for such a
nation was an efficient, centralized bureaucracy based on the model of corporate business
(Cavallo, 1981). If this corporate, bureaucratized nation were to thrive, the next
generation of Americans would have to be equipped with a “corporate conscience,”
which Lee (cited in Cavallo, 1981) described in these terms:
The point is not in making money but in making good, in holding down the part assigned
to you in the economy of the social whole to which you may belong, as the boy in the
school team holds down third base. It is only as he thrills and vibrates to the structure of
the whole, as the life of the social organism flows through him and compels him to his
task and his place, that the full life of the individual comes forth. (p. 100)
To successfully navigate Taylorist workplaces and bureaucratic civic institutions,
tomorrow’s adults would need to instinctively subordinate themselves to authority and
to group goals (Cavallo, 1981; Goodman, 1979). Playgrounders conceived of loyalty as
a cognitive skill that they could cultivate in young people, a skill that was necessary for
the success of an individual as well as for the success of the economy and the nation.
Comparison and Conclusion: The Neoliberal Playground
Skateparks and playgrounds share many characteristics. In the first instance, both
are public responses to citizen demand for recreation space, and there can be no doubt
that these provisions have benefited the lives of millions of young people.
Both playgrounds and skateparks have also been embraced by city planners, boosters,
and property owners. As Cranz (1982) shows, playgrounds were “an early form of urban
renewal, since they could replace less desirable land uses such as city dumps, cemeteries,
slums, the empty grounds of defunct reformatories or breweries, old piers, rooftops, and
vacant lots” (p. 84). In a 1928 Playground article titled “The Economic Values of
Recreation,” the president of the Chamber of Commerce of the USA argued that the
playground movement had received “decisive” support from business leaders and planners
who believed that public recreation space helped property owners enhance land values,
cities attract manufacturers, and manufacturers retain workers (Butterworth, 1928).
“A commodious playground, teeming with youngsters every day of the year,” he argued,
“is evidence of a city’s greatness quite as impressive as smoking factory chimneys”
(p. 498).
4
Skateparks have similarly served as a tool to enhance land values and replace
less “desirable” land uses. In the 2000s, as economic competition among cities revolves
less around attracting employers and more around attracting workers (Clark, Lloyd,
Wong, & Jain, 2004; Dewan, 2006; Florida, 2002; Howell, 2005), skateparks have taken on
additional functions. “The mayor of Louisville, for example, sees a skatepark as an
important facet of major downtown urban renewal, one that attracts and retains young,
tech-savvy residents, employees and business owners, the type of residents that desire
downtown living near new urban entertainment facilities and parks that cater to ‘alternative’
lifestyles” (Hadley, 2003, p. 10; see also “Mark(et)ed for Success,” 2002).
490 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Both skateparks and playgrounds have been conceived of as safety valves, containing
at least some of the play that would otherwise occupy city streets, endangering young
people and impeding the flow of workers, shoppers, and goods (Gagen, 2000b).
However, neither Progressives nor skatepark advocates have harbored illusions that this
type of containment strategy could be completely effective, and in both cases, discussion
of this strategy occupies a small percentage of the respective bodies of professional
literature, relative to discussions about appropriate personal qualities of young people.
On the subject of which qualities were deemed appropriate, the two movements
diverge. To understand the fundamental difference between the playground and the
skatepark, it is useful to consider some typical descriptions that proponents of the
respective spaces have offered. Describing the scene at the Progressive Era playground,
Lee (cited in Cavallo, 1981) wrote,
Rhythm is the social alchemist, who can fuse individual minds and temperaments into
one substance by his spell.When people sing or march or dance together, each knows with
accuracy, as in the ring games, what all the rest are doing and are going to do and in great
part how they feel about it; each knows that the other knows—and so on; to the depth
that the song or the movement goes the mutual understanding is complete. And it goes
deeper as the rhythmic influence continues . . . until the whole emotional being of each
member of the company swings to the same pulsation like a tidal wave. (pp. 79-80)
Compare the visual metaphor of a rhythmic tidal wave to one recently used to describe
a skatepark (Spohn, 2002): “The scene is like a microscopic view of a large electron
with dozens of positively charged particles rapidly swirling around each other, converging,
nearly colliding, dodging, and sailing off again” (p. 77). If skatepark advocates
imagine a social totality, it is one composed of autonomous parts, whereas Progressives
conceived of playgrounds as sites of social fusion. Skatepark advocates have sought to
cultivate individualism and entrepreneurialism, qualities that Progressives regarded as
“asocial” at best (Cavallo, 1981, p. 3). In the frequently racist categorizations of developmentalist
theories, the promotion of such qualities would likely have been viewed as
ensuring that young people would remain mired in earlier evolutionary states, or savage
states like the “Big Injun” phase of Recapitulation theory.
That is not to say that there are no points of agreement. For example, both playground
and skatepark advocates have hoped to cultivate a sense of ownership among users. On
the playground, however, the feeling of ownership was conceived of primarily in terms of
the enforcement of rules and the prevention of vandalism through the mechanism of peer
influence (Cavallo, 1981). Advocates expect that this same process will occur in the
skatepark, yet here, the meaning of ownership is much broader and more literal. Skaters
“own” their parks because they are responsible for a significant portion of the funding,
whereas playgrounds were funded almost exclusively with public moneys. Skaters own
their parks because they manage, police, design, and even build those parks. In both
spaces, peer influence has been seen as important, yet on the playground, even peer influence
was to be molded and supervised by an adult who had received training in playground
management. In the skatepark, by contrast, supervision is self-supervision.
As a consideration of liability makes clear, skatepark advocates believe that the feeling
of ownership that is associated with self-management extends not only to the space of
the park but also to the body of the skateboarder himself or herself. General liability
restrictions, along with the so-called hazardous sports legislation—enacted in California,
Utah, and other states (Spohn, 2001)—have relieved governmental agencies from
S k a t e p a r k a s N e o l i b e r a l P l a y g r o u n d 491
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
personal injury liability, thus enabling the boom in skatepark construction. In one sense,
then, skateparks can be thought of as legally binding contracts: recreation space in
exchange for the acceptance of personal responsibility. Given the explosion of liability
lawsuits in the 1980s, and the neoliberal governance context (ever-shrinking subsidies
and tax base) in which most municipalities operate, the wisdom of such an arrangement
seems apparent, because in many cases, the alternative is no public recreation space at all.
To the Progressives, however, this idea would have been anathema. In fact, the establishment
of liability law was one of the many Progressive reforms that were concurrent
with the playground movement. The laws were founded on the belief that because the
worker in a modern industrial factory or mine had little control over the actions of fellow
employees and even less control over the work environment, the risk should be
placed on the employer and the state (Urofsky, 1983). Similarly, on the playground, the
responsibility for safety rested with the play leader, not the individual child. Cavallo
(1981) shows that the playground movement was a product of reformers’ desire “to
transfer control of children’s play from the children and their families to the state”
(p. xi). The skatepark revolution is an instance where that transfer is being reversed,
where control is being devolved from the state back to children. Consistent with other
neoliberal reforms, the skatepark revolution marks a move away from a parens patriae
relationship between citizen and state toward a more contractual relationship.
The reconfiguration of this civic environment also becomes clear when one considers
the range of social issues that the respective movements have taken up. Progressives
addressed the playground to issues of national identity, gender roles, family composition,
crime rates, race relations, class relations, work attitudes, hygiene, household living
habits, physical development, and a host of lesser concerns. In contrast, skatepark
advocates have focused on the transactional aspects of the relationship between citizen
and local municipal agency: demand, liability, maintenance, funding, land use, and so
on. The endorsement of personal responsibility is directed toward the smooth functioning
of this contractual relationship. Skateparks are a selective investment in the
reskilling of young people to navigate this new civic environment. Even those discussions
in which skatepark advocates endorse the personal quality of entrepreneurialism
revolve primarily around the provision of the facilities themselves, as when young people
construct and secure funding for parks.
Whereas playground advocates were self-described social engineers, whose activities
were informed by complex social theories, the activities of skatepark advocates are comparatively
untheorized. Skatepark advocates do not seek to instill and govern identities,
so much as they seek to reward and encourage (“incentivize”) specific preexisting, measurable
behaviors, such as not bringing lawsuits for injuries, cleaning surrounding neighborhoods,
funding and constructing one’s own recreation space, deterring less desirable
land uses, and so on. To reiterate Hindess’s (2004) observation, neoliberal reforms to
government are characterized by “the attempt to introduce not only market and quasimarket
arrangements but also empowerment, self-government and responsibility into
areas of social life which had hitherto been organised in other ways” (p. 35), in this case,
areas that playground advocates had sought to organize through state mechanisms.
With shrinking budgets and market-inspired organizational reforms, urban managers
in the United States have largely stepped away from the role of social engineer,
yet, that withdrawal has been predicated on certain neoliberal terms. Skateparks provide
one example of how municipalities are renouncing the intervention into social life
for the purpose of engineering normative identities, while they simultaneously begin
moving away from the idea that it is the proper role of local government to promote
492 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
social justice by using public funds to promote social unity. As Gulick (cited in
Goodman, 1979) wrote, the playground aimed to cultivate “the corporate conscience,
which is rendered necessary by the complex interdependence of modern life” (p. 53).
This article has argued that the U.S. skatepark is a neoliberal playground, one that aims
to reward a personally responsible conscience, which is rendered necessary by the complex
independence of today’s modern life.
Notes
1. At various stages of research and writing, this work has benefited from the comments of
Thea Chroman, Sarah Lopez, Greig Crysler, Paula Fass, Richard Walker, Paul Groth, and finally,
Allan Pred, who is dearly missed.
2. The proposed park is unusually expensive because of the elaborate design and the location
adjacent to the Modern Art Museum on the Schuylkill River. By comparison, the City of
Portland estimates that it will cost $9 million to develop 19 parks (Nkrumah, 2005).
3. By race, playground advocates meant the human species. However, their descriptions of the
species consistently represented physical and psychological characteristics commonly associated
with White Protestants as occupying the highest point of human evolutionary development.
4. An analysis of influential city planning texts in the early part of the 20th century confirms
that planners were enthusiastic advocates because they understood playgrounds as a strategy for
bringing up and stabilizing surrounding property values (e.g., Comey, 1929; Lewis, 1916; Marsh,
1909; McFarland, 1929; Robinson, 1911).
References
Andrisani, P. J., Hakim, S., & Savas, E. S. (Eds.). (2006). The New Public Management: Lessons
from innovating governors and mayors. Berlin: Springer.
Barzelay, M. (2001). The New Public Management: Improving research and policy dialogue.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Borden, I. (2001). Skateboarding, space, and the city: Architecture and the body. Oxford, UK: Berg.
Borgatta, T. (2002, April 14). Shoe logo on a park? Lake Forest says it’s a good fit; Sponsorship:
O.C. municipality takes corporate deals to a new level. Some ask: Is anything sacred? Los
Angeles Times, p. B1.
Borins, S. (2000). Loose cannons and rule breakers, or enterprising leaders? Some evidence
about innovative public managers. Public Administration Review, 60(6), 498-508.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of resistance: Against the tyranny of the market. New York: New Press.
Butterworth, W. (1928). The economic values of recreation. The Playground, 22(12), 495-498.
California Assembly Committee on the Judiciary. (1997, May 7). Government Tort Liability:
Skateboarding, 1997-98 Session.
Carney, T. (2002). From rights to management, Vol. 18: Contract, New Public Management and
employment services. London: Kluwer Law International.
Cavallo, D. (1981). Muscles and morals: Organized playgrounds and urban reform, 1880-1920.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Christ, J. (2000, October 27). This idea is rolling. The Oregonian, p. C03.
Christ, J. (2001, July 11). Westside skate park gains momentum. The Oregonian, p. C02.
City of Kettering. (2005). Skate plaza rules. Retrieved from http://www.ketteringoh.org/newweb/
pdfs/recreation/skateplaza/skateparkrules.pdf
Clark, T. N., Lloyd, R., Wong, K. K., & Jain, P. (2004). Amenities drive urban growth: A new paradigm
and policy linkages. In T. N. Clark (Ed.), City as entertainment machine (pp. 291-322).
Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
S k a t e p a r k a s N e o l i b e r a l P l a y g r o u n d 493
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Comey,A. C. (1929). Neighborhood centers. In J. Nolen (Ed.), City planning: A series of papers presenting
the essential elements of a city plan (pp. 117-138). New York: Appleton and Company.
Consolidated Skateboards. (n.d.). THE PLAN. Retrieved from http://www.skatepark.org/
Propaganda/Public_Parks/theplan.html
Cranz, G. (1982). The politics of park design: A history of urban parks in America. Boston: MIT
Press.
Dahlgren, K. (2006). Taking it to the street. Parks & Recreation, 41(8), 38-45.
Davis, D. (1992). City of Quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles. New York: Vintage.
Dawdy, P. (2000, December 27). Pariahs on the pavement: Skateboarders are at the center of city
hall’s strangest battle. Willamette Week, p. 01.
Dean, M. (1999). Governmentality: Power and rule in modern society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denhardt, R. B., & Denhardt, J. V. (2000). The new public service: Serving rather than steering.
Public Administration Review, 60(6), 549-560.
Dewan, S. (2006, November 25). Cities compete in hipness battle to attract young. New York
Times, p. A1.
Duin, S. (2000, March 21). East side offers more than just a river view. The Oregonian, p. B01.
Dundas, Z. (2005, February 9). Romancing the skate: Skateboards + developers = love.
Willamette Week Online. Retrieved from http://www.wweek.com/editorial/3114/5983/
Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community
and everyday life. New York: Basic Books.
Freeman, C., & Riordan, T. (2002). Locating skateparks: The planner’s dilemma. Planning
Practice & Research, 17(3), 297-316.
Gagen, E. A. (2000a). An example to us all: Child development and identity construction in early
20th-century playgrounds. Environment and Planning A, 32, 599-616.
Gagen, E. A. (2000b). Playing the part: Performing gender in America’s playgrounds. In S. L.
Holloway & G.Valentine (Eds.), Children’s geographies: Playing, living, learning (pp. 213-229).
London: Routledge.
Gagen, E. A. (2004). Making America flesh: Physicality and nationhood in turn-of-the-century
New York schools. Cultural Geographies, 11, 417-442.
Gembeck, T. (2001). Funding a skatepark at the grassroots level. Transworld Skateboarding
Business. Retrieved from http://www.tonyhawkfoundation.org/how_to/fundraising.pdf
Gilligan, C. (2004). Pay to play. Parks & Recreation, 39(8), 60-66.
Goodman, C. (1979). Choosing sides: Playground and street life on the Lower East Side. New York:
Schocken Books.
Gragg, R. (2005, April 13). Sight lines building the city of tomorrow. The Oregonian, p. D05.
Green, A. (2000, July 30). Boards rule in Oregon parks. The Oregonian, p. D01.
Hadley, J. (2003, February 27). Magic business for beans. The Local Planet, p. 10.
Hanlon, N. T., & Rosenberg, M. W. (1998). Not-so-new public management and the denial of
geography: Ontario health-care reform in the 1990s. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 16(5), 559-572.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Higgins, M. (2006, November 24). In board sports, insider status makes gear sell. New York
Times, p. A1.
Hindess, B. (2004). Liberalism—What’s in a name? In W. Larner & W. Walters (Eds.), Global governmentality
(pp. 23-39). London: Routledge.
Homemade skate park. (1994, November 13). New York Times, p. A25.
Hood, C., & Peters, G. (2004). The middle aging of New Public Management: Into the age of paradox?
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(3), 267-282.
Howell, O. (2005). The “creative class” and the gentrifying city: Skateboarding in Philadelphia’s
Love Park. Journal of Architectural Education, 59(2), 32-42.
Johnson, R. (2000, July 3). For Heidi Lemmon, skateboarding is a political maneuver—she’s the
stealth force behind proliferation of skateparks; “Rage” works the machine. Wall Street
Journal, p. A1.
494 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Kane, J., & Patapan, H. (2006). In search of prudence: The hidden problem of managerial
reform. Public Administration Review, 66(5), 711-725.
Katz, C. (2004). Growing up global: Economic restructuring and children’s everyday lives.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kay, K. (1998, January). Design workshop: Banish the boarders. Downtown Idea Exchange, 15, 4.
Lane, J. E. (2000). New Public Management: An introduction. London: Routledge.
Larner, W. (2000). Neo-liberalism: Policy, ideology, governmentality. Studies in Political
Economy, 63, 5-26.
Larner, W., & Walters, W. (2004). Global benchmarking: Participating “at a distance” in the globalizing
economy. In W. Larner & W. Walters (Eds.), Global governmentality (pp. 212-232).
London: Routledge.
Leviathan re-engineered. (1996, October 19). The Economist, p. 67.
Levin, H. (2006). Skate start: Once illegal, a new skatepark takes shape on Marginal Way. The
Stranger, 15(25). Retrieved from http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=30934
Lewis, N. (1916). The planning of the modern city. New York: Wiley.
Lundstrom, M. (2005, November 5). Underneath an overpass, skateboarders rise to the occasion.
Sacramento Bee, p. A3.
Manshester, R. (2002). Wheels in motion. Parks & Recreation, 37(8), 42-47.
Mark(et)ed for success. (2002). Parks & Recreation, 37(11), 78-82.
Marsh, B. (1909). An introduction to city planning: Democracy’s challenge to the American city.
New York: Committee on Congestion of Population in New York.
McFarland,H.(1929).General recreation facilities.In J.Nolen (Ed.), City planning: A series of papers
presenting the essential elements of a city plan (pp. 139-158). New York: Appleton and Company.
Moon M.J. & deLeon P. (2001) “Municipal reinvention: Managerial values and diffusion among
municipalities” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(3) 327-352.
National Sporting Goods Association. (2007). 2005 youth participation in selected sports with comparisons
to 1995.
Németh, J. (2006). Conflict, exclusion, relocation: Skateboarding and public space. Journal of
Urban Design, 11(3), 297-318.
Newman, C. (2003). Meeting the need. Parks & Recreation, 38(6), 6-11.
Nkrumah, W. (2005, July 21). City council rolls closer to approving 19 skate parks. The
Oregonian, p. D02.
Nolan, N. (2003). The ins and outs of skateboarding and transgression in public space in
Newcastle, Australia. Australian Geographer, 34(3), 311-327.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1993). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is
transforming the public sector. New York: Plume.
Osborne, D., & Plastrik, P. (2001). The reinventor’s fieldbook: Tools for transforming your government.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Owens, P. (2001). Recreation and restrictions: Community skateboard parks in the United
States. Urban Geography, 22(8), 782-797.
Page, S. (2005). What’s new about the New Public Management? Administrative change in the
human services. Public Administration Review, 65(6), 713-728.
Peck, J., & Tickell, A. (2002). Neoliberalizing space. Antipode, 34(3), 380-404.
Perry, T. (1998, June 19). X Games offer rush of risk and profits. Los Angeles Times, p. 1.
Pflaum, N. (2004, March 4). Liberty for all: Skateboarders may fend off druggies and pervs.
PitchWeekly, p. 1.
Pierce, S. (2006, April 5). Xtreme entrepreneurs. Entrepreneur Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.entrepreneur.com/worklife/successstories/article159622.html
Playground Association of America. (1909). New York: Author.
Playground Association of America. (1929). Local recreation progress in 1928. The Playground,
23(2), 58.
Program Excellence Award for Outstanding Partnerships: Public–Private Partnerships. (2004).
Public Management Magazine, 86(9), 24-26.
S k a t e p a r k a s N e o l i b e r a l P l a y g r o u n d 495
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Rader, B. G. (1990). American sports: From the age of folk games to the age of televised sports (2nd
ed.). New York: Prentice Hall.
Rankin, M. (1997). We’re going to build a what? City-run skateparks are not a recipe for disaster.
Parks & Recreation, 32(7), 54-61.
Ravensforge Skateboard Solutions. (2006). An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Available from http://skateblock.com/
Riis, J. A. (1890). How the other half lives. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger.
Robinson, C. M. (1911). The width and arrangement of streets. New York: Engineering News
Publishing Company.
Saffron, I. (2001, August 11). Don’t trash thrashers. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. E01.
Saffron, I. (2005, May 6). A new skate park to love? New skate park is closer, but challenges
remain. Philadelphia Inquirer, p. E01.
Salskov-Iverson, D., Hansen, H. K., & Bislev, S. (2000). Governmentality, globalization and local
practice. Alternatives, 25(2), 183-222.
Skate Plaza Foundation. (2004). The skate plaza is essential to the future of skateboarding.
Retrieved from http://skateplaza.com/plaza_main.asp
Skateparks. (2006). Skateboarder Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.skateboardermag
.com/skateparks
Sorkin, M. (1992). See you in Disneyland. In M. Sorkin (Ed.), Variations on a theme park: The
new American city and the end of public space (pp. 205-232). New York: Hill and Wang.
Spicer, O. (1994, December 15). To skate or not to skate. The Oregonian, p. B02.
Spicer, O. (1995a, January 27). Factions reach agreement on Portland skateboard park. The
Oregonian, p. C02.
Spicer, O. (1995b, July 13). Skateboard park an important sign of a brighter future. The
Oregonian, p. 02.
Spohn, A. (2001). Doing it right. Parks & Recreation, 36(8), 80-88.
Spohn, A. (2002). Skate park society builds responsibility and community. Parks & Recreation,
37(3), 76-86.
Stark, A. (2002). What is the New Public Management? Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory, 12(1), 137-151.
Stratford, E. (2002). On the edge: A tale of skateboarders and urban governance. Social and
Cultural Geography, 3(2), 192-206.
Thompson, J. W. (1998, March). A good thrashing. Landscape Architecture Magazine, pp. 78-87.
Tucker, A. (2004). The role of reflexive trust in modernizing public administrations. Public
Performance & Management Review, 28(1), 53-74.
Urofsky, M. (1983). Myth and reality: The Supreme Court and protective legislation in the
Progressive Era. In Supreme Court Historical Society 1983 yearbook (pp. 53-72). Washington,
DC: Supreme Court Historical Society.
Valentine, G. (2004). Public space and the culture of childhood. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Walker, R. M. (2001). How to abolish public housing: Implications and lessons from public management
reform. Housing Studies, 16(5), 675-696.
Weikart, L. A. (2003). Allocation patterns among the New Public Management mayors. Public
Performance & Management Review, 27(1), 37-52.
Zamora, J. H. (2005a, August 4). Skate park wins political backing: East Bay leaders will intercede
with ‘boarders, Caltrans. San Francisco Chronicle, p. B1.
Zamora, J. H. (2005b). Skatepark stays: Bordertown skaters refuse to bail. Landscape Architecture,
95(11), 18-20.
Zelinka, A., & Johnston, J. (2005). Accidental spaces. Planning, 71(11), 42-44.
Ocean Howell is a PhD candidate in the Department of Architecture at University of California,
Berkeley, and a fellow at the Institute for the Study of Social Change. His current research examines
the category of publicness through a history of San Francisco’s working-class Mission District.
496 s p a c e a n d c u l t u r e / n o v e m b e r 2 0 0 8
at UNIV OF OKLAHOMA LIBRARIES on November 11, 2012sac.sagepub.comDownloaded from