Discussion

8 thoughts on “Ed Benedict design meeting tonight”

  1. t-roy on November 15, 2007 - Reply

    Last meeting was scrambled once the dabate started of “what is tranny vs street”. I hope it goes over easy tonight. Let’s focus on the sunnyside….

  2. Kilwag on November 15, 2007 - Reply

    Yeah, I’d like to see less whining for sure. Somebody needs to educate the masses on the history of the development of Pier Park and how and why the money was made available. I’m getting sick of hearing people whine about how street skaters got “ripped off” at that park when they fail to realize that the Pier Park project and the people that organized and lobbied for it are the reason these other parks are being built in the first place. It’s part of SPS’s (Portland, not public) visionary plan that many (myself included) didn’t approve of at first. We thought it was too grandiose and would indefinitely delay anything getting built for skateboarding. Old vert kooks spearheaded the effort and worked on the donations that made the first park possible. the street skating community (and even the larger skatebording community in Portland) wasn’t involved until the latter parts of the project. Also, the street skater who advised in the design ought to step up and take credit for that aspect of the park that others (who aren’t locals) seem to love to complain about. The street section was modified heavily to the wishes of this person who is “in the industry” and who basically got almost all of the concessions he desired, according to what I heard. I know Dreamland doesn’t care what anyone thinks about that to a certain extent, but they don’t deserve the bashing they get from the street skating community when it comes to Pier Park specifically. The locals don’t seem to have any complaints.

  3. kookcentral on November 15, 2007 - Reply

    “The Masses” aint they always the problem ?, actually seems the “street skate community” is a special interest group thats really always the problem sponsored by mom mostly and will drop out sooner than later and hopefully never pick up their boards again like some of these “old vert kooks” did and now gunk up the flow of nearly every good session cause the cant get their tail down in time, some of us older fellas who never stepped off might view skating as just skating and not another “us vs. them” challenge that America seems so stuck on no matter what group you belong to no they aint locals, or old vert kooks but they skate, y’all are really two sides of the same coin…remember the subgenius theory.

  4. Kilwag on November 15, 2007 - Reply

    Yeah it seems like we can act as a community a lot of times, until it comes time to design the parks. It used to be enough just to skate. Now you have to skate the same terrain on the same type of boards in the same clothes.

  5. Kilwag on November 15, 2007 - Reply

    Also, I was talking about a specific bunch of gripes that I keep hearing from people that obviously don’t know the background on what they are complaining about.

  6. Welsh Pete on November 15, 2007 - Reply

    Why was one guy allowed to design Pier’s street course?

    Are Portland’s street skaters really so disorganzied they can’t advocate for themselves?

    And just b/c SPS typically favor one type of terrain, does that absolve them of their duty to represent the skateboarders of Portland as a whole? I know the answer but that is how it sounds and appears sometimes.

    For the record, as a largely uninvolved skateboarder who likes to skate it all, I am eternally thankful for SPS, however these parks turn out.

  7. Kilwag on November 15, 2007 - Reply

    SPS or SPS?

    When the Pier project began, before the City put money in and made everything 10 times more expensive due to red tape, the only people that gave apoop are the ones who raised the money. There were meetings and meetings and more meetings, but barely anyone would show up. There was no momentum in the project until much much later. That’s when they hatched the greater plan. You can hardly blame one party for another party’s lack of motivation or mobilization. To say that SPS (Pdx not public) doesn’t advocate for all skaters is ludicrous. SPS portland was formed initially just to advocate for Pier Park when nobody gave a damn and nothing was getting done. Later they realized they could accomplish more, and thus the idea of a system was born, which is why you are seeeing parks like Ed Benedict now.

  8. Tom Miller on November 16, 2007 - Reply

    Thanks for the props. One minor revision and one more substantial history lesson. Then back to EB.

    As co-founder, primary architect, board chair, blah blah of SPS, we formalized in 2002 after the Steel Bridge debacle. We supported the 2002 Parks levy, supported the Westmoreland Park concept and championed the 19-park network concept before Pier seemed like a good idea. Randy just forgot all that. Sometimes I wish I could too, ha ha! (Those were tough years with no projects in the ground.)

    Second, we have always supported street skating in the skatepark context to the best of our abilities.

    Pier. We did a public meeting. We took in untold numbers of comments from the various blogs. Perhaps most significantly, we assigned Jesse Bracewell, one of Dreamland’s most vocal critics in Portland, carte blanche authority to oversee the street design and construction. I actually wrote it into the contract with Dreamland. Someday I’ll post that on the SPS site.

    Sometimes people like to gloss over key details in a rush to judgment, but the devil really is in the details. In addition to putting Jesse in charge, we asked the Parks bureau in a variety of ways to release us from the “burden” of the original skatepark footprint. We knew the ability to accommodate street as well as possible would be limited with a square site. Parks refused each time. It was a source of frustration for us.

    While we lost that argument at Pier, we prevailed on the same argument at Glenhaven. Note Glenhaven’s “panhandle” shape. It elongates the street section in ways that make it flow better. What we were unable to get permission to do at Pier we successfully advocated for at Glenhaven. Moreover, SPS’s Mark Conahan volunteered countless hours of professional design expertise to render street skaters’ ideas.

    Back to Pier, if you enjoy the addition of the “art” sidewalk – which caters to street skaters more than tranny skaters – you can thank SPS. The Regional Arts and Culture Council, which oversees public art, was starting down a public process that lacked sufficient understanding of how important it was to ensure the art provided functionality and respect from the perspective of the skater. We got RACC to adjust their process and include Mark Conahan on the selection committee.

    More broadly, as the architects of the 19 park network we always assumed some share of those parks would service the street need. Just like this thread intends with reference to Ed Benedict.

    We have played a key role in every dollar raised from private or public sources for skatepark development post-Burnside, including Ed Benedict. Approaching $2 million and counting, we’ve never discriminated on any basis, certainly not terrain.

    We’ve had promising initial conversations with a certain skate shoe manufacturer about collaboration on a project more significant than anything we’ve seen to date, especially for street skating.

    We’ve always been on the lookout for a street skater who would serve as a good board member. Complainers need not apply as we aim to put projects in the ground. Regrettably we’ve yet to meet a self-identified street skater who understands the larger context of how these projects work and can provide sustained value to the effort. We remain optimistic.

    Finally, back to Ed Benedict. I saw New Line’s design today before the meeting. It’s an 18,000 square foot concept. When I heard that from Kyle I asked, “But the budget can’t afford 18,000 sf. What’s the point?” Apparently, the direction from Rod Wojtanik and Taj Hanson to New Line was to design the right project for the site, not simply confine the concept to the dollars immediately available.

    The inference I took was either supreme confidence or irrational exuberance on the part of Parks to find roughly double the budget from heretofore unidentified sources to build out the project as best conceived. Either way, my how times have changed when Parks’ direction to its client is to design the best possible project regardless of the budget! I’m chagrined but encouraged.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *