Skateboarding in urban environments: the value of skateparks

Photo by Tom Quigley

Skateboarding is one of the most controversial topics in urban planning circles. This year’s Urban Studies Conference in Tampere was launched with a pre-excursion to the Hiedanranta neighbourhood with an emphasis on skatepark development. The Kenneli DIY skatepark is a magnet for young people searching for a community, and the initiators have hired unemployed youth that are interested in skateboarding, thus contributing to the social life of Hiedanranta. Nevertheless, both planners and city dwellers are discussing the benefits and harms of developing skateboarding in urban environments

There are many factors that define the value of skateparks, and youth development is one of the most substantial factors. Skateparks have a long history of creating and giving a sense of community to those in need. According to a presentation given by Tom Critchley and Chris Lawton at Tampere Urban Studies Conference, DIY skate spaces present a great cost-efficiency ratio that is seen through the ability to overcome development challenges even in the context of limited resources and funding. Insurgent spatial practices, such as DIY urbanism that allow the development of skateparks, can help prevent criminalisation of at-risk youth, as providing a better alternative to the young people leads to a reduced risk of violent crime. One example of a participatory non-profit organisation that promotes skateboarding as a means of sustainable youth development is the Concrete Jungle Foundation. The organisation aims to respond to the current societal youth-related issues, primarily in the Global South (including sites in Jamaica, Angola and Morocco), such as unemployment, homelessness and crime, by building skateparks and creating a community that would keep young people connected to each other and provide a sense of belonging. In more affluent environments, such as the UK and Finland, where there are abundant opportunities to engage in non-regulated sports, participatory communities naturally emerge and provide needed support to the unsupervised youth that can ‘fall through the gaps’ of mainstream sports, culture and employability offers, as seen in cities such as Tampere and Nottingham.

However, a monumental challenge for the skateboarding community comes from resistance or opposition from governments. Local urban planning companies spend significant amounts of money on hostile architecture that would keep the skaters in their “allocated” spots, which are usually placed at inconvenient and neglected locations that would keep skateboarders off the central streets and squares. “Skatestoppers”, the big metal staples, are aiming to prevent skaters from using urban architecture, disturbing the aesthetic of the city far more than any skateboarders could through the use of public spaces not specified for skating. The accessibility of skateparks should not be a political matter but a matter of the social inclusion of groups at risk. Therefore, forcible intervention in city structure to put skaters on the margins does not create a better urban environment but rather makes it less livable and enjoyable for everyone.

Photo by Tom Quigley

Skateboarders tend to bend cities to their needs, creating a better urban environment for all the members of society. The basic stereotype surrounding skateparks is that they become a hotbed of homeless, drug dealers and criminals as soon as they stop being closely supervised. However, despite the harmful assumption of skateboarders being destructive towards the cities, there is actually a great benefit in skateboarding. Skateboarding is a part of the healthy dynamics of any city that creates a safer and more diverse urban structure. DIY urbanism, which includes skateparks, is a bottom-up practice that responds to current issues without involving multiple-level approval from the government, making it a more efficient way of bringing change to the local communities. One example of how skateboarding transforms cities and makes them safer is LOVE Park in Philadelphia.  At the beginning of the 1980s, LOVE park became a spot of attraction for drug deals and violent crime, yet as soon as skateboarders started appropriating the park for their own use, it began revitalising with great success. Skateboarders found use in the park’s benches, staircases and handrails, bringing the public to previously avoided “non-spaces”. Despite the anti-establishment spirit of skateboarding, their development in LOVE Park allowed the reconsolidation and revitalisation of otherwise violent and unusable spaces.

A more recent example is provided by Sheffield in the UK, a post-industrial city currently undergoing significant regeneration investment, as a beneficiary of the British Government’s ‘Levelling Up Fund’ (LUF). Prior to Sheffield’s receipt of almost £20 million from the LUF, a small experiment was applied to the previously under-used and problematic pedestrian thoroughfare of Exchange Street. In autumn 2020, a partnership including a private sector developer, Sheffield City Council and Skateboard GB, the National Governing Body for skateboarding in the UK, installed several ‘skate friendly’ features in Exchange Street as temporary or ‘meanwhile’ spatial interventions. Recent research by Skateboard GB (spring 2022), including interviews with local businesses and South Yorkshire Police, found that observed incidences of both crime and anti-social behaviour declined markedly when skaters were present in the space; suggesting that skateboarding displaced or diverted crime and made other users feel safer. One of the businesses, an independent gallery, noted that the skaters’ tendency to film each others’ skateboarding provided a strong deterrent for the drug transactions and substance misuse that had previously been associated with the space. Therefore, the premise of the destructive influence of skateboarders on the urban environment is only a stereotype, and in reality, it’s quite the opposite.

Thus, despite the complicated relationship with the governmental structures, skateboarding is still inherent to any urban environment, and the only two options remain: being shunned and marginalised, or being cherished and taken advantage of. Skateboarding contributes to the fluidity of the city and creates a live dynamic between mundane architectural forms and an active mode of transportation and lifestyle. The troublemaker reputation of skateboarding is rarely ever justified, as it contributes way more to youth development in terms of physical activity, socialisation and independent transportation, along with making cities safer and livelier.

Oxana Ivanova

Oxana is studying in the technology stream of the Sustainable Urban Development bachelor’s program at Tampere University. She is most interested in the use of public spaces and the development of city infrastructure. In her free time, Oxana likes to climb things and skateboard.


‘4Cities Master Thesis l Towards Skateboard Urbanism? By Julien Revelard – Issuu’.

Colville-Andersen, M. (2018) ‘‎The Life-Sized City Urbanism Podcast: Designing Skateboard-Friendly Cities’.

Concrete Jungle Foundation (2022) ‘About Us | Concrete Jungle Foundation’.

Critchley, T. (2020) ‘DIY Skate Spots and Guerrilla Architecture: Challenging “Non-Places” in Greater London’. Confusion Magazine: International Skateboarding Magazine.

Critchley, T. & Lawton, C. (2022) ‘DIY Skate spaces and Youth Development – Practice-based cases from the UK and Jamaica’.

Howell, O. (2005) ‘The “Creative Class” and the Gentrifying City’. Journal of Architectural Education 59, no. 2: 32–42.

Kaupunkitutkimuksen päivät (2022) ‘Sustainability and Insurgent Spatial Practices’.

Skateboard GB (2022) ‘Sheffield leading the way as skateboarding helps to make public spaces safer’. 

Tampereen kaupunki (2018) ‘Uusi Skeittirata Avattiin Hiedanrannan Skeittihallin Sisäpihalle’.

‘The Skateboarding Problem – Public Skatepark Development Guide’.

Timo, H. (2018) ‘The Power of DIY Urbanism: How a Group of Skateboarders Changed the City’. From Rurban to Urban.

Islands, bubbles and ecosystems – Why the boundaries of urban studies should be porous?

Urban studies is a multidisciplinary field that combines concepts, theories and research methods from social sciences, geography, history, architecture, economics, and many other disciplines. Therefore, the Finnish Urban Studies Conference, held in Tampere on April 28-29, 2020, was a natural setting for holding a panel discussion on inter- and multidisciplinary. The theme of the conference was Sustainable cities, which pointed to a transformation that requires systems thinking, as well as combining the perspectives of multiple disciplines. As a first-year student of sustainable urban development, I got a lot of food for thought from the discussion.

The panel discussion, named Devils in the detail? Inter-/multidisciplinary and nasty questions of priorities in urban sustainability research, took place on April 28, and rounded around strengths and challenges of coworking with people from different academic backgrounds. The chair of the discussion was Ilona Stailer, a postdoctoral research fellow in Sustainable Transformation of Urban Environments, STUE, which is research group in Tampere University. Each of the three panellists, Jonathon Taylor, a tenure track Associate Professor in Urban Physics in the Department of Civil Engineering at Tampere University, Juha Helenius, a professor in agroecology in University of Helsinki, and Nina Tynkkynen, a professor in Environmental Governance and Policy at Åbo Akademi University, have strong experience in working in an interdisciplinary environment. For example, Jonathon Taylor leads a technology stream in an interdisciplinary bachelor’s degree, Sustainable Urban Development, and has collaborated with professionals in various fields. Juha Helenius is leading multiple interdisciplinary research groups, such as a group studying sustainable food systems in Ruralia Institute of the Helsinki University. Nina Tynkkynen is currently leading one of the key research areas in Åbo Akademi, The Sea, which aims to solve marine-related sustainable issues in an interdisciplinary way.  It became clear that questions on sustainability must be approached with a variety of methods and viewpoints. But how inclusive a field is urban studies really?

One panellist, Juha Helenius, has a background in agroecology, and it was especially him who expressed a worry of what is included in urban studies, and what is not, and how this will develop in the future. This question is not only relevant in an academic context but comes back to the essential questions on our worldview. Helenius was worried that we look at cities as if they were islands, without recognising all the connections and dependencies they have on their wider environment and rural areas. As a key example he provided the issue of food. According to him, food has not been given enough attention in urban research, considering that urban development depends on solving the problem of how to feed people in cities. Food production is first and foremost seen as a rural issue, excluded from cities.

This discussion made me think whether urban studies have become even too city-centred, especially when talking about sustainability. Seeing cities as islands creates an image that urban studies is a bubble, inside which multiple disciplines interact and overlap, but the bubble just floats on the world without connecting to the environment outside it. Inside the bubble, urban research and theories make sense, because they form their own city-cantered world. However, without bursting the bubble, the potential of urban studies to solve sustainability issues remains slight. Jonathon Taylor said how it can sometimes be surprising for a researcher to realize how much knowledge and skills people outside the academia have. Keeping this potential of the world outside the university in mind can help preventing the bubbles to form, even if that is easy to forget when most of your colleagues are other researchers.

If cities are not islands separated from rural areas and one another, how should they be defined? During the students’ Wappu celebrations in Tampere, I encountered multiple thought-provoking discussions on our study program and cities in general with students from different study fields. One student wondered whether cities could be thought as ecosystems, and in my opinion, that is a clever metaphor as it acknowledges both city as an entity and its dependency on the environment. It allows to find generalities in cities but also to see the unique traits of each city, to concentrate on the small and interesting details in urban life but also to recognise the connections between the city and its wider environment. Seeing cities as ecosystems could serve as a mediator in urban studies, as then city could become an interface that helps experts to come together and combine their knowledge. Even if they approach sustainability from different angles, city could be the factor that helps finding a common language. Nina Tynkkynen had experienced that only after multiple years of working together, the research group is starting to find its common language, as members have backgrounds in different fields and methodologies, and therefore even the same words can have different meanings. As finding a common language seems to be one of the trickiest parts in interdisciplinary research, every tool to ease that should be in use.

In addition to the strong division between urban and rural, another thing clouding the glory of urban studies as a multidisciplinary field and prevents it from being as inclusive as it could, is its concentration on certain types of cities. Based on my short experience as an urban development student, I have noticed that many of the most used theories are best applicable to wealthy cities in Europe and Northern America, or the theories are at least developed by studying mostly these cities. As a result, it is likely that current theories in urban studies are biased and therefore the possibilities to utilise them in solving real life problems, such as support fast growing cities all over the world, is limited.

Gladly, during the conference, I could notice that the trend might be changing. Even though the conference was held in Finland, the participants provided variety of viewpoints, not only concentrating on western cities. For example, one of the main keynote lecturers, Professor Visanthie Sewpaul, came from South Africa and concentrated on the city of Durban in her speech. Overall, urban studies is a developing field and, in my opinion, it is better to keep it like that. Even if it is good to clarify some concepts and try to find a common language within the field, the goal should not be to form a tightly defined discipline. I would like to see urban studies as a meeting place for people interested in cities and their relations to the wider world, no matter what disciplines the people represent.

In fact, the panellists discussed that it is beneficial to have a strong background in one discipline, to have so called disciplinary expertise, and then enter to a multidisciplinary group through one discipline. In this way, you can bring a lot to a group as well as learn new ways of thinking from others. To do multidisciplinary work successfully, it is important not to diminish what other people in the group have to offer or think about one’s own discipline as a superior one, so that the strengths of each field and individual can be utilised. When it comes to urban studies, it is also important not to stick to the status quo, but to welcome new angles and let the field grow and change. The goal, after all, is to improve our understanding of the world and be able to use this understanding to make the world a better place to live in. Excluding certain viewpoints is a disadvantage as it is impossible to understand this complex world, let alone advance sustainable development, by relying on only a few perspectives.

To sum it up, the key idea that I took away from the panel discussion was that as cities are not islands, the study of cities should not become one either. Therefore, multidisciplinary work within the community of urban researchers is not transformative enough to solve global problems if it is not placed in the right context by collaborating with researchers outside urban studies and hearing people from outside the academia.

Veera Uusitalo

Veera is studying Sustainable Urban Development in an interdisciplinary bachelor’s programme at Tampere university. Attending the Urban Studies Conference as an assistant was one of the highlights of her first study year. In the summer, Veera wants to spend a lot of time in nature and recommends that for everyone.

Luonnon rauhaa ja moniaistista kaupunkikulttuuria – Kaupunkilaisten voiman paikat selvitettiin kyselyllä

Mikä on sinun voiman paikkasi? Ja mikä siitä tekee sellaisen? Näitä kysymyksiä lähdimme Suomen kaupunkitutkimuksen seuran hankkeessa tutkimaan. Alkusysäyksenä oli seuran hallituksessa vuonna 2019 käymämme keskustelu, jossa silloinen sihteerimme Mikko kertoi omasta voiman paikastaan ja rohkaisi meitä muita pohtimaan omiamme. Innostava keskustelu johti konkreettiseen hankeideaan. Alusta asti oli selvää, että emme lähteneet tutkimaan mielipaikkoja tai lempipaikkoja. Ne tuntuivat yleisemmiltä valinnoilta. Niiden sijaan meitä kiinnostivati voiman paikat; paikat, jotka vaikuttavat meihin yksilöinä voimaannuttaen, eteenpäin elämässä kuljettaen – kuten “voimabiisit” parhaimmillaan.

Loppuvuodesta 2019 lanseerasimme sähköisen kyselyn, joka oli kovin yksinkertainen. Kysyimme vastaajalta, mikä on hänen voiman paikkansa ja pyysimme häntä kuvailemaan tätä paikkaa. Suomenkielisen kyselyn lisäksi jaoimme ruotsin- ja englanninkielisiä kyselyjä. Kaikkiaan saimme tammikuuhun 2020 mennessä 106 vastausta, joista 1 oli ruotsiksi, 4 englanniksi ja loput 101 suomeksi. Vastaajia oli eri-ikäisiä ja eri puolilta Suomea, kuitenkin suuri osa pääkaupunkiseudulta.

Kyselyaineisto on ilahduttavan monipuolinen, ja se tarjoaa aineksia esimerkiksi monitieteisen humanistisen kaupunkitutkimuksen kentälle. Me lähdimme ensimmäiseksi selvittämään sitä, millaisin kielellisin keinoin vastaajat ovat yksilöineet voiman paikkojaan sekä sitä, millaisia tunteita ja affekteja vastaajat paikkoihin kytkevät. Yhdistimme työssämme nimistöntutkimuksen ja kansatieteen näkökulmia.

Vastaajat toivat esiin monenlaisia paikkoja, joista valtaosa oli – ymmärrettävästikin Suomen kaupunkitutkimuksen seuran tekemässä kyselyssä – kaupunkiympäristön paikkoja. Luontoon, veden läheisyyteen ja rauhoittumiseen kytkeytyvät paikat nousivat vahvasti esiin. Useita puistoja, rantoja ja metsäalueita mainittiin. Myös muutamia siltoja tuotiin esiin, ja niidenkin kohdalla hiljentyminen ja veden läsnäolo olivat tärkeitä, toisinaan myös avarat näkymät. Mukana oli urbaaneiksi miellettyjäkin kohteita, kuten kahviloita ja kantakaupunkia. Rauhoittumaan ja elämän solmukohtia ratkaisemaan saatettiin mennä myös esimerkiksi uimahalliin. Yllättäväksi koimme kuitenkin sen, että yhtä ainutta katua ei vastauksissa ollut. Oman ryhmämme keskustelu oli lähtenyt liikkeelle nimenomaan voimaannuttavista kaduista.

Kaikkiaan kyselyssä mainittujen paikkojen kirjo oli suuri, ja se vaihteli kokonaisista kaupungeista yksittäisiin paikkoihin ja esimerkiksi patsaisiin. Useimmat paikat tulivat mainituksi vain kerran. Poikkeuksena tälle oli Helsingin Malmin lentokenttä, joka tuotiin esiin peräti 41 vastauksessa. Alue on ollut pitkään helsinkiläisen ja myös valtakunnallisen poliittisen keskustelun kohteena. Kentän alue on päätetty kaavoittaa, ja sinne on suunniteltu asuinaluetta jopa 25 000 asukkaalle. Näitä suunnitelmia myös laajamittaisesti vastustetaan, ja ilmeisesti kyselymme nähtiin myös kanavana vaikuttaa kaupunkisuunnitteluun. Ei olekaan harvinaista, että neutraalina pidetyt kyselyt löytävät paikkansa myös yhteiskunnallisen vaikuttamisen areenoina. Erityisen ymmärrettävää tämä on, kun kyseessä on kaupunkilaisille tärkeät paikat, joihin suhde on vahvasti latautunut.

Voiman paikan ytimessä on tunnelma

Erilaisissa elämäntilanteissa voimaa haettiin erityyppisistä paikoista. Usein voiman paikka löydettiin nimenomaan luonnosta, joko rakennetuilta viheralueilta, kuten puistoista tai vapaammasta luonnosta. Toisinaan nimenomaan urbaani kaupunkiympäristö toimi kaupunkilaisten voimanlähteenä.

Oman erityisen ryhmänsä kyselyssä muodostivat ne vastaukset, joissa ei mainittu yhtä konkreettista paikkaa vaan ylipäänsä tietynlaiset paikat. Tällöin merkityksellistä on paikan tarjoama tunnelma. Tällaisissa vastauksissa voiman paikaksi nostettiin esimerkiksi kirjastot ja metsä. Kyselyn laatijoina nämä vastaukset yllättivät meitä kenties eniten. Odotimme näet, että vastauksissa tuodaan esiin erilaisia konkreettisia ja kartalle selvästi sijoitettavia paikkoja. Kuitenkin peräti 9 vastaajaa mainitsi tällaisen yleisen paikkatyypin.


Kahvilan tuoksut ja äänet, arjen luksuksen mielikuvat ja vapaa-ajan assosiaatiot tekevät kahvilassa olemisesta ilahduttavaa, lataavaa ja rauhoittavaa vaikka tekisin töitä.


Suurimmassa osassa vastauksia paikka mainittiin konkreettisesti ja havainnollisesti. Tavallisinta oli, että esiin tuotiin paikan virallinen nimi, kuten Lapinlahti tai Hauhonpuisto. Toisinaan paikka yksilöitiin suhteellisen ilmauksen avulla, kuten Silta Kulosaaren ja Herttoniemen välissä.

Kolme vastaajaa esitteli oman voiman paikkansa slangiksi. Tätä voi pitää rohkeanakin valintana, koska käyttämällä jotakin muuta kuin virallista nimeä vastaaja ottaa riskin. Hänhän ei voi olla varma siitä, tunnistavatko kyselyn laatijat epävirallisen nimen. Kyselyymme tulleet slanginimet, kuten Sörkän silta ja Kaivarin ranta, ovat kuitenkin laajalti tunnettuja. Vastaajilla näihin paikkoihin liittyi paljon lapsuuden ja nuoruudenkin muistoja. Vastaaja saattoi käyttää slangia muutenkin, ja tämän myötä hän toi esiin lämmintä ja intiimiäkin suhdettaan paikkaan:


Hämeentie 37 on lapsuuden kotini. Sörkän (olen aina sanonut Sörkän en Sörkan) Tuolla sillalla hypättiin narua, siitä näin ratapitskulle, Pääskylänrinteen puistoon, Kurvin kulmaan, melkein kaikkialle, missä lapsena leikittiin ja braijattiin ja alkavassa nuoruudessa vain ‘notkuttiin’ friidut ja kundit kimpassa. Se oli paikka, josta kadut veivät melkein minne vain.  

Rauhoittava ja elvyttävä voiman paikka

Voiman paikat kaupunkiympäristössä ovat moninaisia ja niitä voidaan yksilöidä eri tavoin. Ne vahvistavat, rauhoittavat, elvyttävät ja auttavat ongelmatilanteissa. Kun paikalle on annettu nimi, kertoo se jo osaltaan siitä, että paikka on tavalla tai toisella käyttäjilleen merkityksellinen. Nimet eivät kuitenkaan aina välttämättä paljasta konkreettisesti sitä, millaisia merkityksiä, tunteita ja affekteja paikkaan liitetään.

Kuvaukset voiman paikoista kertovat paikkojen toimijuudesta: siitä, miten ne herättävät kaupunkilaisissa sekä kehollisia että kulttuurisesti sanoitettavia tunnepitoisia kokemuksia. Paikkoja konkreettisesti kosketaan ja ne aistitaan näköhavainnoin, tuoksuin ja mauin. Voiman paikka voi olla osa arjen jokapäiväistä kokemusta, tai se voi olla paikka, johon erityisesti hakeudutaan. Se on esteettistä mielihyvää herättävä, ja tämä estetiikka koetaan kokonaisvaltaisesti ja pitkäkestoisesti. Sen vuoksi onkin hedelmällistä tutkia sitä, millä tavoin paikasta puhutaan ja mitä siitä kerrotaan. Voiman paikat tuovat esiin paikkojen voiman!


Lue lisää:

Ainiala, Terhi & Olsson, Pia 2021: Places of power: Naming of affective places. Journal of Nordic Socio-onomastics 1, 9-32.


Terhi Ainiala & Pia Olsson

Kirjoittajat ovat Suomen kaupunkitutkimuksen seuran hallituksen jäseniä


Kuva © Heinonen, Eino. Helsingin kaupunginmuseo.